Immigration and Its Impact on Europe's Societal Security: Examining the Rise of Far-Right Parties (2014-2024 (original) (raw)
Related papers
European Radical Right Parties as Actors in Securitization of Migration
This study reveals that anti-immigrant policies in Europe result from a process of securitization, and that, within this process, radical right parties have been formulating discourses and approaches through a construction process by using some common security themes. These security themes can be classified as national security, economic security, cultural security and internal security. The frequency with which radical right parties use these themes may vary according to the specific historical, social and cultural characteristics of a particular country.
The Impact of the Rise of the European Far Right on the Issue of Immigration
International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education (IJHSSE), 2022
Migration and asylum issues are one of the most important problems in the international arena today, in light of the escalating crises in the Middle East region in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and even Afghanistan. Despite the interpretations and solutions offered by the politics of international law and the development of political and legal frameworks in an attempt to understand and codify the mechanisms of dealing with the refugee crisis through political decisions and international agreements and treaties, there are aspects that are difficult to deal with that have to do with political psychology and conflicts in international relations, especially if the crisis is based on many of what are called "misperceptions". Therefore, this study seeks to investigate and analyse misperceptions by focusing on the European position, especially in light of the growing role of far-right parties within the European Union, towards the problems of migration and asylum and the rise of the far-right in Europe, and the impact of these stereotypes on European policies
2019
This study is aimed at understanding and exposing how the European elites, i.e. the members of the right-wing political groups in the European Parliament (EP), use discourses as a means of controlling public discourse, and hence, the public mind. Discourses are used to legitimate the ideology, values and norms of the relevant political groups in the society, which may result in social power abuse, dominance or inequality. The study mainly argues that these political groups discursively construct an anti-immigration Europe during the EP debates within three main discourse topics: immigration as a security threat, as an economic threat and as a cultural threat. Along with some references to Norman Fairclough and Ruth Wodak as well as the Copenhagen School in terms of the securitisation of migration, this study mostly draws on the premises and strategies of Teun A. van Dijk’s socio-cognitive approach of critical discourse analysis to base its arguments. It is seen that the members of the right- wing political groups tend to glorify the Self, i.e. Europe and sometimes their own country, with various positive attributions to them whereas they mostly refer to the Other, i.e. asylum seekers, refugees or migrants, through negative implications, presuppositions, denomination or predication, which is a common attitude of anti- immigration politicians and paves the way for the construction of an anti-immigration Europe. Last but not least, if there is a ‘refugee crisis’, then, dialectically, the opposite is also possible: ‘refugee awareness’. This study also aspires to contribute to the formation of ‘refugee awareness’.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the debate on Islam and Muslim immigrants has moved into the center of European political discourse. The increasing volume of publications about the role of Islam in social, cultural and political spheres indicates that Islam is now a major political issue, often associated with the debate on terrorism and security. This article argues that the shift in focus should be understood as the result of a hegemonic shift that goes back to the mid-1980s when the populist far-right intervened in the immigration debate in Europe. The far-right not only presented immigration as a cultural threat to the future of European nations but also succeeded in moving immigration to the center of political discourse. This was done through successive right-wing political interventions that helped establish Muslim immigrants as an incompatible ontological category predicated on culture, and kept the national focus on immigration as an imminent threat to 'our common' achievements.
The Political Quarterly, 2018
In this article, we consider the causes of the increase in voting for anti-immigration parties in western Europe in the past decade. We first note that one of the most commonly assumed reasons for this increase is an associated increase in anti-immigration sentiment, which we show is likely to be false. We also outline the major theoretical explanations, which we argue are likely to be incomplete. We then introduce our proposed explanation: these parties have benefitted from a sharp increase in the salience of immigration amongst some voters. We show that there are strong correlations over time between the salience of immigration and the polling of such parties in most western European countries. We argue that aspects of immigration in the last decade have activated pre-existing opposition to immigration amongst a shrinking segment of the populations of western European states.
2007
Abstract: Utilizing data from our surveys of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) in 1992-93 and 2003-04, this paper offers an attitudinal portrait of the degree to which European elites have successfully navigated the contradictions posed by the increasing securitization of immigration after September 11th. We specifically asked to what degree MEPs: view immigration as a salient and multi-dimensional security threat; support greater rights for immigrants; and prefer an EU over a national policy making venue to regulate immigration policy. Our analysis of the data yielded mixed results. On the one hand, a majority of contemporary MEPs concluded that immigration was “very important, ” favored increasing economic immigration, and rejected the suggestion that immigration poses a cultural threat. On the other hand, and contrary to our expectations, MEP support for the extension of immigrant rights declined from 1993 to 2004 and, most surprising, MEPs were less inclined in 2004 than...
THE IMMIGRATION-SECURITY NEXUS: A VIEW FROM THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
2000
Utilizing data from our surveys of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) in 1992-93 and 2003-04, this paper offers an attitudinal portrait of the degree to which European elites have successfully navigated the contradictions posed by the increasing securitization of immigration after September 11th. We specifically asked to what degree MEPs: view immigration as a salient and multi-dimensional security threat; support greater rights for immigrants; and prefer an EU over a national policy making venue to regulate immigration policy. Our analysis of the data yielded mixed results. On the one hand, a majority of contemporary MEPs concluded that immigration was "very important," favored increasing economic immigration, and rejected the suggestion that immigration poses a cultural threat. On the other hand, and contrary to our expectations, MEP support for the extension of immigrant rights declined from 1993 to 2004 and, most surprising, MEPs were less inclined in 2004 than in 1993 to look to Europe in order to resolve immigration-related dilemmas. Although a robust majority agreed that a European immigration policy is more urgent after September 11th, it is fair to conclude on the basis of the aggregate data that MEPs in 2004, as in 1993, were not especially inclined to view immigration through the prism of national or European security.