Migration Processes in Central and Eastern Europe - Multiple Choices

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Normative and Methodological Discussion of Migration and Integration
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
72
—————————————————————————
From Migration
Control to
Migration
Governance
Elements for an
Inclusive, Dialogical
Approach towards
Worldwide
Migration
—————————————————————————————
An Verlinden
This paper aims at a critical, normative assessment
of current EU-asylum and migration policies,
focussing on the subtle paradigm shifts that have
led to a migration control policy. A different
normative approach, based on the thoughts of some modern
Jewish philosophers, will be defended as an alternative perspective
that can underpin a new migration paradigm, moving
from migration control towards migration governance.
The administration of international migration and
asylum has long been the exclusive domain of nation-states.
Equally, they were never an issue of high politics until the
1970s (Hammar, 2001). 1 However, the economic crisis in
the beginning of those years and growing public concern
forced European leaders to question their (relatively) liberal
migration and generous asylum policies and to resort to
more restrictive migration regulations. Ever since, migration
and asylum have moved from the periphery to a position
at the top of national security agendas; they became a part
of 'high politics' (Boswell, 2003; Miles & Tränhardt, 1995).
This 'convergence of concerns' within Europe was the starting
point for the development of a common policy in the field
of migration and asylum. 2
In the following paragraphs, I will briefly describe
the main characteristics of the 'Comprehensive Policy
towards Asylum and Migration' at EU-level, arguing that it
results in what I call the migration control paradigm. After
having revealed the normative origins of this paradigm,
I will propose a different normative approach that can
function as a realistic and more human alternative to the
current control paradigm.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COMMON
EU – ASYLUM AND MIGRATION POLICY
•• Securitisation
The first and most dominant characteristic of the
current EU- asylum and migration policy concerns its tendency
towards more restrictive and repressive measures
towards certain groups of migrants, often described as the
creation of a 'Fortress Europe', 'collective restrictivism' or
'the securitisation of migration' (Ucarer, 2001; Bigo, 2001;
Brouwer, 2003; Cholewinski, 2000; Huysmans, 2000;
Lavenex, 2001). 'Securitisation' can be roughly described as
an extreme form of politicisation, defining types of migration
as an existential or fundamental threat and therefore justifying
exceptional, extra-ordinary 'emergency' measures (Buzan,
Weaver & De Wilde, 1998). Starting in the early 1970s,
matters of migration and security have indeed become the
dominating political issues within Europe. European leaders
(thereby stimulated by some parts of the electorate and a
sometimes tendentious media coverage) perceive migration
as a worrying, destabilizing and disrupting phenomenon,
threatening cultural integrity, the internal stability and the
public order of both individual member states and the EU
as a whole. Therefore, migration is dealt with from a preoccupation
with security, the fight against smuggling, trafficking,
organised crime and – more recently – the fight against
terror (Boccardi, 2002; Bigo, 1998; Den Boer, 1995;
Kostakopoulou, 2001; Lavenex, 2001; Mitsilegas, 2003). 3
•• Renationalisation of migration and asylum issues
At first sight, the history of European policy-making
in the field of asylum and migration seems to be a process
of communitarisation, making them matters of supranational
decision-making procedures at the loss of national autonomy.
However, because of the dominance of the Justice and
Home Affairs agenda (cf. securitisation), member states'
national security priorities continue to prevail over common,
supranational decision-making initiatives (Guiraudon,
2003). 4 Therefore, it is argued, we can speak of a renationalisation
of migration and asylum policies (Tomei, 2001).
It is this renationalisation, with its one-sided emphasis on
internal, domestic policy priorities that has led to a lowest
common denominator policy, aimed at convening on
agreements which entail maximal engagements rather than
minimum standards.
Migration Processes in Central and Eastern Europe: Unpacking the Diversity