The Securitization of Migration in Western Societies: Ambivalent Discourses and Policies
The Securitization of Migration in Western Societies: Ambivalent Discourses and Policies
复制标题
西方社会移民的安全化：矛盾的话语和政策
DOI：
10.1177/03043754020270s103
复制
发表时间：
2002
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Tsoukala
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Ceyhan;A. Tsoukala
如果没有野蛮人，我们会变成什么样子？那些人是解决办法不是吗C. Gavafy，“等待野蛮人”20世纪的最后几十年是以全球化的发展、跨国流动的加强和两极化的结束为主导的戏剧性变化为标志的。欧洲联盟的建立，新的经济协定如北美自由贸易协定的出现，市场、物理边界和身份的去地域化，移民流动的增加，申根区的建立，（1）以及主要国家的分裂（例如，苏联和南斯拉夫）提出了对许多旧假设的质疑，包括对威斯特伐利亚国家主权和身份的质疑。这些现象极大地影响了边界的形式和意义、个人和集体身份以及国家主权和权威的意义和性质。与此同时，这些变化重塑了国内秩序，挑战了传统结构，改变了社会安排，改变了融合和分裂的力量，并加速了锡永和排斥的动态。因此，西方社会正在目睹许多存在主义和概念性焦虑的出现，以及对他们的身份，安全和福祉的恐惧。正如马丁·海斯勒所断言的，（2）移民是身份、边界和秩序相互关联的动态的焦点。由于移徙的跨国性质、其动态性及其对各级人民和机构的影响，移徙被视为对长期存在的确定性和秩序模式构成严重挑战。因此，后两极时代西方社会的一个突出特点是，在混乱、无序和文明冲突的情况下，产生了一种恐惧和危险扩散的话语。在公共领域很容易注意到，恐惧主要是关于不同的，外国人，无证移民，难民，穆斯林，“非欧洲人”，“西班牙裔”。“这些不同的表达集中在移民的形象上，这似乎是安全主义政策和激烈的公共辩论的锚点，在1990年代获得了动力。由于预防性和压制性移民政策的广泛宣传，人们普遍认为恐惧政治是在欧洲而不是在美国形成的，美国被认为对移民更宽容和开放。但是，类似话语的产生以及美国采取的安全主义政策，使得很难论证欧洲的独特性。事实上，尽管在社会和经济背景以及移民和融合政策方面存在差异，但自20世纪80年代以来，欧盟国家和美国的公共空间中移民和寻求庇护者的形象发生了逆转。在这两种情况下，二战后作为有用劳动力受到欢迎的移民，现在在政治话语中被描述为罪犯、麻烦制造者、经济和社会欺诈者、恐怖分子、贩毒者、不可同化的人等等。他们被妖魔化，因为他们越来越多地与有组织犯罪联系在一起。他们被指控抢走国民的工作，利用社会服务，损害东道国的身份。移徙问题作为一个政治热点问题在公开辩论中被提出来，因此，它不仅对国家，而且对东道国社会的安全和身份构成威胁。在此必须强调的是，通过这样一种介绍，移徙问题本来就不是一个固有的安全问题，但现在却成为一个涉及新的行为者的问题，并导致更严格的公共政策和新的监督和控制手段。…
What shall we become now without the barbarians? Those people were a solution, weren't they? C. Gavafy, "Waiting for the Barbarians" The last decades of the twentieth century were marked by a dramatic change led by the development of globalization, the enhancement of transnational flows, and the end of bipolarity. The construction of the European Union, the emergence of new economic agreements such as NAFTA, the deterritorialization of markets, physical borders, and identities, the increase of migration flows, the construction of the Schengen area, (1) and the fragmentation of major states (e.g., the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia) have raised questions about many old assumptions, including those made about Westphalian state sovereignty and identity. These phenomena significantly affected the forms and the meanings of borders, individual and collective identities, and the sense and nature of state sovereignty and authority. In the meantime, these changes have recast the domestic order, challenged traditional structures, modified social arrangements, transformed the forces of integration and fragmentation, and accelerated the dynamics of inclu sion and exclusion. In consequence, Western societies are witnessing the emergence of many existential and conceptual anxieties and fears about their identity, security, and well-being. As Martin Heisler asserts, (2) migration is at the focal point of the interrelated dynamics of identity, borders, and orders. By its transnational character, its dynamic, and its impact on people and institutions at all levels, migration is perceived as posing a serious challenge to the long-standing paradigms of certainty and order. One of the prominent features of Western societies in the post-bipolar era has been therefore the production of a discourse of fear and proliferation of dangers with reference to the scenarios of chaos, disorder, and clash of civilizations. It is easily noticeable in the public sphere that the fear is mainly about the different, the alien, the undocumented migrant, the refugee, the Muslim, the "non-European," the "Hispanic." These different expressions converge on the figure of the migrant, which appears as the anchoring point of securitarian policies and fierce public debates that gained momentum in the 1990s. Because of the widespread publicization of preventive and repressive immigration policies, a politics of fear was generally considered as being developed specifically in the European context and not in the United States, which was presented as being more tolerant and open to migration. But the production of similar discourses and the adoption of securitarian policies in the United States as well, made it difficult to argue the singularity of Europe. Indeed, although with differences in social and economic contexts as well as in immigration and integration policies, both the EU countries and the United States have been marked, since the 1980s, by a reversal of the image of migrants and asylum seekers in the public space. In both cases, migrants, who were welcomed after World War II as a useful labor force, are now presented in political discourses as criminals, troublemakers, economic and social defrauders, terrorists, drug traffickers, unassimilable persons, and so forth. They are demonized as being increasi ngly associated with organized crime. They are accused of taking jobs away from nationals, taking advantage of social services, and harming the identity of host countries. Introduced in public debates as a political hot-button topic, migration is thus transformed into a threat not only to the state but also to the security and the identity of the host society. What is important to stress here is that through such a presentation, the migration issue, which was not at the origin inherently securitarian, became one involving new actors and leading to stricter public policies and to new surveillance and control devices. …