Treating People as a Security Threat: Australia's Response to the Issue of Asylum Seekers

In this chapter, I focus on the less obvious performative modalities through which the suffering migrant body is produced as a security threat, and by which extra-legal, inhumane and secretive security practices are endorsed. I build on critiques that suggest the offshoring of migrant control is a constitutive dimension of the political construction of seabound ‘asylum seekers’ as a security threat. However, rather than focussing solely on the geographical dispersal of asylum via the extra-territorialisation of refugee processing and detention, I want to consider how the project of border security has been sustained by the ‘offstaging’ of refugees and asylum seekers from the political scene within the performance of border security. These offstaging moves require closer scrutiny because, as with any performance, what happens outside of the perceivable bounds of the performance is as important as what happens within. I argue that while the performance of border security, state sovereignty, and even the state itself, is played out on the deterritorialised stage of the migrant detention network, projected to audiences within and outside the body politic, such performativity is sustained by its dark matter, the ineffable and undetectable processes, relations and experiences that are veiled by both practices of governmental secrecy and the limits of a scopic regime in which suffering migrant bodies are invisibilised. I suggest that the extra-territorialisation of migration control offstages migrants from the political scene, allowing for the presentation of the constructed security threat posed by ‘illegal’ migrants as ‘real’.

ABSTRACTThis article analyzes the discursive process of criminalization of African asylum seekers in Israel. The Israeli case illuminates the way that marginalized social groups are constructed as a criminal threat, thus becoming a focal point of moral panic. Using content analysis, in-depth interviews and observations, we assert that the criminalization of asylum seekers is facilitated by their portrayal as ‘infiltrators’ who are beyond state control. State authorities’ ostensible inability to keep asylum seekers under surveillance is dialectically constructed along two main axes: the private space axis and the public space axis. On the private space axis, the asylum seekers are portrayed as unidentified people living beyond the authorities’ field of vision whose largely unreported criminality is directed against vulnerable asylum seeker women and children in the private sphere. At the same time, asylum seekers are portrayed as a prominent, faceless and animalistic presence in public space, a presence that breaches physical-spatial borders as well as social-cultural boundaries, thereby undermining the social order. Thus, asylum seekers are viewed as conspicuously invisible. This rhetoric connects border violation with criminal activity; emphasizes the pent-up potential for violence by asylum seekers; and blurs the lines between criminal threat and security threat.

Against the background of the reception policy in South Tyrol and using the case of »out-of-quota« asylum seekers (profughi fuori quota/Asylbewerber fuori quota), Stefano degli Uberti explores how the process of labelling of official discourses (media and political discourses) turns to be a socio-cultural practice that produces backlashes on the individual condition of migrants. The social construction of out-of-quota asylum seekers as »underserved« at best, and as cultural and security threats at worst, does not only assist their control but is used as an othering factor that promote their disavowal and marginalization from the local society and a downward hierarchization within asylum seekers. The labels, and the discourse of which they are part, make it possible for local authorities in charge of their reception to delay asylum claims and inhibit their access to welfare services. More broadly, the article contributes to the discussion on the relationship between border and migration, calling for a greater exploration of the cultural and phenomenological dimension of bordering process.

This paper examines the relationship between the defence spending of European NATO members and their exposure to asylum seekers. While research shows that threat perceptions and domestic politics partly determine the defence spending of a state, the effect of migration has so far not been studied. This is remarkable because migration is increasingly framed as a security threat, also by NATO and European Union member states. Using a panel analysis, this paper explores the relationship between the defence spending of 23 European NATO members and the number of asylum seekers they register each year between 2000 and 2020. Results show a positive and significant relationship between the number of asylum seekers registered in a country and its overall military expenditure relative to GDP, equipment spending, and infrastructure spending. These findings shed new light on the origins of defence spending in collective security alliances, at a time when transatlantic burden sharing is at the centre of societal and academic debates.

The United Kingdom (UK) introduced the Nationality and Borders Bill (2021) to address illegal immigration. This article argues that the UK’s historical asylum policies have contributed to marginalising asylum seekers through a process of “othering.” It demonstrates how policy language and symbols, combined with media discourse, frame asylum seekers as security threats. The power dynamics among public officials and humanitarian agencies further legitimise refugees as the “other.” The article suggests a bottom-up approach involving civil society organisations to incorporate refugee voices in challenging dominant narratives and policymaking. By sharing refugee narratives, this article reveals that refugees are conscious of being marginalised and advocate for policy change. This approach not only empowers them but also helps expose existing stereotypes and power imbalances within mainstream immigration policies.

There has been a tremendous increase in the treatment of asylum seekers as security threats following the 9/11 attack. Australia represents an example of a country that perceives asylum seekers as a threat to the national sovereignty of the country, and this has further exacerbated a new dimension in the securitization of asylum seekers in the country. This securitization has culminated in a range of border security programmes, and Operation Sovereign Borders (OSB) represents the most recent of these. This article interrogates the OSB policy from the point of view of the rationale for its implementation. The article identifies that, contrary to the mission of the OSB, the detention of asylum seekers and the turn-back operations represent the variants of risks that asylum seekers are subjected to. The article therefore calls for a more accommodating approach in the treatment of asylum seekers in Australia.

Migracijski val od 2014. do 2016. u kojem je velik broj djece i majki iz država Sjevernog trokuta na putu prema krajnjem odredištu SAD-u bio u tranzitu Meksikom okarakteriziran je krizom. Kriza je podrazumijevala postojanje prijetnje koja opravdava provođenje izvanrednih mjera. Teza rada je da pod utjecajem SAD-a Meksiko migrante u tranzitu smatra prijetnjom sigurnosti građanima Meksika, a ne ugroženim pripadnicima istoga kulturnoga kruga koje treba zaštititi. Stoga se prema njima ne odnosi u skladu s ciljem ljudske sigurnosti, već primjenjuje silu. Rad predstavlja studiju slučaja. U prvom odjeljku dani su prikaz vrsta migracija i poimanje migracija u kontekstu ljudske i građanske sigurnosti, dok su u drugom analizirani potisni i privlačni faktori migracija iz država Sjevernog trokuta. U trećem odjeljku prikazana je politika tranzitne države Meksika prema ilegalnim migrantima. U radu je izložen sud o migracijskoj politici Meksika prema migrantima u tranzitu. Zaključeno je da je iz perspektive ljudske sigurnosti politika bila »loša« jer je bila diskriminirajuća i u neskladu s kulturno-političkim kontekstom te moralnim i zakonskim normama. No gledano iz perspektive nacionalne sigurnosti politika je bila »dobra« jer je bila ostvariva, postigla je rezultate uz prihvatljiv trošak ljudi i sredstva i njome su obranjeni državni interesi Meksika – dobri odnosi sa SAD-om.

The media in Britain have presented ‘immigration’ as the most significant crisis facing the country; they consistently present migrants, asylum seekers, etc. as a burden on national resources, and increasingly, as a security threat. Muslims in particular have been targeted, and have been presented as an alien ‘other’ who refuse to ‘integrate’ into the British ‘way of life’, and indeed who threaten it. This paper argues that, in this framework, the veil has become an iconic symbol of cultural difference, a sign of the perceived failures of multiculturalism and the ‘problem’ of tolerance. The context that shapes the ‘debate’ on the veil is the neoliberal restructuring of the British economy and welfare state; the consequences of this restructuring and its impact on the quality of public services are explained in cultural terms by reference to the intrusion of an alien culture (Islam). In order to ‘protect’ British ‘culture’, the state relies on the anti-Muslim sentiments whipped up in the media to push through a rash of anti-terror legislation that not only discriminates against the Muslim population of Britain, but curtails the very freedoms that it purports to protect.

Australia has restored offshore detention to Nauru through the Pacific Solution despite continuing criticism globally and violations of human rights. Its continuation raises the question of how this highly debatable policy can still exist. Securitization theory is used in this study to show how asylum seekers are considered threats, resulting in strong state measures to maintain their safety. The study seeks to investigate how the Australian government and media support offshore detention, and to examine the tactics used by humanitarian organizations to challenge this approach. A qualitative case study approach is used in the study, which involves critical discourse analysis to look at political statements, media reports, and advocacy materials from 2024. An examination of the situation shows that both political figures and media used alarming and negative language to describe asylum seekers. These narratives changed public opinion and helped people think offshore detention was necessary for security. Critically, discussions advocating legal and moral points of view remained largely confined to a small audience. The conclusion is that this policy works only by being discussed as a security threat rather than its effects on the crisis.

Xenophobia and white nationalism are dominant features of contemporary politics, especially in North America and Europe. The turmoil of the Trump presidency, Brexit, and the culture wars regarding demographic and social change, have created a fertile ground for white nationalist movements that often find their rhetoric, fantasies, and aspirations reaching mainstream audiences and even seats of power. A target for many white nationalists and right-wing extremists is refugees, migrants, and asylum seekers, who are held accountable for many of the anxieties that incite white moral panics. In this chapter the author argues that the figure of the refugee has always played a complicated and contradictory role in global culture. While those fleeing persecution and danger have been, in some traditions, seen through the lens of victimhood and thus deserving of sanctuary, the author argues that equally important are a series of thematic frames structuring news coverage, discourse, and cultural representation that have helped to produce the refugee as a figure of threat. These are the ideas of refugees as a security threat, as a demographic threat, and as an environmental threat to existing populations and nations.

This article conducts a critical discourse analysis of the Hungarian government’s National Consultation campaign on ‘immigration and terrorism’ in early 2015. The analysis draws on a discourse-historical approach to illuminate how the language and contents of the consultation draw on the discursive and political repertoires of the post-2010 Orbán governments and how, at the same time, they are underpinned by particular elements in the history of migration and diversity in Hungary. The consultation framed immigration as both an economic and security threat and conflated asylum seekers, economic migrants and terrorists, as well as regular and irregular migration. Nevertheless, these discourses would later feed into the government’s response to the large number of asylum seekers who entered the country in the summer of 2015 and would be used to legitimize the actions subsequently taken to tackle what would internationally come to be defined as a ‘crisis’.

Although human activity constantly generates massive amounts of data, these data can only be analysed by mainly the private sector and governmental institutes due to data accessibility restrictions. However, neither migrants (as the producers of this data) nor migration scholars (as scientific experts on the topic) are in a position to monitor or control how governments and corporations use such data. Big Data analytics and Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies are promoted as cutting-edge solutions to ongoing and emerging social, economic and governance challenges. Meanwhile, states increasingly rely on digital and frontier technologies to manage borders and control migratory movements, and the defence industry and military–intelligence sectors provide high-tech tools to support these efforts. Worryingly, during the design and testing of algorithmic tools, migrants are often portrayed as a security threat instead of human beings with fundamental rights and liberties. Thus, privacy, data protection, and confidentiality issues continue to pose risks and challenges to migrant communities and raise important questions for the public and decision-makers alike. This comment seeks to shed light on the lack of effective regulation of AI and Big Data as they are applied in migration ‘management’. Additionally, from the perspective of privacy issues and immigrant rights (seeking asylum as a human right, it aims at advocating improved access to Big Data for scientific research which might act as a social control function for the smart border and existing/ongoing migration governance practices of countries. We argue that the use of Big Data and AI for migration governance requires much better collaboration between migrants (including the civil society and grassroots organisations solidarity that represent them), data scientists, migration scholars and policymakers if the potential of these technologies is to be reached in a way that is reasonable and ethical. Numerous critical privacy questions arise are regarding the legal requirements, confidentiality, and rules of engagement as well as the ethical concerns of (mis)use of new technologies. When the secretive nature of the ongoing exploitation of migrant data by states and corporations is considered raising such questions is essential for progress.

Social mechanisms explaining Danes’ attitudes to asylum seekers were analysed on two main dimensions: border control and rights allocation, in a national survey of 500 adult respondents in September 2013. Data show that the respondents supported exclusionary practices against asylum seekers much more than exclusion from rights. Three main mechanisms were simultaneously at play in both exclusionary dimensions: perceptions of threat, social distance (prejudice), and perceiving asylum seekers as not “genuine refugees”. Identifying asylum seekers’ as a security and socio-economic threat, as persons not in “real” fear of persecution, together with prejudicial attitudes to them had a boosting effect on excluding asylum seekers from the Danish collective in terms of entry and rights. Findings are discussed in light of existing theories on exclusionary attitudes to asylum seekers.

Involuntary migration, perhaps better referred to as forced migration, includes refugees of various kinds, asylum seekers, and migrants who escape starvation and natural disasters. Today, involuntary migrants far outnumber economic migrants who migrate on their own free will in order to improve their future economic conditions, although the distinction between them is not always clear. The phenomenon has been referred to in terms of a global crisis, expressing the fears and perceived threats of national security and political stability in particular in the Western societies. The phenomenon has also become a human rights issue, as more and more often involuntary migrants result from human rights violations and ethnic strife and are victims who need help from the international community. Herein lies the conflict. While receiving countries have begun to impose stricter controls on immigration, the need to resolve the refugee problem has become the most urgent human rights issue in the past decade, calling for ever greater participation of the U.N. and other international organizations in order to prevent the problems that cause ethnic conflict and refugee movements and to help in managing the refugee crises. These and some other topics were on the agenda at the Salzburg Seminar.

Through a critical examination of European immigration policy and using the case of Afghan asylum seekers in the European continent, this article argues that the politics of labelling and the criminalisation and securitisation of migration undermine the protection framework for the globally displaced. However, the issue goes deeper than state politicking to circumvent responsibilities under international law. The construction of migrants as victims at best, and as cultural and security threats at worst, particularly in the case of Muslim refugees, not only assists in their dehumanisation, it also legitimises actions taken against them through the perpetuation of a particular discourse on the European Self and the non-European Other. At one level, such a dynamic underscores the long-standing struggle of Europe to articulate its identity within the economic, demographic and cultural anxieties produced by the dynamics of globalisation. At another, these existing constructions, which hierarchise ‘worthiness’, are limited in their reflection of the complex realities that force people to seek refuge. Simultaneously, the labels, and the discourse of which they are part, make it possible for Europe to deny asylum claims and expedite deportations while being globally accepted as a human rights champion. This process also makes it possible for Europe to categorise turbulent contexts such as Afghanistan as a ‘safe country’, even at a time when the global refugee protection regime demands creative expansion. Ultimately, the politics of European migration policy illustrates the evolution of European Orientalist discourse – utilised in the past to legitimise colonisation and domination, now used to legitimise incarceration and deportation.