Suchergebnisse

The relation between migration & domestic security is complex but in constant danger of being politically simplified. The general assumption spread by media reports & political speeches is that uncontrolled immigration endangers security directly by facilitating transborder criminal activity or indirectly by creating general conditions within society that diminish the state's capacity to maintain public order or to produce societal security in a more comprehensive sense. The contribution argues that an adequate analysis needs to modify this prima facie plausible account. First, there are important trade-offs between enhancing security & freedom of movement because the latter creates important benefits & has in a liberal perspective also intrinsic value. Second, migration control may itself endanger security by illegalizing human actions that cannot be de facto prevented & by creating a market for human trafficking. Third, closing borders for ongoing immigration flows may paradoxically increase inflows in the short run & prevent return migration in the long run. The essay examines further how migration affects the state's capacity to produce four public goods that are often included in a comprehensive conception of societal security: demographic sustainability, cultural homogeneity, democratic self-determination, & social security. Among these, redistributive welfare policies provide the strongest argument for immigration control, but cannot fully justify present priorities, levels, & means. A final aspect of the relation between migration & security is, however, the securitization of migration policy discourses that generally trumps other arguments & creates widespread support for counterproductive & normatively indefensible policies. 28 References. Adapted from the source document.