Articles for category: Two Decades Later: Tracing the Constitutional Fallout

Rhetorik der Terrorismusbekämpfung, das Abschreckungsparadigma und das Ende des Asyls

Obwohl der Zusammenhang zwischen Terrorismus und Asyl in Australien keine empirische Grundlage hat, haben bestimmte Gesetze, Maßnahmen und Praktiken, die im Jahr 2001 zur Terrorismusbekämpfung eingeführt wurden, bis heute Bestand - insbesondere die Offshore-Abfertigung von Asylbewerbern, die auf dem Seeweg ankommen. Ich behaupte, dass Australiens Abschreckungsmodell eine negative "Signalwirkung" auf die heutige Asylpolitik und -praxis einiger europäischer Staaten hatte.

Counterterrorism rhetoric, the deterrence paradigm, and the end of asylum: an antipodean viewpoint

The Australian government’s agenda of progressive border securitization was, initially, sustained by counter-terrorism rhetoric. However, the focus of concern has shifted away from the potential terrorist threat posed by asylum seekers towards deterring unauthorised maritime migration. Though the nexus between terrorism and asylum lacks an empirical basis in Australia, certain laws, policies and practices premised on counterterrorism in 2001 endure to this day – offshore processing of asylum seekers arriving by sea, notably. I argue that Australia’s deterrence model has had a negative ‘signalling effect’ on some European states’ contemporary asylum policies and practice.

The countering of migration with security

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, Europeanization received a particular boost in the European Union with the idea of creating a „Common European Asylum System“ (CEAS). Even a statement by Spain’s then-acting Foreign Minister Pique shortly after the attacks shows how immigration and terrorism were now directly linked: „The reinforcement of the fight against illegal immigration is also the reinforcement of the fight against terrorism.“ Concerns about the negative impact of migration on, for example, economic prosperity, national identity, social order, and state sovereignty preceded 9/11, but they transformed concerns into migration-related security fears. In Germany, too, the events ... continue reading

The UK’s Securitisation and Criminalisation of Migration and Asylum

The Nationality and Borders Bill is the culmination of the UK government’s increasingly securitised, criminalised and hostile approach to asylum and migration. While 9/11 served to solidify the highly dubious nexus between migration and terrorism, the UK (alongside other destination states) has for decades been implementing restrictive migration policies and practices designed to deter and prevent asylum seekers and other migrants from reaching its territories and accessing safety.

Delayed Parallels

Even though 9/11 has had a significant impact on the global linking of migration and security, different triggers may be required for each country for the concrete effects of this approach to emerge. For Turkey, the developments are parallel but delayed. Turkish immigration policy, which was trending towards becoming more liberal and rights-based after 9/11, has suffered a serious break after a series of terrorist attacks in the country.

We are at war

The state of the European Union's asylum and migration policy can be summed up as follows: 20 years after the attacks on the Twin Towers, the "war on terror" has become both a cause of people on the move, and serves at the same time as the normative underpinning for the unimaginable arms race that has taken place at the external borders of the EU. Legitimised by the political leadership of the European Union, it is now a reality that the principles of the rule of law have ceased to apply at the EU's external borders without consequence.

Counterterrorism measures as a migration control device

While concerns over terrorism have not shaped Italian migration policy in a comprehensive way, the increased use of the administrative measure of expulsion of foreigners for counter-terrorism purposes must be questioned. It poses serious challenges to fundamental rights and rule of law principles and might foster a shift from a punitive to a preventive approach in the field of migration control.

From Opposing the Wall to Becoming it

As much as the comparative study of migration policies has developed recently, it still suffers from a blazing assumption: that states have equal sovereign power to determine their migration policy according to their own interests. The notion of “externalization”, so widely discussed nowadays, reminds us of asymmetries of power. In cases of extreme asymmetry though, as in the relation between Mexico and the United States, the spaces for sovereign decision making on migration policy are extremely thin to nonexistent.

Status, Accountability and Community after 9/11

Migration and citizenship law are politically configurable matters, like all others. All terrorist threats affect the state's duty to protect life, possibly state infrastructure and the sense of security in the public sphere. Picking up a connection to migration, in contrast to already existing domes-tic right-wing and left-wing extremism, can promise a quick reduction of external dangers in the political competition. Certainly, most people reject an equation of migration and terrorism as politically backwards. However, the image of migration being infiltrated by terrorism is effective.