The process of migration has occurred for thousands of years. Irregular migration has become an escalating concern not only for Great Powers but also for other states and non-state actors. According to Martin K, ‘International migration of people is a momentous and complex phenomenon.’ Unfortunately, as this phenomenon unfolds, the human rights and lives of these individuals—immigrants—are often dismissed and forgotten.
Migration is inherently a political phenomenon due to the movement of citizens or individuals from one state across the borders of another. This perspective is also supported by Martin Kahanee and Klaus Zimmermann in their work on Migration and Globalization. They define migration as “a dynamic phenomenon involving many twists and turns,” driven by a multitude of possible reasons. Migrants may move temporarily or permanently, either transnationally or nationally, individually or in groups. They might return to their countries of origin, migrate to another country, or move between two or more countries in a circular way. Unfortunately, Cathrine Talleraas of Migration notes that “there is no universally accepted definition of human migration” (133). According to the United Nations, migration is assumed to be when “most experts agree that an international migrant is someone who changes his or her country of usual residence, irrespective of the reason for migration or legal status” (UN 2009).
There must always be consideration for individuals who leave their homes, seeking better opportunities. It is known that they migrate or emigrate from their places of origin due to armed conflicts, better economic opportunities, war-torn countries, disastrous environmental situations, etc. These individuals are not seeking to steal job opportunities from citizens of other countries, overpopulate existing societies, or destroy the national ideas and identity of a country. They simply want to live better lives, improve their economic prospects, ensure a more secure living environment, reunite with their family members, or avoid persecution in their country of origin (1). This mobility aligns with the contemporary term “globalization,” which has supported the system of migration and expanded it on various levels, adding complexity to the development and comprehension of the history of mankind.
However, according to the political science theory of Realism, migration becomes a ‘detriment’ to State Sovereignty—the movement of people across borders. Realism dominates the political science realm, emphasizing the protection of the State and maintaining the hard shell of the States, focusing on the State’s interests. Over time, there has been discourse on ‘porous borders,’ sparking discussions on the stability of Statehood. Is the idea of Statehood heading towards decline?
For these individuals, their experiences and opportunities are encroached upon not only by political power play but also by the upkeep of the State. Within this system of political maneuvering, immigrants face challenges that span from political to social to economic, among others. Furthermore, these challenges are heightened, particularly if they emigrate within and around the borders of Superpower States.
Globalization, remember that term? It has been recorded and conducted for centuries; the process of globalization now affects the new norms of sovereignty for states. According to Michael Lang in “Globalization and Its History,” he defines globalization as “spatio-temporal processes of change which underpin a transformation in the organization of human affairs by linking together and expanding human activity across regions and continents” (15) (904). The relationship between globalization and migration is inextricably linked. While both processes have been acknowledged, it seems that globalization has been more widely accepted than migration. Migration has continuously occurred for generations; however, it seems to have acquired a negative connotation because it risks several components regarding State Sovereignty. These components expand to national security, sovereignty, territorial integrity, global governance, etc. Overall, the effects of migration have shifted the political atmosphere. More importantly, while these processes are being acknowledged, studied, and utilized, there must always be safeguarding for the human rights of those who are immigrants. This consideration is crucial because, amidst power politics, these individuals find themselves unfortunately in the middle of the crossfire within both domestic and foreign affairs.
As aforementioned, migration has more negative connotations because of its effect on the components like national security, sovereignty and borders of States. As the process permits adverse conversations, these individuals should not be punished for aspiring for a better living standard. Ultimately, migration can help States with developments and the continuance of economics for the State. Amartya Sen defines development as, “the process of expanding the substantive freedoms that people enjoy,” (1999). Migration greatly aids the global market with economic and social remittances.
- These economic remittances have become a crucial economic factor in many countries, but sometimes, they don’t automatically lead to sustainable economics.
- Regarding social remittances, migration for the state can positively influence social culture. Kahanee writes that “migration undoubtedly affects the well-being of the whole society and, as such, has become an important and sensitive policy issue.” Social remittances encompass “the ideas, behaviors, identities, and social capital that flow from receiving-to-sending country communities” (Levitt, 1998). However, this disrupts the national identity of the state if it wants to continue with homogeneity due to its history; for example, this is the case for the Russian Federation.
From the author Ronaldo Munck of “Globalisation, Governance, and Migration: An Introduction,” a thought-provoking question is presented: “Migration exposes a central inconsistency in neoliberal globalization because, if capital, money, information, and knowledge should all flow freely across the globe, then why not people?” However, these political implications compel the state to take action, leading the government to enact domestic policies to ensure the maintenance of its statehood. Author Christopher Mitchell of “International Migration, International Relations, and Foreign Policy” notes, “Government institutions may well initiate changes in immigration policies, and they must, at all events, process such alterations even if under pressure from social interests (690).” In the process of handling these immigration policies, governments should do more to ensure the protection and humanitarian assistance of all who cross borders.
A discussion on migration and its impact on diverse political regimes is imperative. International migration is evidently recognized and appropriately regulated due to the ideals and norms associated with democracy. Taking the example of the United States of America (U.S.), immigration is controlled with appropriate regulations. However, the maintenance of national security, particularly in the context of Realism, results in stringent and complex regulations for those entering the borders. In contrast, authoritarian regimes impose harsher regulations on immigration, leading to a lower trend of migration due to the severity of the government. Immigrants may actively avoid authoritarian/dictatorship regimes due to the enforced restrictions, acting as a deterrent for those seeking a new, free, and better way of life. Examining the relationship between international migration and different political regimes, the discourse on the securitization of migration becomes relevant. The significance of this discourse lies in the understanding that the government, influenced by the regime type of the state, holds ultimate power in controlling migration trends. Thus, it is at the governmental level that the initiation and control of the securitization of migration take place.
This securitisation violates the human rights of immigrants.
The securitisation of migration can be characterized as vicious, vile, and powerful. According to Dr. Silvia Scarpa, securitization creates “a climate of fear which allows politicians to position themselves as strong leaders, drumming up political support” (Scarpa, 3). Ronaldo Munck notes that the process of securitization has much deeper roots than the rise of right-wing parties or the emergence of new racism (1232). Migration has become more securitized in the 20th century, exemplified by the U.S.’s infamous initiation of the “crackdown” or promotion of the securitization of migration following the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. These attacks could have given rise to various frameworks on the securitization of migration, serving to preserve statehood. However, as realism dominates world politics, there was a need for repercussions against the unlawful attacks on a country, particularly a state. Unfortunately, the pursuit of continued dominance of realism has skewed the protection and safeguarding of the rights and lives of immigrants who simply wish to seek a better way of life.
Securitization creates dark shadows that significantly impact migration in a negative manner. It has evolved into a political tool that predominantly influences society adversely, perpetuating the narrative that immigrants outside the border would “cause chaos and commit various crimes that would degrade the societies of that particular area.” Securitization is positioned as a means to weaponize the process of international migration, portraying immigrants as potential threats against citizens and instilling fear within society.
The establishment of fear in politics surrounding migration categorizes migrants as threats to society, a notion that can be deconstructed across political, social, and economic dimensions. The instigation of fear or the securitization of migration in political discourse at the macro-level leads to:
- To damaging ideas disseminating into society from the top-down,
- propagating hazardous domestic policy measures
- and introducing bills into the legislative branch that will alter the political and social culture of society.
Fortunately, the Western world has generated numerous sociological terms that can aptly label phenomena occurring, aiding States and non-state actors in identifying these occurrences. The establishment of fear/the securitisation of imagination, at this level, results in:
- Stigmatisation,
- Dangerous generalisations
- Displays of racism, xenophobia and other –isms.
The grouping of individuals from different cultures into single categories diminishes not only their identity but also their rights. Moreover, it is inherently racist. This practice also fosters the notion of biological superiority, rooted in eugenics, leading to further ostracization from society as these individuals are deemed as not belonging. The blame and racism directed at migrants divert attention from the socio-economic and political shortcomings of the government of the State, which should always be held accountable.
As this process is practiced and could potentially unfold globally, migration needs to be regarded not merely as a State actor issue but as an international security concern. In our multicultural world, characterized by increasing hyperconnectivity due to globalization, all actors on the global political stage are called upon to contribute to addressing this issue. Migration demands a reconceptualization not only for Western societies but on the global stage. The establishment of fear/the securitization of migration in politics, at this level, will propagate the idea that the surge in migration will lead to false perceptions that immigrants are taking job opportunities, economic benefits, and incentives from the country’s citizens. Immigrants seek employment for economic benefits; however, due to their irregular status, they cannot secure legal jobs, potentially resulting in resource redistribution, a lack of labor rights, low wages, etc., as they lack proper documentation for work or residence. Blaming migrants distracts from the socio-economic and political failings of the government of the State. Regarding States, the effects of international migration will persist.
There are various differences in the impact of migration on the macro-level of Statehood. The examination of the relationship between macro-level State analysis and the concept of irregular migration considers the effects of migration across political and economic dimensions. This exploration enables a deeper understanding of the impact on the State’s society. According to Munck, “The globalization of migration is usually taken to refer to ‘the tendency for more and more countries to be crucially affected by migratory movements at the same time.’ International migration is seen as part of a revolutionary globalization process reshaping economics, political systems, and our cultural parameters” (1229).
The discussion on migration leads to emigration, the act of permanently leaving one’s country for another. This perceived loss of soft power gradually diminishes the title of “Great Power” for States, as millions of inhabitants are lost, and retrieval becomes challenging due to the non-encroachment of Sovereign Statehood. Essentially, these individuals would be labeled as ‘return migrants.’ This power loss implies losing manpower for the military, workers for economic prosperity, and culture as artisans and other creatives depart. The loss of population also signifies a diminishing ‘national identity.’ As Munck notes, “Migration can be and is also viewed as a threat to cultural identity and security. Where a nation is defined by ethnicity, minority ethnic groups must supposedly assimilate into the dominant group or run the risk of being marginalized or ultimately subjected to ‘ethnic cleansing’” (1232).
Therefore, following Munck’s thoughts, States aim to secure their national identity, ensuring national security as well. However, migration disrupts national security, leading to a sense of security (territorial) and potentially contributing to the securitization of migration, denying individuals a chance for a better way of life.
During this process, there is a directly exponential increase in economics and infrastructure, which is crucial for the society’s continuity and the further development of the State. Simply put, the development of another country attracts migration, possibly because the place of origin is underdeveloped, characterized by underemployment, and poverty-stricken. Modernization and industrialization lead to increased migration/emigration. James Mittelman elaborates on the flow of migration, stating, “Large-scale transfers of population are a long historical process common to all regions of the world, but in recent decades the global restructuring of production has accentuated differences between receiving and sending countries, drawing massive imports of labor primarily from various countries to the advanced capitalist areas” (58).
Migration has always been present. Therefore, States, as a relatively new concept, should have the capability to regulate and accommodate those seeking a better way of life. This might impact the ability to provide for the ‘actual’ citizens of the country; however, the government of a State, especially in the ‘Developed World,’ should possess the capacity for multiple political elements.
Migration of all kinds occurs consistently and continuously. Immigrants will always manage to traverse borders and establish a new way of life. Why? Because seeking happiness is a right for every human being on this planet. The pursuit of happiness should not be revoked, excluded, or denied from anyone. A Statehood matter issue needs to be discussed. Migration is a humanitarian aspect and must always be considered, not only at the State level but also on the international political stage. These individuals who have all migrated across the borders of different countries, different States should always have their lives and rights safeguarded.
Photo by Miko Guziuk on Unsplash
