Skip to main content
main-content
Top

About this book

Immigrants and minorities in Europe and America have responded in diverse ways to security legislation introduced since 9/11 that targets them, labeling them as threats. This book identifies how different groups have responded and explains why, synthesizing findings in the fields of securitization, migrant integration, and migrant mobilization.

Table of Contents

Frontmatter

Introduction

Abstract
In the early nineteenth century W. E. B. Du Bois vividly summarized the challenges that African Americans faced by asking “how does it feel to be a problem?” To come to terms with being treated as a “problem,” he wrote, is a “strange experience,” a “peculiar sensation” that leads to “double consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of the others.” Du Bois captured the feeling of stigmatization, noting that “the facing of so vast a prejudice could not but bring the inevitable self-questioning, self-disparagement, and lowering of ideals which ever accompany repression and breed in an atmosphere of contempt and hate” (1903, Chapter 1). He demonstrated that coping with the “color-line” problem had a dramatic impact on both self-identification and group categorization. “No Negro,” he wrote, “has failed to ask himself at some time: What, after all, am I? Am I an American or am I a Negro? Can I be both? Or is it my duty to cease to be a Negro as soon as possible and be an American?” (1897).
Ariane Chebel d’Appollonia

Chapter 1. The Securitization of Immigration and Integration Governance

Abstract
The immigration and counterterrorism policies implemented after 9/11 have had severe consequences for specific groups identified as “security threats” by the general public. These policies have collectively produced what has become known as the “securitization of immigration governance.” It is a process through which Western political elites (such as governments, leading political parties, and associated policy networks), public opinion, and the media construct immigration as a security threat. Typical aspects of securitization measures include the introduction of restrictive border controls intended to fight terrorism, accompanied by those intended to curb illegal migration flows and to police minorities. The security-immigration nexus is therefore apparent, visible in the ways in which politicians and bureaucrats view policies on the integration of migrants and of ethnic minorities as a means to counter threats. This nexus is further consolidated by negative stereotypes propagated by the mass media and official public discourse that, in turn, fuels concerns about the willingness of immigrants to integrate into their host societies. Furthermore, the securitization process has given legitimacy to a range of narrative frameworks that, as Sarah Scuzzarello noted, “have strong normative implications for how we conceive of a society, its citizens and the values that are honorable in it” (2011: 4).
Ariane Chebel d’Appollonia

Chapter 2. Securitization and Discrimination

Abstract
The optimistic and pessimistic scenarios sketched out in the previous chapter differ widely in their evaluation of the effects of securitization on immigration and integration governance. The former focuses on discrimination as the main result of securitization, but forecasts that immigrants and minority groups can achieve integration despite facing prejudice and socioeconomic inequalities. The latter also assumes that security-driven measures increase discrimination, which leads to disintegration and potential radicalization. Neither of these scenarios, however, is explicit about the nature and scope of discrimination. The current debate among policymakers and scholars therefore raises more questions than it answers.
Ariane Chebel d’Appollonia

Chapter 3. Securitization and Integration

Abstract
Do security-driven policies serve the goal of enhancing immigrant integration or do they act as a mechanism for exclusion? Does securitization enhance a sense of national belonging, and more importantly in the current context of “ontological insecurity,” does it secure the loyalty of immigrants and natives born of foreign descent? Or does it push immigrants and their children toward separation, marginalization, and, ultimately, radicalization? In addressing these questions, I analyze the actual outcomes of securitization in the context of reception in various host societies. I argue that the paradox of the securitization of integration is that more integrative policies have been implemented (because of the fears raised by a lack of integration as a source of insecurity): yet these actually provided fewer opportunities to integrate (fuelling suspicion against immigrants and their descendants). Furthermore, the “integration paradox” suggests that the common indicators for integration (such as educational achievements, occupation, or ethnoracial and cultural factors) do not—and cannot—fully explain the behavior of those who are suspected of posing a threat. Targeted immigrants and minorities are not “passive agents” whose actions are determined by the host society context (e.g., immigration policies, treatment of illegal immigrants) and the societal context (e.g., institutional arrangements in education, the labor market, housing, religion, and legislation).
Ariane Chebel d’Appollonia

Chapter 4. Securitization and Conventional Mobilization

Abstract
A September 2012 Newsweek cover featured a photograph of a mob of yelling men accompanied by a headline proclaiming “Muslim Rage.” The unspecified photograph was presumably taken during one of the anti-US protests in a Muslim country. Newsweek invited readers to comment on the photo by using the hashtag #MuslimRage. This generated a storm of tweets, some offensive (from non-Muslims), but most of them satirical (from Muslims), such as “there is no payer room in this nightclub,” and “my hijab does not match my outfit.” The most popular ironical tweet, purportedly expressing true “Muslim Rage” was: “Lost your kid named Jihad at the airport and can’t yell for him.”
Ariane Chebel d’Appollonia

Chapter 5. Securitization and Unconventional Mobilization

Abstract
The main objective of immigrant mobilization is political empowerment that involves various activities—not only voting but also donating, signing a petition, writing to officials, lobbying, and demonstrating. Research over the last decade has emphasized the importance of exploring all these avenues of ethnic and immigrant mobilization (Martiniello, 2009; Ramakrishnan and Bloemraad, 2008; Martinez, 2005; Ramakrishnan, 2005). “There is more to participation than simply formal politics,” Michael Jones-Correra pointed out, and therefore the “definition of political incorporation should be expanded to include both participation in electoral and non-electoral forms of politics, and indeed in forms of organizational life that might not be overtly considered political at all” (2005: 75–76).
Ariane Chebel d’Appollonia

Conclusion

Abstract
The preceding chapters have linked the main targets of security governance to three sets of issues: economic and social welfare, national identity, and homeland security. I have illustrated how varied immigration policies and integration policies shape immigrants’ responses to securitization by raising new obstacles to their incorporation into their host societies.
Ariane Chebel d’Appollonia

Backmatter

Additional information

Premium Partner

    Image Credits