The perception of migration as a threat is expanding beyond those who cross borders irregularly to include students, refugees and asylum seekers, and is gradually becoming normalised, according to Khalid Koser, who worries that this growing emphasis on securitisation perpetuates polarised debate and hampers necessary outside-the-box thinking.<\/p>\n
Would you agree that the securitisation of migration only occurs when large numbers in mixed flows enter countries without correct procedures, and not in relation to tourism, student visa applications, regular labour migration, or everyday immigration work, including refugee processing?<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nThe ill-placed focus on security has been around irregular migration, and we can discuss the question of proportionality and responses to that. But I see a tendency now to securitise even other aspects of migration that normally would have been fairly immune to securitisation. You mentioned students: certainly there\u2019s some coverage in the press at the moment about student visas being abused and people using the student visa entry route to perhaps move illicit people into countries. We see some discussion on investment migration, which has normally been criticised, but not normally been securitised. We now see some suggestions that investment migration may be a security threat to countries, and even with refugees and certainly asylum seekers. I\u2019m now seeing some links made between asylum flows, even refugee flows, and the risk of national security concerns, including terrorism at some point. I fear that securitisation is trending beyond just regular migration. It\u2019s one of the main discourses around migration at the moment, whatever the category is. These traditional categories around migration are breaking down. Securitisation is certainly contributing to breaking them down.<\/p>\n
You\u2019ve spoken a lot about the securitisation of migration, especially around 2015-16, but what would you say in 2019? Has it increased or decreased? Has it become normalised to some extent?<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nIt\u2019s hard to measure. My hunch, without having done specific research, is that yes, it\u2019s become normalised. Whenever I hear discussions of migration of asylum seekers and refugees, certainly in political circles, certainly in media circles, probably in policy circles and I fear even sometimes in academic circles, there\u2019s just simply an acceptance that this is now a securitised debate. And, as with all of these issues, there is an initial outrage, and advocates correctly trying to hold us to account say that you shouldn\u2019t be doing this and look at the evidence and be objective, but eventually these issues become normalised and we\u2019re moving toward a normalisation of securitisation of movement.<\/p>\n
Given the numbers involved in irregular migration and the national laws they inevitably transgress, isn\u2019t securitisation an obvious response, even one expected by citizens?<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nIt\u2019s certainly expected by citizens; I\u2019m not sure it\u2019s an obvious response. One has to look at proportionality. If there\u2019s one potential terrorist in a boat of a thousand asylum seekers crossing the Mediterranean, is that reason enough to turn back the boat? I don\u2019t think it is. I think it\u2019s reason to screen people thoroughly to make sure that we\u2019re processing appropriately to reject and turn back asylum seekers as appropriate, and I don\u2019t think it\u2019s a reason to sacrifice people who are moving for valid and often humanitarian reasons. And I think it\u2019s about proportionality: building walls to stop everybody when in fact what you want to do is stop a few people seems to me to be inappropriate. But I think, basically, I\u2019m losing the battle of that argument.<\/p>\n
Whether you\u2019re fleeing for humanitarian reasons or other reasons, you should obey the laws of the countries where you\u2019re trying to settle, or even where you\u2019re transiting. If you break the law by trying to pull down fences or provoke public outrage, then there should be sanctions against you. I have no problem with that. Certainly, I\u2019m not na\u00efve about this. Some migrants, some asylum seekers, some refugees may be trouble-makers and may be criminals and may even be terrorists, but I would argue the majority are not.<\/p>\n
Is there a kind of naivety or simplicity in the humanitarian response, which is opposed to securitization and prefers to open borders to both migrants and refugees, irregular or otherwise?<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nI\u2019ve often said that we need an objective debate, and we need to be clear and honest about this. [We now have a] polarised perspective where one either considers all asylum seekers and migrants to be troublemakers or potential criminals, or sees them all as heroes and victims and people who should be protected. Both stands are wrong, I think. A sensible, objective debate about where the challenges are and how to exploit them makes sense to me.<\/p>\n
For the anti-securitisation lobby is the aim to have open borders full stop and roll back government control and restrictions? Has this position been fully thought through?<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nYes and I wouldn\u2019t position myself as an antisecuritisation person. I would position myself as somebody who is trying to promote an objective debate around these issues. The line I\u2019ve always taken on this is that if sensible, like-minded people don\u2019t have this conversation, then less sensible people will have the conversation and that\u2019s what\u2019s taking place at the moment. I sometimes despair over some of the humanitarian anti-securitisation lobby as much as I do over people at the other end of the spectrum because I find it equally unthinking.<\/p>\n
How do you think the securitisation of migration will look in the coming decades as we face big societal and environmental challenges?<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nThe question is whether these big future changes are going to generate more irregular migration, and my hunch is they will. Most countries are not, for example, yet set up to provide legal cover for people moving primarily because of the effects of climate change. I don\u2019t think there\u2019s going to be the political will to admit large numbers of people from swelling populations in the Maghreb and so on. I would predict an increase in irregular migration in the coming years; I think that\u2019s a fairly safe bet. If the focus on securitisation has normally been around irregular migration, which I think it has, I can\u2019t see anything reversing that. And certainly I don\u2019t think that anything I\u2019ve seen in terms of policy or political will suggests that will be reversed. So one answer is that irregular migration is likely to increase, which means we\u2019ll continue to securitise our approach and understanding of it.<\/p>\n
Technology is likely to enhance securitisation, hopefully to make it more effective and less intrusive, but we can\u2019t be sure of that. When we start moving into really advanced technologies in terms of biometrics and those sort of things, there is some hope that they will make managed migration more effective.<\/p>\n
If the aim of policy makers has been to reduce irregular flows through securitization and externalising immigration policy, given the fall in new irregular arrivals in some countries do you think they could argue that their policies are at least working?<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nNo. Measuring irregular migration is incredibly difficult. I\u2019m not sure that I\u2019ve seen any data that could convince me that irregular migration has reduced in Europe. I\u2019ve certainly seen data that shows that refugee flows from Syria have decreased and perhaps that arrivals by boat in Australia have decreased. Australia might be a really good example of how securitisation effectively works. Security responses, including externalisation, are parts of the comprehensive response, but they\u2019ve got to be undertaken in a proportionate and a reasonable way that respects human rights. If you look at the Australia case, I would argue that the boats have stopped, but what\u2019s the price that has been paid? Certainly there\u2019s been criticisms about human rights records, certainly Australia\u2019s reputation has taken a hit. So what\u2019s the price worth paying to turn back a few thousand irregular migrants? That\u2019s a question I think needs to asked.<\/p>\n
If restrictive policies are successful, is it possible that in future we\u2019re going to see a large section of predominantly young populations who will be involuntarily immobile, basically prevented from moving irregularly?<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nYes. I suppose migration theorists would say that ultimately it\u2019s very difficult to stop migration and people always find a way through smuggling, through trafficking, through social networks, through communications, through transportations and so on. But yes, I can see a situation where you have more and more refugees finding, hopefully, protection and assistance in poorer countries, not richer countries, which is a bit of an outlet. I can see, yes, through some of the externalisation, especially around Europe\u2019s neighbourhood, an increasing concentration of migrants, transit migrants, would-be migrants, becoming effectively trapped. Whether it\u2019s North Africa, the Middle East, perhaps Europe\u2019s periphery, that would be a trend to expect.<\/p>\n
If this is the case, is there a future risk in terms of violent extremism and a larger, more frustrated, less aspirational, more desperate youth cohort?<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nI always preface any of this with a health warning: we have to be really, really careful. Migrants and asylum seekers and refugees are undergoing enough of an assault at the moment without also suggesting they\u2019re potential violent extremists. But it seems to be intuitive that if you have large numbers of young people who are frustrated and marginalised, and feel they have no particular future prospects, that we shouldn\u2019t be surprised if some proportion of them become violent and become extremists. I think that would be an outcome that would be easy to predict.<\/p>\n
But the risk is surely greater among those prevented from becoming migrants or asylum seekers?<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nCertainly if people feel they lack some alternative to their lives, then they may be tempted to join extremist groups, and for some people, migration is one of those alternatives, and if you take the alternative away and don\u2019t replace it with employment, education, empowerment, then yes, there\u2019s an issue. Securitisation and externalisation are fine as long as they are accompanied by something else, which is to provide some form of livelihood and future in countries where the people are living. But to extend it, it\u2019s not just people who can\u2019t find a way to leave their countries. There\u2019s real risks around transit camps and possibly even refugee camps.<\/p>\n
If violent extremism is one of the outcomes of more restrictive immigration policies, could this create a vicious cycle where securitisation is increasingly legitimised?<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nYes, and that\u2019s the risk, that it\u2019s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Yes, on the surface, if you find migrants causing trouble and perhaps becoming extremists, that is simply another reason to stop them coming. I can understand that logic.<\/p>\n
Is the combination of demographic decline in countries with an increasingly automated economy going to spell a dramatic decline in regular labour migration in the future?<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nI don\u2019t think demography will reduce immigration. It\u2019s true, of course, that largely in the northern hemisphere populations are declining and aging, but certainly in the southern hemisphere the opposite is true. The indications are that in most countries in the world development and livelihoods are rising, then eventually that may be a reason that fewer people want to migrate, but I fear it\u2019s a long way away. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s going to happen in the next 20 or 30 years. It\u2019s more the development than demography, but I think it\u2019s beyond our lifetimes.<\/p>\n
What about automation? What if there just isn\u2019t a need for labour as there was, because machines and AI-type technology are going to replace so many areas of work, including areas that migrants are very active in.<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nYes, it\u2019s interesting. People have discussed this for a while. The answer has always been that there are certain sectors of the labour market that, where you will have labour-saving devices, you can computerise lots of stuff. But ultimately, you can\u2019t computerize certain activities easily. Ironically, the demography in Europe, where there\u2019s more aging and dependent people, probably means there will always be a demand for certain people to do certain work.<\/p>\n
Against the reality of increased securitization of migration and asylum do you think provisions such as those in the Sustainable Development Goals and the migrant and refugee compacts are sufficiently aspirational or implementable?<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nFirst on the SDGs, a lot of work was done at least to get migration recognised as an important component of many development goals. I think that was positive. I\u2019ve always been a little bit sceptical of the Global Compact for Migration. It\u2019s a non-binding document and it makes some generally sensible principles. Most countries, although there are some very important exceptions, have signed up to it. I welcome the fact that that most countries in the world coalesced around some general principles, but I\u2019m not sure that I see those principles necessarily being played out in reality.<\/p>\n
But ultimately, we do need a new approach to this. Some really important questions need to be asked concerning refugees. We are to an extent spinning wheels: we insist on the three durable solutions \u2013 repatriation, integration, resettlement \u2013 none of which seem to be working. We insist on maintaining this red-lined humanitarianism and economic purpose. Some out-of-the-box thinking is needed and I don\u2019t think either of the compacts did that. Some people say, and maybe I agree, that the private sector may become a game changer if we can engage them, not just their money but their thoughts and their ideas and their disruptive influence, and that might be a way to go about this, but I\u2019m a little frustrated. UNHCR I think is, in my opinion, too dogmatic. As the guardians of the 1951 Convention, I think it does as good a job as far as it can with its funding challenges and so on, so maybe it\u2019s not UNHCR\u2019s role, but somebody somewhere needs to think beyond and ask some difficult questions.<\/p>\n
What\u2019s your view of the future? Are you pessimistic, optimistic? Dystopian or utopian?<\/strong><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\nI think actually I\u2019ll choose both. I think it will become messier and messier, but I\u2019m still optimistic. Despite the criticism I\u2019ve just given about some of the SDGs and compacts, at least this stuff, sometimes I think for the wrong reason, but at least these issues are on the agenda. At least we\u2019re paying attention to immigration and refugees.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The following interview was originally compiled for the\u00a0Mixed Migration Review 2019\u00a0and has been reproduced here for wider access through this website\u2019s readership. The perception of migration as a threat is expanding beyond those who cross borders irregularly to include students, refugees and asylum seekers, and is gradually becoming normalised, according to Khalid Koser, who worries…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":6098,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[63,74,79,83,86,88,89,84],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6095","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-asylum-seekers","category-global-compact","category-maritime-migration","category-migration-management","category-policy","category-protection-and-risks","category-refugees","category-trends-in-migration","region-global","writer-mixed-migration-centre"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/staging.maisoninteractive.com\/mixedmigrationcenter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6095","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/staging.maisoninteractive.com\/mixedmigrationcenter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/staging.maisoninteractive.com\/mixedmigrationcenter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/staging.maisoninteractive.com\/mixedmigrationcenter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/staging.maisoninteractive.com\/mixedmigrationcenter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6095"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/staging.maisoninteractive.com\/mixedmigrationcenter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6095\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6101,"href":"https:\/\/staging.maisoninteractive.com\/mixedmigrationcenter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6095\/revisions\/6101"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/staging.maisoninteractive.com\/mixedmigrationcenter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6098"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/staging.maisoninteractive.com\/mixedmigrationcenter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6095"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/staging.maisoninteractive.com\/mixedmigrationcenter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6095"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/staging.maisoninteractive.com\/mixedmigrationcenter\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6095"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}