In general, the politicization of migration emerges mainly from some core factors which will be explained in the article. On the one side, within party politics, migration has become a controversial subject, with many political parties holding opposing positions and exploiting migration as a key issue to attract public support. Parties from the left to the right have exploited migration as a wedge issue to rally their bases and appeal to certain voter attitudes. (Kiratli, 2021)
On the other side, the advent of populist movements in Europe has exacerbated the politicking of migration. These movements frequently exploit popular anxieties and worries about migration, portraying it as a danger to national security, cultural identity, and economic stability. Media narratives, deception, and populist rhetoric have all influenced public opinion on migration. In some EU member states, populist political groups, particularly some mainstream politicians, interlocutors, and media outlets (the huge role of media here is unavoidable), capitalize on people’s fears about migration and do everything in their power to keep those fears alive. (Checkel & Katzenstein, 2009)
The recent development of populist movements across Europe has influenced the EU’s debate on migrant policy. These movements have capitalized on growing public worries about identity, culture, and socioeconomic considerations, providing simple solutions to complicated migratory issues. The purpose of this essay is to investigate the reasons behind the growth of populist movements and their impact on EU migration policy. The rise of populist movements has had an impact on EU migration policy, both directly and indirectly. Populist parties across Europe have increasingly gained political influence, particularly in certain member states, where they have actively campaigned for a more restrictive immigration policy. Populist parties across Europe have increasingly gained political influence, particularly in certain member states, where they have actively campaigned for a more restrictive immigration policy. For instance, in Italy, the League (formerly known as the Northern League) has been a prominent advocate for stricter immigration controls, emphasizing the need to curb undocumented migration and prioritize the interests of native Italians. Similarly, in Austria, the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) has pushed for tougher immigration laws and stricter border controls, citing concerns about the perceived threat of cultural dilution and economic strain. Additionally, in Hungary, Fidesz, led by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, has adopted a staunch anti-immigration stance, advocating for the preservation of Hungary’s cultural and ethnic identity by limiting the influx of migrants and refugees. For instance, in Italy, the League (formerly known as the Northern League) has been a prominent advocate for stricter immigration controls, emphasizing the need to curb undocumented migration and prioritize the interests of native Italians. Similarly, in Austria, the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ) has pushed for tougher immigration laws and stricter border controls, citing concerns about the perceived threat of cultural dilution and economic strain. Additionally, in Hungary, Fidesz, led by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, has adopted a staunch anti-immigration stance, advocating for the preservation of Hungary’s cultural and ethnic identity by limiting the influx of migrants and refugees. (Niemann & Zaun, 2023)
As a result, certain member states have adopted more nationalist and isolationist positions. The emergence of populist movements in the EU has had a considerable impact on migratory discourse and legislation. While these movements have capitalized on valid concerns, it is critical to approach migration policy with sensitivity to prevent oversimplification and discriminatory actions. The EU can navigate the challenges posed by populism while upholding its core values and working toward a future that promotes solidarity and respect for all individuals, regardless of their background, by promoting dialogue, fostering inclusive policies, and addressing the root causes of migration. (Schmidt, 2020)
Migration and security are two major problems that affect the EU’s political environment. When it comes to resolving these difficulties, member states take a variety of techniques and policies. Migration has been politicized as an EU priority since 2015. With the crisis, EU citizens for the first time regarded immigration as the most pressing issue confronting the EU. Some EU member countries, such as Germany and Sweden, have traditionally had a relatively open stance to migration, emphasizing multiculturalism and a dedication to human rights. They have adopted welcoming policies for refugees and migrants, concentrating on help, integration, and equal rights. These countries see migration as a chance for economic development and cultural richness. Security and counter-terrorism member state, such as France, prioritizes migration security concerns and emphasizes the importance of securing national borders, combating terrorism, and addressing potential security threats, while also implementing integration programs for refugees and asylum seekers. The country tightens immigration regulations, improves intelligence sharing, and supports anti-illegal migration policies. Several EU member states namely Greece, Italy, and Spain, confront substantial issues due to their physical location and direct vulnerability to migration flows. These countries prioritize border control and collaboration with non-EU countries to manage migration, frequently requesting assistance and burden-sharing from other member states. (Hampshire, 2016)
The intertwining dynamics between the politicization of migration and security threats create a multifaceted landscape, where various authors in the provided table offer diverse insights across three overarching themes. Migration’s elevation into political discourse reshapes security concerns, extending beyond conventional parameters to encompass individual safety and terrorism fears. Scholars, contributing to the broader discussion on migration, paint a rich tapestry of perspectives. Simons, Stoke, Wike, and others delve into the economic landscape, exploring issues of resource competition, fiscal impacts, and the perceived burden associated with hosting refugees. In the security domain, the works of Collier & Betts, Zunes, and others scrutinize the unfounded correlation between Muslim refugees and terrorism, fostering a climate of Islamophobia. Lastly, the cultural and social dimension, illuminated by Xenos, Tajfel & Turner, and Rousseau, uncovers tensions surrounding cultural homogeneity and identity preservation in the face of globalization and shifting demographics. This mosaic of viewpoints underscores the intricate web of factors influencing national responses to the multifaceted challenges posed by migration. (Bakker, Dagevos, & Enbersen, 2014; Hainmuller, Hangartner, & Lawrence, 2016)
Table 1. Scholarly perspectives on migration.
| Aspect | Authors/Scholars | Key Points/Opinions |
| Refugees as an Economic Threat | Simons, Stoke, Wike; Blochliger, Dumont & Liebeg; Jacobson; Collier & Betts; Eaments & Pataccini; Valenta & Thorshaug; Marbach, Hainmuller, & Hangartner; Ahrens et al.; Bakker, Dagevos, & Enbersen; Hainmuller, Hangartner, & Lawrence | – Rising narrative of refugees as economic burdens – Strain on resources and competition with locals – Fiscal impact on host nation – Contention over refugees’ participation in the labor market and employment competition |
| Refugees as a Security Threat | Nye & Lynn Jones; Ullman; Aliboni; Collier & Betts; Zunes; Hafez; Osiewicz; Rajarm; Byman | – Evolving concept of security threats – Inclusion of individual citizen safety and welfare – Fear of terrorism linked to the rise of “Islamic State” – Islamophobia fueled by politicians – Lack of evidence linking refugees to terrorism – Normalization of Islamophobia |
| Refugees as a Cultural and Social Threat | Xenos; Fearon; Howarth et al.; Mole; Tajfel & Turner; Rousseau; Rousseau and Garcia-Retamero; Agius & Keep; Waever et al. | – Emphasis on protecting cultural homogeneity – Identity justification |
Source: The categorized table was composed by the author, referring to the core ideas and approaches of the various scholars on migration.
The refugee flows triggered by the eruption of the Syrian Civil War in 2011 have significantly influenced the attitudes of European Union (EU) countries toward migration policy across multiple dimensions. This paradigm shift is particularly evident in the realms of Islamophobia, perceived security threats, concerns about counterculture terrorism, and considerations related to the cohesion of the European Union. The conflation of refugees with potential security threats, as highlighted in the table’s insights, has contributed to the normalization of Islamophobic sentiments. This has been exacerbated by a public discourse that links the presence of refugees, particularly from Muslim-majority countries, to an increased risk of terrorism. Striking a balance between national interests and collective responsibility remains an ongoing challenge for the European Union in navigating the complex terrain of migration policy.
Some member countries, such as Hungary and Poland, have a more nationalist and sovereign attitude to migration. They advocate for the preservation of national identity, culture, and values, claiming the right to control their borders and make autonomous judgments. These countries frequently impose harsher immigration laws, are wary of EU-wide solutions, and advocate for burden-sharing. EU member states also participate in regional cooperation frameworks to address collectively migratory concerns. The Visegrad Group or “V4” (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia) promotes a common approach to external borders, opposes obligatory relocation quotas, and promotes security measures. This regional collaboration highlights their common interests and concerns. (Hajiyeva, 2018)
For instance, the Netherlands is noted for its multicultural migration policies and emphasis on culturally distinct groups. However, it is one of the few European countries that has reduced its long-standing multicultural policy in favor of a larger emphasis on assimilation. Following an upsurge due to the influx of migrants in 2015, Stay Human (a collaboration of over 50 groups) conducted a countrywide survey to assess society’s views toward migration in the Netherlands. The survey studies released that starting from 2015, Dutch residents increasingly expressed their concerns about the issue and criticized the government’s migration policy execution Many Dutch individuals presently believe that societal divisions are widening and that they are under increasing pressure to take sides in the migration debate. It should be noted that these approaches are not exhaustive and may change over time. (Albada, et al., 2021) Domestic politics, public opinion, and economic considerations can all impact member nations’ approaches. (Basile, et al., 2020) Furthermore, the EU as a whole has enacted a variety of policies and measures to address the migration issue, such as externalizing border control and cooperating with countries of origin and transit. (Vélez, 2023)
It is critical to recognize that the politicization of migration in the EU is a complicated and nuanced subject driven by a variety of factors such as national politics, public opinion, and the altering dynamics of global migration trends. Addressing these political difficulties necessitates open communication, cooperation, and an understanding of the various viewpoints and interests at stake. The politicization of migration within the European Union has been subject to dynamic shifts in the attitudes and approaches of member states, particularly concerning Syrian and Ukrainian refugees. Notably, issues such as Islamophobia and counter-cultural terrorism engendering as a result of the Syrian Civil War have played pivotal roles in shaping the political landscape. The prevalence of Islamophobia has, at times, hindered cohesive and comprehensive policies, creating challenges in addressing the needs of refugees. Furthermore, the fragmentation among member states has emerged as a significant impediment, preventing the Union from executing decisive measures at the EU level. The lack of a unified approach and the existence of divergent opinions among member states contribute to a complex and challenging environment for formulating and implementing effective migration policies. This fragmentation not only stalls progress but also creates hurdles in achieving a consensus that aligns with the overarching principles of the European Union. In essence, the entanglement of political shifts, fueled by issues like Islamophobia and counter-cultural terrorism, coupled with the persistent fragmentation among member states, acts as a barrier to the EU’s ability to fulfill its migration-related tasks. Overcoming these challenges necessitates a concerted effort to bridge differences, foster unity, and cultivate a shared commitment to addressing migration issues comprehensively and cohesively at the EU level.