migration, protection of cultural identity, cultural homogeneity, Euro-racism and the paradox of EU migration policy. The Politicisation of Migration The politicisation of migration is a concept similar to the concept Europeanization and yet another interesting aspect to accentuate from Huysmans article. Even though not particularly distinguishing immigrants from refugees and asylum seekers, Huysmans specifically points to the politicisation of asylum seekers: “(…) Immigration has been increasingly politicized through the question of asylum, or more precisely through the (con)fusion of immigration and asylum. Asylum has been increasingly politicized as an alternative route for economic immigration in the EU.” (Huysmans 2000: 755 l. 11-14) According to Huysmans the politicisation of immigration has led the tendency towards not differentiating between the categories; immigrant, asylum seekers etc. and furthermore the asylum seekers’ motives for fleeing are increasingly being regarded as economical. In the quote Huysmans points the attention to another aspect of this politicisation: “The cultural mixing resulting from migration is politicized on the ground that multicultural developments challenge the desire for coinciding cultural and political frontiers” (Huysmans 2000: 762 l. 25-27) The quote illustrates, how Huysmans argues that the cultural diversity in the EU, which is caused by migration, is being politicised in a way where it becomes accepted not to differentiate between politics and culture, and as a result the protection of cultural identity is being carried out politically. Subsequently, it has become natural also to regard the question of security as a question concerning culture and cultural protection.
Protection of Cultural Identity & Cultural Homogeneity The next two concepts being outlined are closely interlinked and will therefore be jointly presented. These are: protection of cultural identity and cultural homogeneity. According to Huysmans the issue of migration has also evolved in a political sphere concerned with the question of belonging. The protection of cultural identity is a fundamental concern by which the criteria for belonging are connected with migration. (Huysmans 2000: 762) Huysmans argues that immigrants in the EU are presented as challenging the myth of national cultural homogeneity. (Huysmans 2000: 762 l. 18-19) This understanding together with the comprehensive media coverage involving e.g. immigrants in riots is supporting the creation of a picture of migration as a cultural danger and something to protect the union against. Huysmans further argues, that there are claims that migration threatens nationalism, social values and political as well as social integration. (Huysmans 2000: 763). The understanding of cultural homogeneity within the EU is a precondition for the need for protection of the cultural identity. Huysmans accentuates that the idea of cultural homogeneity is a myth. Other theorists also question the belief that culture should be tied to a place. Gupta & Fergusson e.g. problematize the understanding of “cultural differences” and the way we take for granted that each country entails its own individual culture (Gupta & Fergusson 1992: 6) Gupta and Fergusson urge the reader to focus on and investigate, how this naturalisation of cultural differences between countries take place. Huysmans further states that these discourses, which represent migration as a cultural challenge to both social and political integration, have become essential in the rhetoric of security (Huysmans 2000: 762). In the setting where the issue of migration and asylum is politicised, immigrants and asylum seekers are often pictured as being culturally different. (Huysmans 2000: 763) The quote below states that this view of migrants is also present in policy work: “Integration policies often, at least indirectly, uphold the assumption that a culturally uniform society existed before migration started, irrespective of whether the policy expresses a desire for re-establishing the foregone homogeneity (…) Migrants
border control as the solution has been naturalised. Correspondingly, increasing border control is presented as the answer, when we want to protect the internal. The naturalisation of border control being an effective measure and the primary solution is very prominent in the articles dominated by the discourse on border control. Because the discourses retain this internal focus, the question of asylum is not a question of the need for protection, but has to a larger extend become a question of which consequences asylum seekers pose on our own national society or the European society. It can be argued that the tendency to make the question of asylum a question about the protection of the national or European society, as well as the naturalisation of more efficient border control as the necessary solution, turn the question of asylum in Europe into a non-question. Because if the logic is proposed so that asylum and immigration will undermine and destroy the Danish society, then the answer whether or not to grant asylum tends to be pre-given. Hence, the research project argues that the naturalisation of border control indirectly categorises asylum seekers as a threat to society and when asylum seekers are presented as a threat to society, then it seems natural to be opposing asylum. On the grounds of this discussion the three elements present in the discourses - Denmark as the main focus, asylum seekers being perceived as culturally different and border control accentuated as the only solution is establishing a focus that is very focused on the internal consequences the asylum issue pose on Denmark. 5.2.4 Focus on Internal Consequences in the Objectives of the CEAS? The CEAS can be said to entail elements that benefit the Member States: “(…) organising support for Member States experiencing particular pressure” (Commission of the European communities 2008 l. 15-16). The CEAS furthermore, presents objectives focusing on the relation between the Member States: “include rules on the determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application”. (Commission of the European communities 2008 l. 17-18). The CEAS can thus be argued to share the inward-looking approach to the issue of asylum, which was also present in the media discourses, especially the discourse on border control. The CEAS is thus focusing on the