This book by Ariane Chebel d'Appollonia addresses two interrelated questions. First, has the framing of immigration as a security issue helped to enhance the internal security of the United States and European countries? Second, does the use of counterterrorist measures help to solve problems commonly related to immigration, such as increasing numbers of illegal immigrants, ethnic tensions or homegrown radicalization? Her answer to both questions is a resounding “no.” Framing immigration as a security problem—in other words, the “securitization” of immigration—has only led to more insecurity, she argues. The prioritization of law enforcement and other security responses has also failed to reduce the numbers of illegal immigrants entering both continents and has only helped to radicalize some within the targeted minority communities.
The author conducts her analysis in three parts. The first section of the book offers a convincing riposte to those who would have us believe that concerns about immigration and security have been exceptionally acute in the post-9/11 era. Such fears have a long history, as do the counterterrorism and immigration policy measures taken in response. After 9/11, rather than introducing wholesale innovations, in many cases, the United States and European governments simply strengthened or reformed measures that were already in their legislative and policy toolkits. At the same time, however, Chebel d’Appollonia is in no doubt that the reforms made since 9/11 amount to an intensification of security measures, compared to what existed before. She also shows how a “security logic” infected policy debates on immigration, leading to the prioritization of border control measures at the expense of comprehensive reform to advance the integration of existing immigrants.
Having outlined the security and immigration policies under consideration, the author examines their effects in the second part of the book. She argues that enhanced border controls have boosted both the immigration security business and illicit smuggling networks, contributing to an increase in the number of illegal immigrants in the United States and Europe. Furthermore, the use of immigration measures and racial and religious profiling interfered with large numbers of innocent people. Chebel d’Appollonia suggests that this alienated Muslim communities and made it less likely that they would pass information to the police about possible terrorist-related suspects. She also claims that government security measures, along with discrimination against and suspicion of Muslims, has increased alienation and helped to radicalize some towards violence.
Part III of the book examines why these “failed policies” persist. It highlights the socio-economic and other factors that motivate people to emigrate, suggesting that western development aid has not adequately addressed these “push factors.” “Pull factors” are also analyzed, such as the dependence of some European and American employers on the recruitment of foreign labor. The author argues, however, that increasing electoral pressure from right-wing populism in Europe makes it more likely that the failed policies of recent decades will continue on the continent.
Chebel d’Appollonia makes a significant contribution to our understanding of the historical development of what she calls the “immigration-insecurity nexus.” She shows how the framing of immigration as a security issue evolved during the twentieth century, demonstrating how this connection became particularly prominent in the minds of policymakers from the late 1980s. She also offers a convincing account of the increasingly exclusionary nature of U.S. and European immigration policies in recent decades and outlines its severe impact on vulnerable immigrants and asylum seekers. This includes a sobering account of “us” and “them” politics, where “the other” comprises both suspected terrorists and a broad swathe of immigrants. As she puts it succinctly, this is “morally hazardous in part because the definition of ‘others’ keeps expanding” (p. 10).
Given the centrality of “securitization” to the book’s analysis, it is surprising that Chebel d’Appollonia does not offer a precise discussion of the concept itself. One wonders why the author did not apply some of the ample literature that defines the term and operationalizes it for empirical research. There is no clarification of exactly how the term “securitization” is understood and used in the book. Chapter 3, entitled “Securitization After 9/11” describes a wide range of anti-terrorist legislation adopted in the U.S. and in European countries. It is assumed, without being explicitly shown, that every post-9/11 security-related measure described is an instance of securitization. However, if “securitization” simply equals security policies, the concept starts to lose its analytical value.
While Chebel d’Appollonia correctly identifies the damaging effects of many immigration and counterterrorism measures on vulnerable minorities, one of her central arguments is perhaps overdone. She contends that securitization and the expansion of security-related legislation since 9/11 “seriously damage the sustainability of democratic governance” (p. 4). In support of this argument, the book offers a grim narrative of constantly expanding security measures in both Europe and America, but pays insufficient attention to how these government policies have been resisted and sometimes thwarted by activists, civil liberty NGOs, lawyers, judges and some politicians and journalists (the author mentions examples of resistance but generally downplays their significance on p. 95, 236–38 … 260).
This narrative of constantly expanding “securitization” can be misleading. For example, the author outlines the United Kingdom’s passing of a draconian law in 2001, which permitted the indefinite detention of foreign terrorist suspects who could not be deported (p. 86-87). Not only does she not refer to the campaign against this measure, she also fails to mention that this power was abolished in 2004, following a ruling by the UK’s highest court (save for a short and uninformative footnote at the end of the book). Chebel d’Appollonia goes on to claim that the government “further strengthened” the tools at its disposal in 2005 by introducing “control orders” (a form of house arrest), whereas in fact these measures were a rushed replacement for the abolished 2001 power. Control orders represented a reduction in the powers of the government in key respects, compared to the 2001 law, and they were later reined in further by the courts and the government. Cases such as these raise questions about the book’s depiction of the post 9/11 landscape. Rather than a unidirectional expansion of security measures, anti-terrorism legislation both stepped forward and has been pushed back in some cases, the result of a struggle between governments and defenders of civil liberties. No-one doubts the determination of governments to expand their security powers, but the author underplays the role of civil society in resisting and even stymieing the governments' efforts.
Chebel d’Appollonia might also have paid more attention to the differences between the countries she analyzes. For example, the book outlines Nicolas Sarkozy’s notorious campaigns against Roma people and against Muslim women wearing the burqa. However, Sarkozy is not necessarily representative of “other European leaders,” nor do all or even most such leaders “follow the same populist strategy,” as the author suggests they do (p. 262). Similarly, Chapter 3 depicts the adoption of anti-terrorism legislation across Europe and America as essentially one trend going in the same direction in all cases. However, there are significant differences in counterterrorism policy between several of these countries that the author fails to elucidate.
This book offers a valuable examination of the historical development of immigration as a security issue and the severe effects that exclusionary immigration policies have had on immigrants and asylum seekers. As a guide to “securitization,” counterterrorism and their effects on liberal democracy, however, the analysis offered is less convincing.
