“Fortress Europe is an insult to the values of the EU”: The legitimation of migrant acceptance in the human security speech acts of Members of the European Parliament

Abstract

Scholars agree that securitized discourses mainly drive migration policy. However, to fully understand the migration discourse, it is necessary to look also at the discourse legitimating the acceptance of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. Namely, how Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) legitimate the potential acceptance of migrants in EU plenary debates within the human security speech acts that prevail in the European Parliament plenary debates. By exploring legitimation categories, I show that human security discourse might remain part of the exclusion process, similarly to other security concepts and discursive strategies. In other words, the results show that in human security speech acts, MEPs evoke the “language of exclusion practices” containing the victimhood trope and building the “hierarchy of vulnerability.” Moreover, MEPs' efforts to legitimize immigration in this way might be counterproductive. In particular, the article discusses whether attempts to elicit grand emotions such as pity or shame helps to attract the audience.

Party politics and the shaping of migration policy in the Council of Ministers

“…The idea was that the EP has more migration‐friendly positions than member states (Kaunert, 2009). However, recent studies cast doubt on this hypothesis (Krotký, 2022). Similarly, the ECJ is seen as promoting liberal rights (Caporaso & Tarrow, 2009).…”

Political framing, actors, and effects of global issues

“…The subsequent two papers continue this issue's theme of global political matters with studies on migration policy and its relation to EU policymaking and the welfare state. Krotký (2023) contributes to this issue with an analysis of migration discourses in the European Parliament from 2014 to 2019. The author conducts a critical discourse analysis of 36 human security speech acts to investigate how Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) legitimized the acceptance of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers.…”

“…随后的两篇论文延续了本期的全球政治事务主题，研究了移民政策及其与欧盟决策和福利制度的关系。Jan Krotký(2022)通过分析2014年至2019年欧洲议会的移民话语，对本期内容作贡献。作者对 36 种人类安全言论行为进行批判性话语分析，调查了欧洲议会成员(MEP)如何使“移民、难民和寻求庇护者被接纳”一事合法化。理论上，分析基于 Van Leeuwen (2008)提出的合法化类别，即权威化、正当化评价、合理化和寓言讲述策略(mythopoesis)，以及 Kaldor 等人(2007)提出的五项人类安全原则。分析结果表明，道德合法化（尤其是道德抽象化及其对受害者身份的参考）是大多数政党最主要的叙事策略，以期使“接纳移民”一事合法化。另一个突出的合法化策略是（工具性）合理化，它强调需要采取行动解决“移民危机”。权威化（聚焦于欧盟保护人权的责任）和寓言讲述策略（意味着创造故事和未来情景），部分与道德合法化结合使用，但在MEP的移民话语中发挥了次要作用。该研究进一步表明，所有五项人类安全原则如何隐含地反映在MEP对“接纳移民”的合法化过程中。不过，有论据认为，这些话语策略重现了“排斥性语言”，例如对更弱势的移民群体进行分类和优先排序。…”

“…Los dos artículos siguientes continúan el tema de este número de asuntos políticos globales con estudios sobre la política migratoria y su relación con la formulación de políticas de la UE y el estado de bienestar. Jan Krotký (2022) contribuye a este problema con un análisis de los discursos migratorios en el Parlamento Europeo de 2014 a 2019. El autor realiza un análisis crítico del discurso de 36 actos de discurso sobre seguridad humana para investigar cómo los miembros del Parlamento Europeo (MEP) legitimaron la aceptación de migrantes, refugiados y solicitantes de asilo.…”