How & Why Migration Has Come To Be Seen As A Security Issue In The West.
 

Security is a contested concept, for each state and individual will have a slightly different interpretation and measuring stick as to what being secure means to their country and to themselves. However, taking the most basic and broad definition of security, being ‘the absence of a threat, lack of vulnerability’, and/or, being safe from danger, we can already see many flaws in adding the phrase "issue" or "threat" to it, when discussing migration. For it implies that migrants are something to be feared; fear which is present amongst certain public opinion surveys in Australia and the US, as well as being present in the rhetoric we hear from governmental figures and the media. Reasons for migration differ dramatically, between those seeking better economic stability, or desiring to move closer to a loved one, and those who are forced to flee persecution, ongoing conflict and turmoil. For this discussion a focus will be placed more on the latter, as this often seems to be the kind of migration that sparks a lot of debate as to whether it is or isn't a threat to both state and individual sovereignty, security and culture in the West. The next question that must be raised in order to decipher such a thing, is if these concerns for state and citizen security are legitimate, or simply tactical and formed on a basis of irrationality, ignorance and bigotry, with underlying motives in play. Protecting state security can also compromise human security; in turn creating a worse humanitarian crisis and breaching basic human rights and policies.
 

Migration into the West has often been seen as a security issue for many believe it to be threatening and detrimental to American and Australian cultural identity. This perspective is not only held by authoritative figures but also certain groups of individuals whose tolerance, respect and acceptance of migrants of different ethnicities and faiths is very low. However, the US and Australia both consider themselves to be multi-cultural; therefore, it places question upon what this concept of cultural identity, that the West wishes to protect and secure, actually is. Using Australia as example, it was made clear through public surveys that older individuals who drew most of their knowledge from medial sources tended to reject asylum seekers; seeing cultural diversity as a threat, accusing them of not being willing to assimilate and adapt to Australian values, and expressing concerns such as not being able to practice Christian traditions if Muslim asylum seekers are welcomed. These beliefs highlight the illogical nature of some anti-migrant sentiments, especially when taking into consideration Australia's multiculturalism and freedom for all to practice their religions in Australia freely, (a basic human right listed in the UDHR which the West are obligated to uphold), regarding the latter concern. The rhetoric surrounding the concept of cultural identity becomes quite redundant when the spotlight is set upon the truth of the matter. This truth being that nearly a half of Australians (as of 2014), were either born overseas or had a parent who was. This Western culture that many cling to and want to protect from foreigners is actually a culture adopted from such. Immigration has made Australian culture what it is today. Surveys also show that those who are more accepting and respectful of migrants are those of a younger, highly educated class, who do not rely on the media and on politicians for valid information. This brings us to why there is such a vast difference between public sentiment, and the importance of looking at how language is used to manipulate and create an enemy or issue out of an innocent person or body of people; again, challenging the validity of this supposed security issue.
 

The importance of language and understanding why certain people see diversity as a threat, as a result of the media and government's constant use of semiotic devices and strategic phasing, is crucial in evaluating why migration has come to be seen as a security problem. It is predominantly due to underlying bigotry, fear and an "us" and "them" mentality that heavily influences and drives negative and often false beliefs on migration. If certain phrases were not emphasised to produce and instigate this fear and bigotry and if people were properly educated on the matter, then migration as a "security issue" may not be as prominent and accepted as a concept, as it is today. After analysing the Trump administration and several comments made by the president himself, it would lead one to believe that it is not all diversity brought over by migrants that is feared, but a certain type; this type often being of an Islamic, Arabic, or Latino nature. Certain comments that have solidified this type of prejudice include Trump's desire to accept more migrants from Norway, a predominately white nation, yet, in the next breath expressing that America wants "fewer foreign-born Americans". As well as his continual disgust for migrants from Mexico and Middle Eastern countries strategically pairing these ethnicities with words such as "criminals" and "Islamic terror". This stereotyping is obviously not a correct or rational foundation for evaluating threats to state security. One cannot paint a whole group of people, especially those as vulnerable as many migrants are, with the same brush as one extremist or radical. However, the US as well as Australia continue to do so; in turn influencing the general public to think the same, and support stricter migration policies, for they believe that the acceptance of such people will lead to extremism, violence, and further "illegal" behaviour.
 

It is extremely important to highlight that there is no such thing as "illegal" migration and that those who arrive here outside of the regulatory norms are not more inclined to be criminals. All migration is legal, however when movement occurs outside of the official channels, this is referred to as "irregular migration". Yes, this may be a more legitimate cause for concern in regards to security, for states should know who is entering their country. However, the idea that not only US leaders promote but also Australia's Dutton in particular, that this irregular migration is illegal and will lead to further forms of terrorism, is quite flawed, and again impacts on public sentiment; some Australians, generally aged over 60, posing concerns for future generations and increased violence on Australian shores. It isn't hard to see that the Trump administration from the get-go has been trying to link terrorism with immigration and Muslims in particular, as well as pushing forward the idea that "the only criminals considered terrorists are foreign born". However, it's been established that radicalism is more of a homegrown issue rather than being imported. Trump's strategic neglect for the various white nationalist or domestic extremists is another obvious strategy to push forth that "us" and "them" mentality. By doing so, the Trump administration neglects the obvious fact that extremism occurs amongst all religions, all colours of skin and all regions. Therefore, to blame migrants for such a thing and raise migration as a massive security threat in regards to violence, is a weak argument, when faced with these contradictions and hypocrisies.
 

It is important to decipher when migration was labelled as a security issue and if this ongoing fear of job insecurity and economic instability is still a valid cause for concern, or simply another excuse to discriminate and add fuel to the fire of an already established humanitarian crisis. Many believe that migration as a security issue developed predominantly after the events of 9/11. Although perceptions of foreigners altered in regard to terrorism and violence, and many links between radicalism and immigration were made after these events, as discussed earlier; migration was seen as an issue as early as the 1970s. An interesting comparison, as well as a parallel when looking at Europe, can be made between today and the 1950s and 60s, when countries opened their borders to welcome immigrant workers, even Australia, perceiving it as a positive economic move. Many today have forgotten the benefits of immigration in regard to economic growth, and simply spout concerns about foreigners stealing their jobs. However, it has been determined, both in the West and in Europe that immigration can add to economic prosperity. In 2014, approximately 70% of the immigration intake into Australia were of skilled workers, who filled jobs that couldn't be carried out by existing Australians; which challenges the perception that migration leads to job insecurity for those already residing in Australia. It is more of a risk in the West to not accept migrants, for a good percentage of those entering Australia are of a good working age, who can take over jobs of those who can no longer work. The same is to be said about Europe; many economists viewing immigration as an opportunity. Germany for example are on course to create about 650,000 new jobs this year; 100,000 of which will be filled by refugees, as their own natives cannot fill them all; in turn reducing the unemployment rate. President Trump publicly shared that he doesn't want to be like Europe in regard to migration, however, if America took a lesson from Europe, their own economy may flourish in the same way. It is safe to say that the perception of migration being a supposed threat to job security is based on false pretexts and perceptions; that again may be eliminated with proper education and less negative, bias rhetoric.
 

In aims to protect state security, through various means of stricter migrant policies and actions (such as the US' detention laws), Western states are compromising individual/human security, breaching UN conventions and policies, negating their previous obligations made to uphold human rights, and ultimately contributing to a humanitarian crisis. This makes redundant and highlights the hypocrisy of their statements regarding "doing what is humane and generous for an individual with ongoing needs." The US and Australia both agreed to conventions and protocol when it came refugees and those seeking asylum, as well as basic human rights outlined in the UDHR, Article 14. However, despite this initial recognition of rights, they continue to breach and violate the human dignity, rights and security of migrants, worsening this obvious humanitarian issue. A lot of attention is drawn to terrorism, extremism and violence when talking about security, as discussed earlier, however, in turn, human security is often forgotten and overlooked. But the further danger migrants face by being turned away by states or put into detention centres is the bigger issue. Many refugees and asylum seekers either die in transit, face discrimination in their new country, or are unable to receive the medical attention they require. This is a more legitimate cause for concern and security. Instead of further jeopardising innocent’s lives, by positing a claim to state protection, states must stop exploiting fear in order to justify rights violations. In comparison to America and Australia's constant neglect, and negative public sentiments about those seeking refuge and asylum, many European countries welcome refugees, expressing that it is "Europe's moral and legal duty, to receive refugees" and stop using terrorism as an excuse for not upholding human security.
 

Migration has come to be seen as a security issue in the West due to inaccurate, bias, often prejudice sentiments from medial and governmental sources, that paint the whole of migrants with the same brush; often linking migration with concepts of extremism and terrorism. This negative rhetoric in turn influences public opinions on diversity and gives the state an excuse to increase migrant restrictions, regardless of human/individual security that is threatened by doing so. The idea of threats to cultural identity and the economy are another reason why many believe it to be a security problem, however, taking into consideration the multiculturalism of Western societies, as well as the economic boosts that migration can offer, one can conclude that underlying motives, Islamophobia and bigotry often drive these sorts of perceptions. The big issue that must be addressed is the humanitarian crisis at hand, and the security of these individuals fleeing persecution, instability and conflict, instead of increasing state protection that has life threatening consequences, as well as breaching UN conventions and human rights.