Host nations have historically seen migration as both an opportunity and a threat. In the former case, migration has often been seen as a potential stimulus to economic development. In the latter case, there has always been concern over how migration might negatively impact a nation’s language, culture and politics.

In trying to balance these perspectives, governments have traditionally developed policies that not only try to modulate migration flows into their territories, but also the extent to which migrants are allowed to be absorbed into a host society. In the case of Western Europe such policies have been channeled by two distinct approaches to integration. Proponents of assimilation, for example, have consistently called for the gradual integration of ethnic minorities into a nation’s dominant culture. On the other hand, multicultural views of migration, or at least the views of a specific school of multiculturalism, have gained momentum since the 1970s. Seen from the perspective of this latter school, migrant communities should be woven into the fabric of a society without necessarily asking them to lose (or even “compromise”) their distinct ethnic and cultural identities.

Because of increased economic instability, a decline in state-based threats, the growth of the “open borders” movement, etc., the above views towards immigration have grown less tidy. Terrorist attacks such as the Madrid bombings of 2004 have sparked a major reconfiguration of traditional migration policy debates – i.e., they have become increasingly securitized. Diasporas, minority ethnic or religious communities and those who join them more easily from abroad are now seen, at least in some eyes, as potential security threats rather than as sources of social rejuvenation and prosperity.

In order to determine if the linking of demography, migration and security is conceptually legitimate or not, we begin our week-long focus on this issue by providing a ‘by-the-numbers’ portrait of modern migration patterns and trends. This will be followed by an overview of why transnational migration is, on occasion, perceived by host societies in negative ways. This overview, in turn, will then set the scene for a debate on whether the securitization of transnational migration is both a legitimate and viable conceptual lens to use when considering this issue. Finally, we will close the week out by looking at how international actors develop and implement security-oriented migration policies. On Thursday we will consider how the European Union has attempted to cope with the perceived threats posed by migrants who have escaped the worst excesses of the Arab Spring. We will then close our investigation on Friday by looking at attempts to link social and economic development to the migration patterns and security dynamics of the Central and Horn of Africa regions.