of the cold war” 12 began creating the image of a threatening figure, a figure who “bore the
same base and threatening qualities said to produce instability and disorder in their place of
origin” in other words an economic and cultural threat. 13 , As such in the 21 st century, the
movement of refugees and migrants in general has become “increasingly characterised as a
security issue rather than one of protection.” 14 This change in attitude and the subsequent
securitization of refugee circulation can also be attributed to other factors such as
globalisation, the financial crisis and the ongoing conflicts in areas such as the Middle East.
Globalisation, through technological innovation in both transport and communication
technology and the relaxation of strict border control across borders once thought
impermeable, has incentivised proactive migration to the global North. It has also heavily
contributed to the ‘reactive’ movement of refugees, especially in the global South. For
example, the rapid economic and social change brought about by globalisation has also
generated massive insecurity and inequality with the “economic benefits of globalised
production… mainly accrued to privileged groups in the global North” 15 .
Furthermore, the overwhelming financial crisis and the continuation of global conflicts
have created the conditions within which refugees have either been labelled as a financial and
cultural burden or a physical threat to the population. Starting with the global recession, it can
be argued that the perceived threat from immigrants is larger “when the competition over
scarce resources is more salient” and that people have “stronger anti-immigration attitudes in
municipalities where unemployment is high.” It can be said that these two conditions are met
in the current financial climate. Additionally, this argument of refugees being a financial burden
has been adopted by populist and right-wing parties, incorporating it into anti-immigration
discourse. These factors have instigated a “general tightening of national asylum systems and
border control” 16 with an increasing emphasis on externalisation and external processing
centres. A recent example of this is the resurrection of the Nauru offshore processing plant,
whose return to operation was deemed necessary in order to combat large amounts of
maritime arrivals in Australia. Nauru represents an emerging model of refugee management
as it excludes refugees from the sovereign territory of the state denying the refugees the right
to make asylum applications. Further to this, the camp represents the continuing privatisation
of state responsibilities, such as refugee management, to large transactional corporations,
Thomas, Gammeltoft-Hansen. "International refugee law and refugee policy: The case of
deterrence policies." Journal of Refugee Studies 27, no. 4 (2014): 574-595, 576
13 Philip, Marfleet. “Refugees in a global era”. (Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 240
14 Jennifer, Hyndman, and Alison, Mountz. "Another brick in the wall? Neo‐refoulement and the
externalization of asylum by Australia and Europe." Government and Opposition 43, no. 2 (2008):
249-269, 250
15 Stephen, Castles. "Migration, crisis, and the global labour market." Globalizations 8, no. 3 (2011):
311-324, 313
16 Thomas, Gammeltoft-Hansen, 576
12
35