Solidaritet möter säkerhet - Vad 'immigranterna' får representera i immigrationspolitisk diskurs

Sammanfattning: This essay concerns the notion of how immigration politics, defined as a political discursive structure that explains and justifies how and why the movement of people into a state's territory is restricted and controlled, has come to present its purpose not as solidarity with the 'immigrants' wanting to enter the state but as a protective measure for the state's citizens. By using discourse theory combined with theories from the International Relations field I attempt to explain why and how such a discourse positions 'immigrants' as a threat to the state. First, I concentrate on why an immigration politics discourse would position 'immigrants' as a threat. I argue that in order for people to construct their identity, the 'outside' what they "are not" has to be repressed. In the same way, the state has to dislocate the "outside" and create threats to uphold its supremacy. These boundaries are set to create a feeling of predictability and security, and ultimately they are a way of making peoples' "world" coherent. I therefore argue that both total solidarity with and total inclusion of the "outside", in this case the 'immigrants', are impossible. Second, I try to illustrate how such a discurse is constructed. I deconstruct the discourse on immigration in the US Senate during March and April 2006 and show that it articulates 'immigrants' as a threat in two ways: first as a threat to border security, which connect 'immigrants' with 'terrorism' and 'crime', second as an economical threat. I conclude with the hypothesis that the dislocation of the American liberal discourse by the 9/11 events exceeded the need for security and predictability and that articulating 'immigrants' as a threat is a way of restoring order in the suddenly incomprehensible world of the discourse.