border control as the solution has been naturalised. Correspondingly, increasing border control is presented as the answer, when we want to protect the internal. The naturalisation of border control being an effective measure and the primary solution is very prominent in the articles dominated by the discourse on border control. Because the discourses retain this internal focus, the question of asylum is not a question of the need for protection, but has to a larger extend become a question of which consequences asylum seekers pose on our own national society or the European society. It can be argued that the tendency to make the question of asylum a question about the protection of the national or European society, as well as the naturalisation of more efficient border control as the necessary solution, turn the question of asylum in Europe into a non-question. Because if the logic is proposed so that asylum and immigration will undermine and destroy the Danish society, then the answer whether or not to grant asylum tends to be pre-given. Hence, the research project argues that the naturalisation of border control indirectly categorises asylum seekers as a threat to society and when asylum seekers are presented as a threat to society, then it seems natural to be opposing asylum. On the grounds of this discussion the three elements present in the discourses - Denmark as the main focus, asylum seekers being perceived as culturally different and border control accentuated as the only solution is establishing a focus that is very focused on the internal consequences the asylum issue pose on Denmark. 5.2.4 Focus on Internal Consequences in the Objectives of the CEAS? The CEAS can be said to entail elements that benefit the Member States: “(…) organising support for Member States experiencing particular pressure” (Commission of the European communities 2008 l. 15-16). The CEAS furthermore, presents objectives focusing on the relation between the Member States: “include rules on the determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application”. (Commission of the European communities 2008 l. 17-18). The CEAS can thus be argued to share the inward-looking approach to the issue of asylum, which was also present in the media discourses, especially the discourse on border control. The CEAS is thus focusing on the
border control as the solution has been naturalised. Correspondingly, increasing border control is presented as the answer, when we want to protect the internal. The naturalisation of border control being an effective measure and the primary solution is very prominent in the articles dominated by the discourse on border control. Because the discourses retain this internal focus, the question of asylum is not a question of the need for protection, but has to a larger extend become a question of which consequences asylum seekers pose on our own national society or the European society. It can be argued that the tendency to make the question of asylum a question about the protection of the national or European society, as well as the naturalisation of more efficient border control as the necessary solution, turn the question of asylum in Europe into a non-question. Because if the logic is proposed so that asylum and immigration will undermine and destroy the Danish society, then the answer whether or not to grant asylum tends to be pre-given. Hence, the research project argues that the naturalisation of border control indirectly categorises asylum seekers as a threat to society and when asylum seekers are presented as a threat to society, then it seems natural to be opposing asylum. On the grounds of this discussion the three elements present in the discourses - Denmark as the main focus, asylum seekers being perceived as culturally different and border control accentuated as the only solution is establishing a focus that is very focused on the internal consequences the asylum issue pose on Denmark. 5.2.4 Focus on Internal Consequences in the Objectives of the CEAS? The CEAS can be said to entail elements that benefit the Member States: “(…) organising support for Member States experiencing particular pressure” (Commission of the European communities 2008 l. 15-16). The CEAS furthermore, presents objectives focusing on the relation between the Member States: “include rules on the determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application”. (Commission of the European communities 2008 l. 17-18). The CEAS can thus be argued to share the inward-looking approach to the issue of asylum, which was also present in the media discourses, especially the discourse on border control. The CEAS is thus focusing on the
European_Solidarity_.docx