Halle Master Duo.Pdf (1.153Mb)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The Paradox of Protection A discourse analysis of Norwegian parliamentary debates on refugee and asylum policy Ingeborg Bakk Halle Master’s Thesis in Peace and Conflict Studies Department of Political Science UNIVERSITY OF OSLO Spring 2019 The Paradox of Protection A discourse analysis of Norwegian parliamentary debates on refugee and asylum policy I © Ingeborg Bakk Halle 2019 The Paradox of Protection Ingeborg Bakk Halle http://www.duo.uio.no/ Print: Reprosentralen, University of Oslo Word count: 31 276 II Abstract During the last decades, the number of immigrants and refugees has increased worldwide. Simultaneously, immigration policy has become one of the most contested and controversial policy fields. This became especially apparent in 2015, when an unprecedented situation unfolded, known as the Syrian ‘refugee crisis’, widely considered to be the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War. In the wake of this development, my thesis examines how members of the Norwegian parliament have ascribed meaning to the field of refugee and asylum policy in an eight-year period between 2008 and 2016. In addition, the analysis focuses on whether the Syrian refugee crisis of 2015 had an impact on the collective meaning-making, and in what ways this shaped political outcome in the period of analysis. Contradicting imperatives placed on the governments of modern liberal states make the governance of immigration policy difficult, controversial and contested. The so-called liberal paradox of migration constitutes the theoretical perspective in this thesis, suggesting underlying reasons for the contestation in the parliamentary debate on refugee and asylum policy. The period of analysis encompasses two large influxes of immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers in 2008 and in 2015, the latter being unprecedented in terms of magnitude and impact. Through a discourse analytical approach, collective meaning-making is uncovered, revealing what discourses were dominant in the Norwegian parliament. The analysis shows that a ‘humanitarian’ discourse, focusing on legal considerations and moral responsibilities, was hegemonic up until the emergence of the ‘refugee crisis’. The drastic increase of refugees and immigrants shifted the discursive hierarchy – placing a discourse focusing on the rights of ‘real refugees’ on top. The findings suggest that a discursive change took place in the wake of the refugee crisis of 2015, which was followed by several restrictions in Norwegian asylum policy. Finally, as discourse analysis offers a useful vantage point for hypothesis-generation, reflections on the main findings provide implications for further research. III IV Acknowledgements Writing a master’s thesis has been an exciting, challenging, and at times frustrating process. Upon finishing, I must thank the ones who helped me get through it. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Guri Tyldum for interesting discussions, suggestions and advice during the writing of my thesis. Likewise, I must thank my co- supervisor Øivind Bratberg for helpful and highly constructive feedback, always including encouraging words. Next, my classmates in the PECOS-programme deserve a big thank you – for much-needed distraction in the form of countless quizzes, game nights and long lunch breaks. A special thanks to Sofia for giving me excellent feedback throughout the entire writing process. To Ferdinand for proof-reading and for making sure I showed up early (almost) every day. Thank you to Eirin, Kathi and Fride for reading through my thesis towards the end, providing me with valuable feedback and brilliant comments. My friends, both here in Oslo and back home, deserve a thank you for all their support and encouragement. Thank you to my parents for making it so easy for me to come home and take a much-needed breath every once in a while. Last, I want to thank Philip, for all your consolation when I felt like giving up, and your endless reassurances. Your patience is remarkable. Any mistakes or misconceptions in this thesis are my own. V VI Table of Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Research Question ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.2.1 Scope ...................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2.2 Contribution to the field ......................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Analytical approach and main findings .................................................................................... 5 1.4 Structure of the thesis ................................................................................................................. 6 2 The Liberal Paradox of Migration ...................................................................................... 7 2.1 What is the Liberal Paradox? .................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Nationhood and Constitutionalism ............................................................................................ 9 2.2.1 Nationhood ............................................................................................................................. 9 2.2.2 Constitutionalism .................................................................................................................. 10 2.3 Clarification of terms ................................................................................................................ 12 2.3.1 The Liberal State .................................................................................................................. 12 2.3.2 Immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers ............................................................................ 12 2.4 Contextualising the Liberal Paradox ....................................................................................... 14 3 Refugee and asylum policy in Norway .............................................................................. 16 3.1 The Refugee Convention ........................................................................................................... 16 3.2 Development of Norwegian refugee and asylum policy ......................................................... 17 3.3 Restrictions in asylum policies 2008-2016 ............................................................................... 18 3.3.1 The Storskog case ................................................................................................................. 20 3.3.2 Removal of the reasonableness criterion and ‘the October Children’ .................................. 21 4 Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 24 4.1 Social Constructivism ................................................................................................................ 25 4.2 What is discourse? ..................................................................................................................... 26 4.3 What is discourse analysis? ...................................................................................................... 26 4.3.1 Approaches to discourse analysis ......................................................................................... 27 4.4 Challenges and strengths .......................................................................................................... 29 4.4.1 Reliability and validity – impossible standards for discourse analysis? ............................... 29 4.4.2 Lost in translation? ............................................................................................................... 30 4.4.3 Potential for hypothesis-generation ...................................................................................... 31 4.4.4 Cultural competence ............................................................................................................. 31 4.5 Data selection ............................................................................................................................. 32 4.5.1 Overview of selected debates ............................................................................................... 34 4.6 Coding the data material .......................................................................................................... 34 4.7 Analytical tools .......................................................................................................................... 35 VII 4.7.1 Presupposition and predicate analysis .................................................................................. 36 4.7.2 Intertextuality ....................................................................................................................... 36 5 Analysis of parliamentary debates ..................................................................................... 38 5.1. The impact of the Syrian ‘refugee crisis’ of 2015 .................................................................. 38 5.2 Dominant discourses ................................................................................................................. 40 5.3 Debate, April 2008 We must keep building on Norway’s humanitarian position .............