Assessing surveillance in the European Union migration and asylum policies through MAXQDA
This article proposes a methodology-centered approach using MAXQDA qualitative data analysis software to examine and code EU migration and asylum policy texts, prioritizing the demonstration of the analytical process for understanding surveillance and disciplinary power over presenting empirical results.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In the modern world, governments often look at large groups of people not just as individuals with rights, but as populations to be managed, measured, and kept safe. This approach, known in academic circles as biopolitics, treats the human body as something that can be regulated for the sake of social order. When combined with the idea of the panopticon—a concept describing a system where people behave because they feel they are always being watched—these ideas suggest that power works best when it is invisible, constant, and embedded in daily life. Today, this kind of control is increasingly digital. Governments use cameras, databases, and biometric scanners to track movement, creating a reality where a person's identity is reduced to data points like fingerprints or facial scans. Understanding how these systems are built and justified is crucial, because the way a society talks about migration often determines how it treats the people seeking safety within its borders.
A team of researchers set out to examine exactly how the European Union constructs its migration and asylum policies through the language it uses. Instead of simply reading reports and news articles to form an opinion, they treated the text itself as a map of power. Using a specialized computer program designed to analyze language patterns, they systematically broke down forty-two documents, including twenty-one news articles and twenty-one reports from human rights organizations. The goal was to see how words are used to turn a humanitarian issue into a security problem. By tagging specific sentences with labels like "threat," "control," or "surveillance," the researchers could visualize how these concepts connect and reinforce one another, revealing the hidden logic behind the EU's border policies.
The analysis uncovered a clear and consistent pattern in how migration is discussed. The most frequent theme found in news articles was the framing of migration as a security threat. In these texts, the movement of people is rarely described as a search for safety; instead, it is linked to crime, terrorism, and the need for strict border defense. This language serves to justify the use of advanced surveillance tools, such as facial recognition and fingerprint scanning, which are presented as necessary measures to protect the public. The researchers found that this "security" narrative is tightly woven with the idea of discipline. Policies are described in terms of strict rules, mandatory checks, and the need to bring order to chaotic flows, effectively turning the management of human beings into a bureaucratic routine.
When the researchers looked at reports from human rights groups, a different but related picture emerged. While news articles focused on the theoretical need for security, these reports detailed the physical reality of that security on the ground. The most dominant theme here was identity and exclusion. The analysis showed that people are often categorized not just by their legal status, but by their race, ethnicity, or country of origin. This distinction creates a hierarchy where some groups are welcomed while others are treated as risks. The reports documented severe instances of oppression, including physical violence, degrading treatment, and the destruction of personal belongings like mobile phones. These accounts revealed that the abstract idea of "control" often translates into harsh, punitive actions against individuals who are already vulnerable.
The study also highlighted how the EU uses its borders as a testing ground for new laws and technologies. The researchers identified a pattern where migration policies are treated as a laboratory, with new regulations and digital systems being trialed and refined to manage populations more efficiently. This approach reduces the complex human experience of seeking asylum into a technical problem of data management and risk assessment. The analysis showed that the concept of "confinement" is central to this system. People are often held in closed centers, detention facilities, or isolated zones where their movement is strictly limited. These spaces are not just temporary holding areas; they function as places where the state exerts total control over an individual's life, often under the guise of maintaining public order.
One of the most significant findings was the disconnect between the EU's stated values and its actual practices. While the Union presents itself as a champion of human rights and the rule of law, the language used in its migration policies suggests a different priority. The researchers found that when it comes to borders, the discourse shifts entirely toward security and threat, effectively sidelining the principles of inclusion and protection. This shift is not accidental; it is a deliberate construction of power that defines who belongs and who does not. By analyzing the frequency and connection of specific words, the study demonstrated that the EU's migration regime is built on a foundation of surveillance, where the migrant body is transformed into an object to be monitored, categorized, and controlled.
The researchers concluded that this system is not merely a collection of laws or technologies, but a cohesive structure of power that operates through language. The way migration is talked about in reports and news creates a reality where exclusion and repression are seen as normal and necessary. The study suggests that to understand the true nature of these policies, one must look beyond the official statements and examine the underlying patterns of discourse that justify them. By using a methodical approach to analyze text, the researchers were able to show how the EU's migration policies function as a mechanism of social control, turning the act of crossing a border into a security issue and the people who cross it into subjects of constant surveillance. This work offers a clear view of how power is exercised in the modern world, not through force alone, but through the careful construction of the stories we tell about who we are and who we allow to stay.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.