Framing forced migration in a changing world: a content analysis on the EU parliamentary questions

Abstract

The subject of return has been a salient topic in European public since the migration crisis in 2015. A recent literature addresses the heavy burden put on the shoulders on the EU member states bordering the Mediterranean. Another strand of new studies focuses on outsourcing the unpleasant task of return to neighbouring countries surrounding the “Fortress Europe”. Still, not much has been said on relevant political discussions within the EU. Reasons behind possible variations in framing return remains inconclusive. This paper first identifies patterns in debates on returning forced immigrants in political discussions within the European Parliament. The second part pursues providing nomothetic explanations by immigrants’ group and individual characteristics as well as ideological and national differences of MEPs into account. What are the main issue areas on the topic of return? How are problems defined and what are put forward as policy formulations? What is the role of party group’s ideologies in shaping relevant framings? Do MEPs coming from different countries, or geographical regions, frame asylum differently? Is there a tendency to keep asylum seekers with certain SES, countries, ethnic backgrounds, or sectarian identities while sending some others? To answer these questions, I conduct a qualitative content analysis on the parliamentary questions of MEPs between 2011 and 2019. Parliamentary questions are taken deliberately for enabling more freedom for individual politicians. The nested characteristics of the relevant content will be studied by considering change across important events such as the ‘migration crisis’ in 2015, signing re-admission treaties with neighbouring countries, national elections, international crises, and terrorist attacks.