Migrant Justice is Climate Justice: Dangers of Securitized Migration Narratives

Author: Miracle Tapia

September 9, 2025

[Image credit: Wikimedia]

Life-altering weather-related disasters are becoming more deadly, even more so when unequal economic and social systems are compounded with the widespread impacts of climate change. The consequences of ill-preparedness and misinformation costs lives. The fallout of climate change will certainly alter human mobility. However, latching climate policy to security narratives promotes dangerous anti-immigrant rhetoric, justifies the expansion of border militarization, and permits exclusionary climate policies because migration becomes classified as a once-in-a-lifetime crisis. Political narratives that treat migration as a security threat are based on false narratives. This misrepresents not only how climate change has impacted hundreds of marginalized people already, but also, the number of people who chose to migrate and their motives for doing so; making the already difficult journeys of migrants more dangerous by feeding xenophobic fears in host countries. 

We have a narrow and fixed understanding of migration that dictates the rights and privileges of people on the move. Climate change poses an inevitable question of adaptation to political and social frameworks used to understand migration. Popular narratives surrounding climate migration are marred through fear mongering and widespread popularized securitization narratives. The rise of far-right populist movement across Europe, India, the United States, and Latin America exploit the issue of migration to create an inexhaustible image of a threat to national safety, economic security and national identity (Department of Homeland Security, 2025; Squires et al., 2023; The Guardian, 2016; Wike et al., 2024). Similarly, well-meaning narratives that call policymakers to curb greenhouse gas emissions or invest in sustainable development in the Global South can be rooted in fears of mass climate induced exoduses to countries in the Global North (Ehui & Rigaud, 2022). 

Migration cannot be simplified to cause-and-effect. The choice to migrate is a complicated result of many factors impacting an individual's future prospects, including but not limited to political, economic, environmental, demographic, and cultural factors. Securitization narratives that criminalize migration rely on overly simplified definitions that link a single factor, for example climate change, to an automatic response. 

But migration has historically been a pillar of human society, and it is increasingly becoming a useful tool for communities to adapt to changing climates. Therefore, it is imperative to move beyond a cause-and-effect understanding of migration to propel social, academic, and political understanding towards forward-thinking resilience building policy. Repairing this flawed narrative is not only a call for compassion towards a human experience as natural as the right to breathe, but a necessary step in protecting the right to migrate now and in the next century. 

What is Climate Migration

The first use of a term linking migration to climate change-induced hazards can be attributed to the 1990 IPCC First Assessment Report. The report spurred a slew of new research and academic discourse to better understand the connection and impacts of climate change on human mobility at regional, national, and international levels. Later, research focused on the scale of changes in migration flows. In the early 2000s, claims began circulating that climate-induced migration would become one of the biggest challenges of the twenty-first century. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) asserted that “the ‘carrying capacity’ in large parts of the world will become compromised by climate change” (International Organization for Migration, 2008, p.9). These claims contributed to furthering research with interest in national security goals and policy frameworks to forecast types of climate migration, vulnerability assessments, resettlement plans, and human rights (Ghosh & Orchiston, 2022).  

Three factors shape the understanding and the rights granted to those on the move: geographic scale, temporal scale, and reason of migration. The geographic scale of migration is typically separated into two levels, international and internal migration. Crossing transnational borders invokes a set of internationally agreed upon rules meant to protect and regulate the movement of people. The United Nations (UN), the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and the International Labor Organization (ILO) are the main governing bodies orchestrating treaties and support for principles that become the foundation for member countries’ own immigration and human rights law. However, each member state holds the last word in terms of border regulation. 

The temporal scale of migration can be thought of as permanent and temporary migration, as reflected in the categorical distinction between someone seeking asylum and someone who is a temporary labor migrant. Though legally and socially these categories could not be more distinct, on the ground, the line between refugee and immigrant is not as clear. A relevant example is coastal Senegal, where due to overfishing from industrial foreign trawlers fishermen and their families rely on traveling to Mauritania to catch fish. In response, Mauritania has increased coastal border agents and increased surveillance at markets, leading to raids and signed deals with the European Union to keep migrants from traveling across the Atlantic to Europe. Those detained have reported being packed in prisons for days without sufficient food and water and being tortured. 

The term asylum seeker or refugee denotes an exclusive set of protections that are not accessible and not guaranteed to those whose persecution or danger is not officially recognized by The 1951 Refugee Convention, 1967 Protocol, or the 1969 OAU Refugee Convention. The 1951 Refugee Convention lays the foundation for international human rights law and migration law, that defines these categories. Adopted into international law at the end of World War II, this treaty aims to protect and guarantee the non-refoulement of people meeting the criteria of refugee, which in 1951 was defined as an individual that; 

“As a result of events occurring before  January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. (CH 1, Art. 1)”. 

This document has only been amended once, in the late 1960s by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. This amendment removed the geographic and temporal limits which originally were intended as an instrument to aid people fleeing from war in Europe. Instrumental to these definitions is the recognizable and targeted persecution because of identity. However, this understanding of drivers of migration and the institutions in place to safeguard human rights are ill equipped to adapt to the systemic and expansive threats without a singular identifiable persecutor, like climate change. 

The Construction of Migration as a Security Threat

The securitization of migration is a constructed framing of a human mobility into an existential threat. Movements across regional or transnational borders are posed as a threat to national security, society, and culture. Framing migration as a problematic result of climate change that weakens the very survival of a nation-state and justifies violent measures to ‘neutralize’ the perceived threat (Von Rosen, 2019). 

Securitization has made political and physical terrains more hostile across the U.S. and Europe. In the 1960s and 1970s, immigration began to increasingly be an issue of popular concern in Europe. More rhetoric began linking migration and “the destabilization of public order” (Huysmans, 2000, p.754). During this period, the European Economic Community (EEC) Council Regulation 1612/68 delineated the rights of migrants from member states and migrants from other countries. The regulation demarcated the privileges of  those categorized as “belonging” and those defined as “others.” (Huysmans, 2000). In 2015, the establishment of the EU Emergency Trust Fund (EUTF) externalized border control by heavily investing in law enforcement in non-EU countries.  The 2021 Neighborhood Development and International Cooperation Instrument, built on the financial investments of the EUTF, linked development efforts and their compliance with measures set to successfully reduce and manage out-migration from African countries (Napolitano, 2023). This is part of an increased effort to prevent those coming from African nations from entering EU nations. These investments include surveillance tools and the training of non-EU border enforcement agents, undermining the legal rights and protection of those seeking asylum by pushing them onto neighboring countries. 

In the Americas, an example of this is outsourcing and extending of borders is Mexico’s southern border. Since the early 2000s, the United States supported the deterrence of people immigrating the the U.S through The Mérida Initiative and further externalized the reach of the U.S border system with subsequent programs such as Programa Frontera Sur (Southern Border Program) that have financed and provided training and resources in collaboration with Customs and Border Patrol, the Transportation Security Administration and the U.S. Coast Guard (acrump, 2021; Kragt, 2019.). In the years following the signing of these programs, Mexico’s Secretaría de Gobernación (SEGOB) (Department of the Interior) dramatically increased the number of people they detained and deported, with a majority being of Central American origin. In 2024 alone, Mexico’s SEGOB has apprehended 1,234,698 people (UNIDAD DE POLÍTICA MIGRATORIA, & REGISTRO E IDENTIDAD DE PERSONAS, 2024). The securitization of migration bears a human cost, narratives of immigrants as a threat to national security threat are based on false claims of unprecedented levels of migration that place focus on reactionary policy that justifies the expansion of border militarization, which only creates more hazards and death (Irgil, 2024). 

Well Meaning Narratives and Ellusive Definitions

In 2023, 26.4 million people were internally displaced from their homes by natural disasters (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. Global Report on Internal Displacement 2024). The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that in the last decade, natural disasters and climate hazards have internally displaced 220 million people (USA for UNHCR, 2024). By 2050, the World Bank estimates that between 44 million and 216 million people will migrate within their country due to climate change (Clement,Viviane et al., 2021). However, the estimated figures for predicting climate migration vary greatly. 

[Image credit: https://www.internal-displacement.org/global-report/grid2024/]

But, what do these numbers mean? One very influential number has been 200 million. In an updated and widely cited report, Norman Myers, predicts that; “as many as 200 million people will be overtaken by sea-level rise and coastal flooding, by disruption of monsoon systems and other rainfall regimes, and by droughts of unprecedented severity and duration.” (Myers, 2002, p.609). These estimates are needed in policy making to assess the scale of an issue, appropriately develop responses, and to advocate for increased protections and climate action. However, these estimates have been demonstrated to be based on secondary sources with varying methodologies and definitions and rely on appeals to common sense that living in an ‘at-risk’ region would automatically cause people to leave. These figures do not account for differences in experienced vulnerability or implementation of climate change mitigation or adaptation policies that have greater potential for reducing people’s risk through access to adaptation infrastructure (Gemenne, 2011). 

One of the most widely shared fear-mongering migration narratives is the threat of ‘biblical-level mass migrations’ (The Guardian, 2016, para. 1) to inspire support for climate action. Even when this narrative is utilized as a strategy to lobby for decarbonization, for the increase of international aid to impacted communities, and for expansion of international laws to protect those displaced, it is still stigmatizing people on the move. Linking migration with threats to global peace and security creates more danger for those who migrate, those who stay, and even host communities. 

Climate immobility involves external forces that may influence a person’s ability and decision to stay. Involuntary immobility tends to include vulnerable populations without the means to pay upfront for visas, legal representation, or transportation. They may not have social networks to help guide them through the process of finding accommodation or a job in a new place. Gender also plays a role in a person’s ability to decide to migrate. Gendered social expectations and gender violence against women can hinder their mobility by limiting labor pathways, shaping migration aspirations, and fear of exploitation within detention systems or human trafficking (International Organization for Migration, 2024). In Bangladesh, some women avoided evacuating cyclone areas because they feared for their safety in shelters (Zickgraf, 2023). There are also cases where individuals who have access to the capital, infrastructure, and social networks to migrate decide to stay as well.

Migration is multi-causal and the lack of a unanimous definition for ‘climate migration’ and the increased militarization of borders is only increasing the demand for clandestine migration operations. This has not only created riskier conditions for travelers but also has made it more difficult to estimate accurate figures on migration flows. Thus, a unified definition of ‘climate migration’ becomes more elusive. More so, it should be noted that contrary to popular belief, many people want to stay near their homes despite harsh environmental conditions (Culbertson, 2024). The warming planet is going to cause more natural disasters with increased frequency and intensity. Climate, development, and immigration policy need more precise measurements and definitions to be able to more accurately assess the vulnerability of different regions. This in part could be addressed by focusing on regional scales, this way development policies take local considerations and increase access to public infrastructure without projecting broad generalizations. 

Migration is a Key and Necessary Adaptation Tool

Temporary and labor migration flows, permanent migration flows, displacement, relocations, and even the choice to stay are all impacted by people’s ability to access a range of legal tools, capital, and social networks to migrate and develop safe adaptations to continue living elsewhere.

Comprehensive development policies should be a part of sustainable planning and forward thinking migration policy. Investing in resilient infrastructure that mitigates the risk associated with both short-term climate change, such as weather related disasters, and longer-term degradation, like soil nutrient depletion, enables people to better access tools for adaptation if they decide to stay at home. Still, international protections are essential to support those who wish to migrate and those already on the move in precarious situations, such as people living in climate-vulnerable refugee resettlements. Since ‘climate migration’ is a very broad term that, to date, still encapsulates displacement, short-term migration, resettlement, and everything in between, international priorities should facilitate the temporary, circular, and permanent migration created in collaboration with countries most affected by climate change.

In order to create sustainable communities, migrants’ rights need to be protected and expanded. Investments need to be made without the priority of  keeping “others” out, but to increase the adaptation capacity of communities. The utilization of immigrants as a scapegoat to strengthen a political platform or to create social impetus for climate policy, is a repetition of systemic injustices and does not effectively increase climate action. More accurate representations of the impacts of climate change on migration will lead to the understanding that mobility has always been a tool humans have used for adaptation and assert that a human rights perspective protects the right to move as well as the right to stay.

---

Glossary

• Asylum- A form of protection granted to someone who has left their home country due to fear of persecution based on identity, race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; typically this person resides within the country they are applying for asylum.

• Circular Migration- Term describing the repetitive movement of people from their usual place of residence to a new region or new country, people maintain connection to both their homes and their new places of residence.

• Climate Change- Term referring to the long-term changes in average weather patterns and temperature in a region.

• Displaced- Term describing the movement of people from their homes or usual place of residence due to factors out of their control; usually described as short-term. 

• Forced/Involuntary Migration- Term used to describe the decision to migrate that is driven by factors beyond the control of the people migrating.

• Immobility- Action that occurs when people do not move away from their homes, either due to constraints or by choice

• Internal Migration- Action that occurs when people stay within their country of residence but travel across towns, cities, and states. 

• Mobility- A general term used to describe different types of movement flows of people and migration types; encompasses both voluntary and forced migration types. 

• Non-refroulment- A principle grounded in the Convention Relation to the Status of Refugees that prohibits the deportation of a refugee, unless that person has been deemed a threat to national security.

• Out Migration-  Term describing the movement of people from their usual place of residence, out of a region or country. 

• Refugee- A form of protection granted to someone who has left their home country due to fear of persecution based on identity, race, religion, or political opinion; usually this person resides outside of the country they are applying for asylum. 

• Securitization - The process by which a topic or issue becomes framed as an existential threat and justifies extraordinary measures 

• Temporary Migration- Term describing the movement of people away from their home for a limited amount of time, usually with the intention that at the end of that time period they will return home or move to a third region or country. 

• Voluntary Migration- Term used to describe the decision to migrate that is driven by factors completely within the control of the people migrating.

---

Sources

1. Acrump. (2021, September 7). The Merida Initiative. U.S. Embassy & Consulates in Mexico. https://mx.usembassy.gov/the-merida-initiative/

2. Clement, V., Rigaud, K. K., de Sherbinin, A., Bryan, J., Adamo, S., Schewe J., Sadiq, N., & Shabahat, E. (2021). Groundswell Part 2: Acting on Internal Climate Migration. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/2c9150df-52c3-58ed-9075-d78ea56c3267

3. Culbertson, S. (2024, November 19). Understanding Climate Migration. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2024/11/understanding-climate-migration.html

4. Department of Homeland Security. (2025, July 20). Six Months of Keeping America Safe Under President Trump and Secretary Noem | Homeland Security. Dhs.gov. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/07/20/six-months-keeping-america-safe-under-president-trump-and-secretary-noem

5. Gemenne, F. (2011). Why the numbers don’t add up: A review of estimates and predictions of people displaced by environmental changes. Global Environmental Change, 21, S41–S49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.09.005

6. Ghosh, R. C. & Orchiston, C. (2022). A systematic review of climate migration research: Gaps in existing literature. SN Social Sciences, 2(5), 47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00341-8

7. Huysmans, J. (2000). The European Union and the Securitization of Migration. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(5), 751–777. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5965.00263

8. International Organization for Migration (2008). MRS No. 31- Migration and Climate Change. In I. Pinto-Dobering (Ed.), (Vol. 31, pp. 1–64). International Organization for Migration. https://publications.iom.int/books/mrs-no-31-migration-and-climate-change

9. International Organization for Migration. (2024). Chapter 6 Gender and Migration: Trends, Gaps and Urgent Action (World Migration Report). International Organization for Migration. https://worldmigrationreport.iom.int/what-we-do/world-migration-report-2024-chapter-6/beyond-numbers-gender-dimensions-throughout-migration-cycle

10. IPCC & WMO (Eds.). (1992). Climate change: The 1990 and 1992 IPCC assessments, IPCC first assessment report overview and policymaker summaries and 1992 IPPC supplement. IPCC.

11. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/climate-change-the-ipcc-1990-and-1992-assessments/

12. Irgil, E. (2024). THE MIGRATION AGREEMENTS IN EURO-MEDITERRANEAN RELATIONS FOR A GEOPOLITICAL EUROPE. 70. https://www.euromesco.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/EuroMeSCo-Paper-70.pdf

13. Kragt, A. (2019). Externalization of U.S.-Mexico Border: Obscuring Accountability and Implications for Migrants. Center for Immigration and Policy Research. https://cipr.du.edu/content/externalization-us-mexico-border-obscuring-accountability-and-implications-migrants

14. Myers, N. (2002). Environmental refugees: A growing phenomenon of the 21st century. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 357(1420), 609–613. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2001.0953

15. Napolitano, A., (2023, July). Exporting Surveilance Technology to MENA. Euro Med. 

16. https://euromedrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Exporting-surveillance-technology-to-MENA.pdf

17. Ehui, S. K., & Rigaud, K. K. (2022, March 17). Climate migration—Deepening our solutions. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/climate-migration-deepening-our-solutions/

18. Squires, N., Barnes, J., & Crisp, J. (2023, March 18). Giorgia Meloni warns Italy faces summer ‘invasion’ of migrants and refugees. The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/03/18/giorgia-meloni-warns-italy-faces-summer-invasion-migrants-refugees/

19. The Guardian. (2016, July 27). Hungarian prime minister says migrants are “poison” and “not needed.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/26/hungarian-prime-minister-viktor-orban-praises-donald-trump

20. UNIDAD DE POLÍTICA MIGRATORIA, REGISTRO E IDENTIDAD DE PERSONAS. (2024). Boletín Mensual de Estadísticas Migratorias 2024. Subsecretaría de Derechos Humanos, Población y Migración. http://www.politicamigratoria.gob.mx/work/models/PoliticaMigratoria/CEM/Estadisticas/Boletines_Estadisticos/2024/Boletin_2024.pdf

21. USA for UNHCR. (2024, November 12). How climate change impacts refugees and displaced communities. https://www.unrefugees.org/news/how-climate-change-impacts-refugees-and-displaced-communities/

22. von Rosen, J. (2019). The Securitization of Migration as a Threat to Liberal, Democratic Societies. Sicherheit Und Frieden (S+F) / Security and Peace, 37(1), 35–40.

23. Zarhloule, Y. (2025). Migrants at the Gate: Europe Tries to Curb Undocumented Migration. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/02/migrants-at-the-gate-europe-tries-to-curb-undocumented-migration?lang=en

24. Wike, R., Fagan, M., Clancy, L.  (2024, December 11). Global Elections in 2024: What We Learned in a Year of Political Disruption. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/12/11/global-elections-in-2024-what-we-learned-in-a-year-of-political-disruption/

25. Zickgraf, C. (2023, October 3). Where Are All the Climate Migrants? Explaining Immobility amid Environmental Change. Migrationpolicy.Org. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/climate-change-trapped-populations