Manufacturing Migration Threats: Collective Trauma, Postcolonial Legacies, and the Politics of Fear

Across Europe and the United States, migration is increasingly framed as an existential threat. This article examines how states weaponize collective trauma, historical insecurity, and postcolonial legacies to justify militarized borders, mass surveillance, and the erosion of civil liberties. It combines postcolonial theory, cognitive psychology, and critical security studies with empirical data and examples from the U.S., Europe, and Israel to examine how migration is securitized through socially constructing fear.

Keywords: Migration, postcolonial theory, cognitive psychology, critical security studies, militarization, securitization, fear-driven governance.

Migration has always been a marker of human freedom—yet today, in Western politics, it is portrayed as one of society’s greatest threats (de Haas, H. 2024). Across Europe and the United States, narratives of invasion, cultural erosion, and criminality have become central to debates about borders and citizenship. Empirical evidence, however, consistently contradicts these fears: research demonstrates no causal link between migration and increased crime or terrorism (Walczak, 2018; Dreher, 2020; Light & Thomas, 2022). The perception of migrants as a danger is therefore a constructed political tool rather than a reflection of reality.

This essay argues that the militarization and securitization of migration are responses not to objective threats but to deeper, unresolved anxieties rooted in collective trauma and the legacies of colonial domination. Policies that fortify borders, expand surveillance, or criminalize mobility do not create safety; they manufacture fear, fracture societies, and obscure systemic failures. Migration becomes a scapegoat, deflecting attention from domestic and global inequalities. By tracing the historical, psychological, and political mechanisms that construct this threat, this paper highlights the urgent need for a postcolonial, human-centered framework—one that prioritizes dignity, justice, and sustainable peace over fear-driven governance.

Colonial Legacies

Postcolonial theory reminds us that the wealth of the “developed” world was not self-generated. It was extracted—through slavery, colonization, and the violent reordering of space, people, and resources. The Global North once moved freely through the Global South under the euphemism of “exploration,” and manifest destiny—seizing land and labor without consent. Now, when people from those formerly colonized regions move in reverse—seeking safety, dignity, or opportunity—they are branded as invaders.

Frantz Fanon described the colonial world as “a world divided into compartments”—a structure that continues to shape the present. Migration rights are not distributed evenly; they are mediated by race, class, and geopolitical interests. As E. Tendayi Achiume argues, “whiteness confers privileges of international mobility and migration. And proximity to whiteness calibrates these privileges” (2022). Western nations, swift to welcome white Ukrainian refugees, simultaneously subject African, Latin American, and Middle Eastern migrants to inhumane conditions and hostile rhetoric.

The racialized logic behind this was laid bare by former Bulgarian Prime Minister Kiril Petkov when he justified opening the border to Ukrainian refugees: “These are not refugees we are used to…these people are European. These people are intelligent, they are educated…This is not the refugee wave we have been used to, people we were not sure about their identity, people with unclear pasts, who could have been terrorists.” Bulgaria, along with Hungary, is among the countries identified by Walczak as having high levels of anti-immigrant sentiment despite a lack of direct exposure to terrorist threats. This contradiction may be rooted in the region’s historical memory of Ottoman rule—suggesting how historical trauma continues to influence contemporary migration politics.

Paul Gilroy’s concept of postcolonial melancholia (2005) captures the root of this contradiction: the West mourns the loss of empire without reckoning with its lasting consequences. Migrants are thus viewed not as victims of global inequality, but as threats to be contained. The migrant becomes the postcolonial subject who radically contests the space they were once confined to (Ponzanesi 2016).

Furthermore current migration policies entrench global inequalities resulting from imperialism, “though factors as restrictive as Ethnic selection like the White Australia policy do not determine migration now generally, giving priority to the more educated, technically skilled, politically relevant or beneficial and wealthy is no less reflective of a willingness to restrict migration. It is this (restriction) by the wealthy states that deprive the poor and the vulnerable from the low- and middle-income countries, for whom, globalization was envisaged to work. The unavailability of legal and protected immigration opportunities for the poor and vulnerable not only is contrary to the principle of equal opportunities but also fuels illegal immigration” (Rainar, Kumar, 2023).

Neuroplasticity: The Power of Perception

Well into the 20th century, the dominant view in Western psychology was one of biological determinism: the belief that psychological functions were entirely driven by innate biological impulses. This “machine-paradigm” of human reactions is the assumption that governments of past and present operate from. Crime or mental illness for example is rarely addressed through comprehensive understanding of context, instead treated as a symptom of human inadequacy, something to be managed and treated—often through securitization and militarization. In a study by Hege Kolstad, he highlights research from Lev Vygotsky, arguing in the existence of lower and higher forms of human consciousness. The former being based in our animalistic instincts (biological), and the latter one formed through cultural functions. According to Vygotsky, “each individual consciousness is built from the outside through relations with others” (Kolstad 2012).

Moreover, “perception, giving meaning to sense impressions, is a fundamental capacity of humans; it represents the relationship to the “outside” world” (Kolstad 2012). And in the digital age, it is algorithmically reinforced. Social media platforms, driven by profit rather than truth, amplify narratives of threat and violence—revealing more often than not, perceptions of the world are formed through extremism rather than real experience. This is illustrated in a study by Walczak and Lampas, researching the extent of the refugee-related threat being a social construct. They found “the highest share of negative attitudes was observed in countries that did in fact not experience jihadist attacks, which, to some extent, can be explained by the dominant political rhetoric or shared ethnic prejudices” (2020). In other words, there is no correlation with real experiences, pointing to the conclusion that the refugee-related threat of terrorism is a constructed social problem.

This distortion is politically expedient. From Viktor Orbán’s Hungary to the United States under Donald Trump, migration has become the perfect scapegoat for domestic insecurity. Rather than addressing inequality, climate collapse, or state violence, governments divert public anger toward those least responsible and least able to defend themselves. This “othering” fractures social cohesion and redefines national identity along lines of exclusion.

Collective Trauma and the Counterproductive Nature of Safety Through Militarization

It is in human nature to want safety through certainty. Trauma has always left traces. In the aftermath of 9/11, Western nations rewrote their legal and psychological structures around fear. As Nasciutti and Rahbari-Jawoko argue in their psychological and social analysis of 9/11, collective trauma did not merely result in temporary emotional harm — it altered the way people see, feel, and belong. It reshaped identities, and with them, the political parameters of acceptability. Fear, once private and fleeting, was rendered public and permanent, “the enemy from within.” This incident produced “global technological advancements particularly in military, military tactics, the nature of war, and surveillance; it influenced the networking of population intelligence, mapping, and sharing of civilian data with allies; transference of power to far right politicians in a number of countries; it advanced national border controls and as a result further restricted immigration and refugees processes in the leading Western migrant-receiving countries; further exacerbated environmental problems; led to the empowerment of social media; and decreased dialogue and critical thinking due to greater prevalence of fake news” (Nascuitti, Jawoko 2021).

Dr. Angi Yoder–Maina underscores the danger of unaddressed collective trauma, “chronic violence inflicts deep wounds not just on individuals but on the social fabric of their community. Collective traumas from chronic violence hinder development, erode trust, and perpetuate cycles of violence within these communities. Without addressing these underlying wounds, communities remain susceptible to future conflict” (2024).

For those forced to flee war or poverty, militarized borders and hostile host states risk physical harm, compound trauma, and erode dignity—reproducing the very cycles of violence that forced their movement in the first place. Moreover, poor conditions—paired with social isolation and systemic injustice—create the very conditions that make radicalization more likely (Findley et al., 2013). Tensions arise through dialogue seeded with misinformation misconstruing the humanity and culture of immigrant communities. The securitization of migration is not just ineffective—it is dangerously counterproductive. It feeds the narrative that migrants are inherently violent or culturally incompatible. Islam is painted as antithetical to Western values. Poverty is equated with criminality. And the West, unwilling to confront its role in destabilizing the Global South, and environmental destruction demands that migrants assimilate to a fictional ideal of “white civility.” This moral hierarchy is not only historically false, but politically incendiary.

The Real Threat: Domestic Extremism and Double Standards

Despite the fearmongering, terrorism from foreign-born individuals remains statistically insignificant. According to data compiled by the CATO Institute (2019), the annual likelihood of an American dying in an attack committed by a foreign-born terrorist between 1975 and 2017 was approximately 1 in 3.8 million. The probability of being injured was similarly low, at roughly 1 in 678,399. Notably, in 27 of those 43 years, there were no recorded deaths in the United States attributed to foreign-born terrorist attacks.

Yet political narratives invert this reality as “far-right terrorism has significantly outpaced terrorism from other types of perpetrators, including from far-left networks and individuals inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. Right-wing attacks and plots account for the majority of all terrorist incidents in the United States since 1994, and the total number of right-wing attacks and plots has grown significantly during the past six years. Right-wing extremists perpetrated two thirds of the attacks and plots in the United States in 2019 and over 90 percent between January 1 and May 8, 2020” (CSIS 2020).

These figures reveal a striking disconnect between perceived and actual risk—a gap largely sustained by politicized narratives and fear-based media coverage. The consistent overrepresentation of foreign-born terrorism in public discourse has cultivated a disproportionate sense of threat, often divorced from factual context. This phenomenon aligns with what scholars of critical security studies identify as “securitization”: the process by which political actors construct an issue as an existential threat, enabling extraordinary measures and circumventing normal democratic deliberation (Buzan et al., 1998).

Moreover, the disproportionate attention afforded to foreign-born terrorism obscures the far more statistically significant threat posed by domestic, particularly right-wing, extremism. It also legitimizes policies that target migrants through increased surveillance, detention, and border militarization—despite there being no demonstrable link between migration and elevated terrorism risk. In this sense, the securitization of migration is less a response to empirical danger than a reflection of deeper sociopolitical anxieties: about identity, cultural change, and the legacy of Western dominance in a rapidly globalizing world.

Furthermore, in a 2025 Fox News interview following the death of Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump dismissed concerns about political violence, stating, “I couldn’t care less,” and claimed that “the radicals on the right…don’t want to see crime.” He subsequently redirected the discussion toward condemning transgender individuals, immigrants, and protestors, framing them as threats to social order. Despite addressing the issue of political violence, Trump simultaneously employs inflammatory language against marginalized groups, asserting that “the radicals on the left are the problem… they want men in women’s sports… they want transgender for every one. They want open borders.” This rhetoric reframes systemic discrimination as moral defense, while perpetuating harmful stereotypes and legitimizing exclusionary policies.

Ultimately, the persistence of the foreign-born terrorist narrative speaks not to its factual accuracy, but to its utility as a political instrument. It permits governments to consolidate power, justify exclusionary migration policies, and redirect public attention away from systemic domestic failures. In doing so, it distorts public understanding of security and undermines the possibility of evidence-based policy-making rooted in human rights and proportionality.

Manufactured Consent and the Surveillance State

Despite empirical evidence that domestic, right-wing extremism poses a far greater threat than foreign-born terrorism (CSIS, 2020), state apparatuses disproportionately target migrants under the guise of national security. Under the Trump administration, this is evident in the expansion of ICE operations, National Guard deployments, and surveillance technologies such as Palantir, facial recognition, and biometric tracking. Framed as necessary for public safety, these measures function primarily to criminalize dissent and marginalize vulnerable populations.

This dynamic exemplifies Chomsky and Herman’s idea of manufactured consent (1988): fear is mobilized to legitimize policies that would otherwise face public resistance. The result is a securitized state in which civil liberties are subordinated to a politically engineered perception of threat. In this context, migration is not merely a policy issue but a tool through which fear is mobilized, borders are militarized, and civil liberties are curtailed. The rise of the surveillance state is thus not a neutral or technologically inevitable development but a politically engineered response to perceived disorder—one deeply racialized, selectively enforced, and normatively justified through securitized language.

This securitization becomes most dangerous when it converges with emotional shock events or isolated acts of violence. In the case of Iryna Zarutska, a Ukrainian woman attacked by Decarlos Brown Jr.—a Black man experiencing a mental health crisis—the incident was framed not as an indictment of the growing mental health crisis or the structural violence facing Black Americans, but instead as a cautionary tale about the dangers of immigration. The public discourse surrounding the event, fueled by right-wing outlets, elided the attacker’s U.S. citizenship and mental illness, instead using the crime as a rhetorical opportunity to critique migration and reassert ethno-nationalist concerns.

Concerningly, as the outrage and calls for the death penalty for Brown grew, Tesla CEO Elon Musk also joined in, saying that cases with clear guilt should be carried out without delay. “Death penalty cases where there is unequivocal guilt should move forward immediately,” he wrote. This reframing reveals a broader trend: securitization functions not through empirical risk, but through symbolic manipulation of public trauma and moral anxiety (Huysmans 2006).

The asymmetry in public outrage is particularly striking. The Trump administration repeatedly condemned protests against systemic racism and state violence—deploying federal agents and tear gas—while simultaneously defending figures on the far right under the banner of “free speech.” The killing of Charlie Kirk, for instance, was followed by intense media coverage and political mobilization. In contrast, systemic acts of violence against immigrants, refugees, or racialized minorities routinely fail to provoke similar outrage. When asked about right-wing terrorism, as noted, Trump deflected accountability. This rhetorical sleight reveals how securitization is not only a material process but a discursive one—constructing categories of threat and innocence in ways that reflect racially populist ideologies rather than objective risk.

Israel, too, offers a case study in hyper-securitization. Long presented as a model of border defense and technological innovation, the Israeli state has developed a surveillance regime that targets Palestinians and critics of state policy, often under the pretext of counterterrorism. Biometric databases, predictive policing, and the restriction of protest movements have become normalized. The logic of exception—the suspension of rights in the name of security—has metastasized, and similar tactics are increasingly exported to or replicated by other states, including the United States (Zureik & Lyon 2012).

Crucially, the public’s psychological acquiescence to these measures is not accidental. As cognitive psychology suggests, in moments of heightened uncertainty, humans exhibit a cognitive bias toward authority, order, and perceived safety—even at the cost of civil liberties (Kahneman, 2011). The collective trauma induced by decades of terrorism, economic insecurity, and social fragmentation has produced a fertile environment for securitization. As a result, policies that would have once provoked alarm—such as indefinite detention, biometric surveillance, or military deployment in domestic spaces—are increasingly accepted as common-sense solutions to complex social problems.

Yet this framework is counterproductive to peace and public safety. By redirecting social frustration toward marginalized groups and embedding discriminatory assumptions into technological systems, securitization inflames societal tensions. It erodes trust, deepens polarization, and undermines grounded, empathetic, trauma-informed policy. Ultimately, the securitized state is not a site of safety—it is a site of managed fear, in which power is sustained not by solving problems, but by continually manufacturing them.

Conclusion

In sum, the securitization of migration in the United States, Europe, and beyond reflects not objective risk but historical trauma, political calculation, and entrenched postcolonial hierarchies. Militarized borders, surveillance infrastructure, and exclusionary rhetoric do not mitigate insecurity; they reproduce cycles of fear, social fragmentation, and systemic inequality. Far from enhancing public safety, these measures exacerbate the vulnerabilities of migrants and marginalized communities while normalizing authoritarian governance in the name of security.

Recognizing migration as a human right rather than a threat requires a paradigm shift: one that centers human dignity, addresses the legacies of colonial exploitation, and acknowledges the cognitive and social mechanisms by which fear is manufactured. A postcolonial, trauma-informed framework would redirect attention from punitive measures toward constructive policy interventions—investing in social cohesion, equitable opportunity, and global justice. Only by dismantling the narratives that frame migration as inherently dangerous can states cultivate resilience, uphold civil liberties, and promote sustainable peace.

References

Achiume, E. Tendayi. “Racial Borders.” Georgetown Law Journal, vol. 110, no. 2, May 2022, pp. 445‑505. Georgetown University Law Center, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/georgetown‑law‑journal/wp‑content/uploads/sites/26/2022/05/Achiume_RacialBorders.pdf
Chomsky, Noam, and Edward S. Herman. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon Books, 1988.
CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies). The War Comes Home: The Evolution of Domestic Terrorism in the United States. 2020, www.csis.org/analysis/war-comes-home-evolution-domestic-terrorism-united-states.
de Haas, H. (2024). Changing the migration narrative: On the power of discourse, propaganda and truth distortion. IMI Working Paper No. 181/PACES Project Working Paper No. 3. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Esposito, Addie. “The Limitations of Humanity: Differential Refugee Treatment in the EU.” Harvard International Review, 14 Sept. 2022, https://hir.harvard.edu/the-limitations-of-humanity-differential-refugee-treatment-in-the-eu/
Fanon, Frantz, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Constance Farrington. The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press, 1965.
Gilroy, Paul. Postcolonial Melancholia. Columbia University Press, 2005.
Huysmans, Jef. The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, Migration and Asylum in the EU. Routledge, 2006.
Kahneman, Daniel. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.
Kolstad, Hege. “Vygotsky and the Social Construction of Consciousness.” Psych, vol. 2, no. 1, 2012, pp. 7–17. https://www.scirp.org/pdf/PSYCH20120900007_98497300.pdf
Nasciutti, Fabiana, and Mojgan Rahbari-Jawoko. “Psychological and Social Analysis of Collective Trauma: The Enduring Lessons Learned 20 Years after the September 11th, Terrorist Attacks.” Reflexão, vol. 46, no. 1, 2021, doi:10.24220/2447-6803v46e2021a5321.
Ponzanesi, Sandra. Postcolonial Subjectivity and Migration Studies. Routledge, 2016. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369801X.2015.1106962
Rainar, Kumar. “Restrictive Migration Policies and Global Inequalities.” Canadian Journal of Economics, 2023. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/caje.12469
“Radicalism of the Hopeless: Refugee Flows and Transnational Terrorism.” ResearchGate, 2014, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263555039_Radicalism_of_the_Hopeless_Refugee_Flows_and_Transnational_Terrorism.
Renn, S., et al. “Neuroplasticity, Perception, and Social Construction of Threat.” PMC, 2021, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7926034/.
Smith, J. “Trauma-Informed Approaches to Collective Healing.” Diplomatic Courier, 2022, https://www.diplomaticourier.com/posts/holistic-healing-centered-approach-to-individual-collective-trauma.
“Trump ICE Data and Surveillance Operations.” Migration Policy Institute, 2025, https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/trump-ice-data-surveillance.
Walczak, Bartłomiej, Lampas, Nikolaos. “Beliefs on Refugees as a Terrorist Threat. The Social Determinants of Refugee-related Stereotypes” Migration Studies – Review of Polish Diaspora, vol. 2020 (XLVI), no. Vol. 2 (176), Aug 2020, pp. 53-70, Aug 2020 https://doi.org/10.4467/25444972SMPP.20.011.12327
YouTube. “Interview with Donald Trump on Political Violence and Immigration.” 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkj7bE2NW_g
Zureik, Elia, and David Lyon, editors. Surveillance and Control in Israel/Palestine: Population, Territory and Power. Routledge, 2012