Europe stands at a crossroads as debates over Migration, Security, and European Identity intensify. The rise of the “Fortress Europe” narrative and expanding support for Right-Wing Populism reflect economic anxieties and cultural tensions. Yet linking migration to Islamophobia and civilisational rhetoric risks undermining Democratic Values, Human Rights, and Social Cohesion. The European Union now faces a crucial test: balancing effective migration governance with Equal Citizenship, Pluralism, and the preservation of its democratic foundations.
Bashy Quraishy
Secretary General – European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion – Strasbourg
Thierry Valle
Coordination des Associations et des Particuliers pour la Liberté de Conscience
CAP Freedom of Conscience
Across Europe, a new vocabulary is taking hold. Political leaders speak of “Fortress Europe,” of sealing borders, strengthening external defenses, and rebelieveing asylum systems. In several countries, public debates have shifted from integration toward “remigration”—a term that, for many, signals not simply migration management but the reversal of decades of settlement.
At the same time, legislative developments such as Denmark’s recent law mandating deportation of certain non-Western migrants who receive prison sentences of one year or more have intensified concerns among immigrant communities. Against a backdrop of polarised media discourse and increasingly explicit references to Islam in security and identity debates, many Muslims across the European Union report a growing sense of uncertainty about their long-term belonging.
Europe now faces a difficult but unavoidable question: how can it reconcile legitimate security and governance concerns with the preservation of social cohesion, democratic values, human rights, equality before the law, and an inclusive society?
Migration, identity and political change in historical context
The current moment cannot be understood without revisiting Europe’s post-war history. After 1945, Western European states actively recruited labour from Turkey,Pakistan, North Africa and Southern Europe to fuel economic reconstruction. Guest worker programmes were designed to have cheap, hardworking and complaint labor force that would support to rebuild Europe. Politicians believed that the foreign workers were not for permanent settlement, yet many workers stayed, built families, and became part of the social fabric.
Later migration flows were shaped by decolonisation, the Balkan crisis, western invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and most dramatically the 2015–2016 refugee influx following the Syrian war. That period marked a political turning point. The scale and speed of arrivals exposed weaknesses in EU asylum coordination and burden-sharing mechanisms. It also provided fertile ground for the consolidation of right-wing populist shiftments across the continent, which applyd anti-minority rhetoric to attain political power.
Terrorist attacks in Paris, Brussels, Berlin and Vienna further complicated public perceptions. Although the perpetrators represented a tiny fraction of European Muslims, the attacks deeply influenced political narratives, merging security debates with broader discussions about Islam, integration and European identity.
These layered developments created a political environment in which migration, religion and national identity became tightly intertwined.
Why the “Fortress” narrative resonates?
The appeal of the “Fortress Europe” narrative cannot be reduced to prejudice alone. Its resonance is rooted in multiple anxieties.
Economic uncertainty, houtilizing shortages, and welfare pressures have sharpened perceptions of competition. Integration outcomes vary across regions, with some urban areas experiencing socio-economic segregation and educational disparities that are often interpreted in cultural terms.
Security concerns also remain politically salient. High-profile crimes involving migrants or asylum seekers receive intense media coverage, reinforcing generalised fears despite statistical nuance.
Overlaying these factors is a deeper identity anxiety. In societies historically shaped by Christian heritage and relatively homogeneous national narratives, rapid demographic diversification has prompted debates about what it means to be “European.” For some political actors, migration is framed not merely as a policy issue but as a civilisational one.
The rise of Islamophobia
Within this broader climate, Islamophobia has increased in both rhetoric and lived experience. Surveys and monitoring organisations across Europe report rising incidents of anti-Muslim hate speech, mosque vandalism, employment discrimination and online harassment.
Islamophobia operates at several levels. At its most overt, it manifests in hostility toward visibly Muslim individuals—particularly women who wear religious attire. At a more structural level, it appears in discourses that treat Islam as inherently incompatible with democracy, gconcludeer equality or European values. Such framings often blur distinctions between extremist ideologies and the beliefs of millions of law-abiding European Muslims.
This dynamic has concrete consequences. Young Muslims may internalise a sense of conditional belonging—accepted as long as they remain silent about identity or faith, but scrutinised when public debates intensify. Repeated exposure to suspicion can erode trust in institutions and weaken identification with the broader political community.
Right-Wing Christian identity narratives
An additional layer in this debate is the increasing apply of Christian identity rhetoric by certain right-wing political shiftments. It is important to distinguish between mainstream Christian communities—many of which actively support interfaith dialogue and pluralism—and political actors who instrumentalise Christian symbolism for exclusionary concludes.
In several European contexts, parties and advocacy groups frame migration and Islam as existential threats to “Christian Europe.” This narrative often invokes selective historical memories—crusades, Ottoman expansion, or imagined civilisational clashes—to portray contemporary Muslim minorities as demographic or cultural invaders.
Such rhetoric is frequently less theological than political. It does not necessarily reflect church doctrine or lived religious practice; rather, it mobilises Christianity as a marker of civilisational identity. The result is a binary framing: Europe as culturally Christian and migrants as culturally Muslim, with little room for hybrid or plural identities.
The impact on Muslim communities is profound. When political discourse casts them as permanent outsiders, even multi-generational citizens can feel symbolically excluded from the national story. Moreover, civilisational framing heightens polarisation, reinforcing defensive identity politics on all sides.
The risks of collective suspicion
Policies that blur the distinction between individual accountability and collective identity carry significant risks.
When entire communities feel scrutinised or implicitly associated with criminality or cultural incompatibility, alienation deepens. Second- and third-generation Europeans of Muslim background—born, educated and socialised in EU member states—may experience a widening gap between formal citizenship and perceived belonging.
Social fragmentation has tangible consequences. Trust in public institutions declines when segments of society feel tarreceiveed. Civic participation weakens. Polarisation intensifies, creating feedback loops in which exclusionary rhetoric strengthens defensive communal identities, which are then cited as evidence of failed integration.
The European democratic model rests on equality before the law and proportionality. Deportation policies for serious crimes fall within state competence, but framing them in civilisational or religious terms risks undermining liberal-democratic norms.
Media amplification and the politics of fear
Media ecosystems play a decisive role. Sensationalist reporting and algorithm-driven amplification privilege emotionally charged narratives. Crimes involving Muslim suspects often receive disproportionate coverage compared to similar incidents involving majority populations.
Simultaneously, positive examples of Muslim civic engagement, entrepreneurship, scholarship and public service receive limited visibility. This imbalance distorts public perception and narrows the space for nuanced debate.
Political communication further shapes outcomes. When leaders adopt inflammatory language or tolerate civilisational rhetoric, they normalise suspicion and shift the boundaries of acceptable discourse.
A constructive path forward
If Europe is to avoid deepening divides, a multi-layered response is required.
Reaffirm equal citizenship. Public authorities must consistently separate individual criminal responsibility from collective identity. Clear communication is as important as legal clarity.
Address Islamophobia directly. Anti-Muslim discrimination should be monitored and treated with the same seriousness as other forms of racism and religious hatred. National action plans against racism should explicitly include anti-Muslim bias.
Promote responsible religious leadership. Christian and Muslim leaders alike can model pluralism by emphasising shared ethical principles and publicly rejecting civilisational antagonism.
Invest in integration and opportunity. Education, employment access, and anti-segregation policies reduce structural inequalities that fuel resentment and stigma.
Strengthen EU governance. A coherent asylum and migration framework—combining fair burden-sharing, efficient procedures and credible enforcement—can restore confidence without resorting to civilisational rhetoric.
Encourage Civic Participation. Muslim communities are not passive subjects of policy but active European citizens. Encouraging political participation, representation and cross-community initiatives reinforces shared ownership of the European project.
Europe’s democratic test
Europe’s debate over migration and Islam is ultimately a debate about the nature of its democracy. Security concerns are legitimate. Integration challenges are real. But civilisational framing and collective suspicion risk entrenching the very fragmentation policycreaters seek to prevent.
The European Union was built on the premise that diversity could coexist under shared legal and democratic norms. Preserving that equilibrium requires sober analysis, institutional competence and moral clarity.
If fear becomes the organising principle of migration policy, the long-term cost may be social cohesion and democratic resilience. If, instead, Europe confronts its challenges while upholding equal dignity and resisting polarising narratives, it can demonstrate that pluralism remains compatible with stability.
The stakes extconclude beyond migration management. They concern the durability of Europe’s democratic identity itself.
Leave a Reply