The role of national identity in refugee admission

In their book  "Framing Refugees: How the Admission of Refugees is Debated in Six Countries across the World" (Oxford University Press) published in 2024, authors Daniel Drewski and Jürgen Gerhards look at possible explanations for the marked differences between countries in terms of their willingness to admit refugees.

Some 50 million people worldwide are displaced by war and political persecution. International law grants them the right to seek asylum and prohibits their return to countries where they are at risk of fundamental human rights violations. However, in view of the growing number of refugees around the world, this right to protection has increasingly come under strain. Although most states have signed key international agreements, such as the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, some continue to categorically refuse to admit refugees. Others – such as Poland – only accept refugees from certain countries of origin, while denying access to those from others. Lastly, there are states such as Uganda that have generally kept their borders open to all groups of refugees.

These different policies are inextricably bound to the dominant conceptions of identity in the respective country, as shown by an analysis of political speeches and parliamentary debates in Chile, Germany, Poland, Singapore, Turkey and Uganda. These countries have all been confronted with the issue of refugee admission in recent years, but have responded with very different policies, a variation that is also reflected in the positions adopted by the national political parties.

Who are “we”?

We argue that a country’s refugee policy is largely shaped by how its politicians answer two critical questions: Who are “we”, the receiving society? And who are the refugees seeking protection in our country? In each case, the definitions of “we” and the “others” influences the extent to which people feel solidarity or a humanitarian or legal obligation towards refugees, or in fact fear that their country is being overrun by foreigners. In responding to these questions, political actors in the different countries are guided by very different conceptions of national identity.

Examples from three countries

This can be illustrated by comparing political debates on the admission of Syrian refugees seen in Germany, Poland and Turkey in recent years. Since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war, more than six million Syrians have fled their homeland with these three countries adopting varied policies in response.

Turkey

Turkey has admitted the largest number of Syrian refugees. It is perhaps surprising that the Islamic-conservative and authoritarian government under President Erdoğan and his Justice and Development Party (AKP) has long adopted a welcoming rhetoric and open-door policy towards this group. It turns out, however, that this policy was not necessarily rooted in any kind of commitment to international human rights and refugee law. Instead, it was based on a neo-Ottoman and religious definition of Turkish identity that extends beyond the borders of the Turkish nation-state. Syrian refugees were framed as “brothers and sisters”, who, like the Turkish population, are predominantly Muslim and come from a country that was once part of the Ottoman Empire. By admitting Syrian refugees, the Turkish government was able to present itself as a humanitarian actor vis-à-vis what it saw as “hypocritical” Europe, while also using refugees as a means of exerting pressure in negotiations with the EU.

Poland

The situation in Poland, however, is quite different. During what was referred to as the refugee crisis of 2015, the Law and Justice (PiS) party’s national-conservative government vehemently rejected the EU Commission’s proposal to redistribute refugees among EU member states, fundamentally refusing to accept Syrian refugees. This stance was based on the idea of Poland being an ethnically homogenous, Christian nation, culturally incompatible with refugees from Muslim countries. This situation was further shaped by the longstanding perception of Poland as a country historically under threat from its powerful European neighbours, reinforcing the belief that national sovereignty must be defended – particularly against decisions imposed by Brussels. This concept of national identity can also explain why Poland was so open to admitting refugees from Ukraine, while refusing to accept those from Syria. This strong sense of solidarity with Ukrainians is rooted in the threat posed by a common enemy: Russia.

Germany

Of all the EU member states, Germany has admitted the largest number of Syrian refugees. However, the motivation for the open-door refugee policy introduced by Chancellor Angela Merkel and her “grand coalition”  government in 2015 was quite different to the rationale behind the policies adopted by the Turkish or Polish government. At the heart of the decision was Germany’s perception of its national identity as a rather cosmopolitan nation, transcending the nation-state and characterised by universal values. This is based on the idea that Germany is bound by international law and its own Basic Law and, because of its history, has a specific humanitarian obligation to accept refugees. Unlike Turkey, Germany’s solidarity with refugees is not rooted in a shared history or religion but rather in a commitment to international law and universal human rights. When the policy was passed, this vision of national identity was supported by all the political parties represented in parliament at the time.

However, over time, we have seen this refugee policy come under increasing pressure due to the rise of the far-right AfD. As long ago as late 2015/early 2016, measures were adopted to differentiate between “genuine” refugees (who are entitled to protection) and “migrants” (who voluntarily migrate and do not have the same entitlement), in doing so reducing the number of asylum applications. In January 2025, the conservative CDU/CSU went a step further, introducing a bill aimed at tightening immigration controls and calling for a reorientation of migration and asylum policy. The intensity of the debate this sparked as well as the protests against the bill demonstrate that this is more than just a question of changing specific migration policy measures – for some actors, this is about realigning Germany’s collective self-identity.

Overall, our analyses show that when it comes to explaining the differences in countries’ refugee policies, the commitment to international human and refugee rights plays only a marginal role. What is in fact instrumental is how the receiving nation’s collective identity is defined and how refugees are integrated into this framework. This also helps explain why some authoritarian governments, such as Turkey’s, may pursue an open-door refugee policy. Yet, this should serve as a warning signal for liberal democracies: failure to implement their commitment to accepting people displaced by persecution and war could undermine their international credibility.

The book „Framing Refugees: How the Admission of Refugees is Debated in Six Countries across the World” (Oxford University Press) stems from research conducted as part of the Cluster of Excellence “Contestations of the Liberal Script” (SCRIPTS) at the Freie Universität Berlin.