Securitization of migration policy in Europe: Institutional stakeholders' perspectives in a Polish policy system <b> <i>in statu nascendi</i> </b>

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Motivation</jats:title> <jats:p> The past decade has brought unprecedented migration crises to the European Union, transforming member states' migration policies. While securitization of migration has been extensively studied in Western Europe, research on Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries remains limited, particularly regarding states constructing their migration management systems from scratch ( <jats:italic>in statu nascendi,</jats:italic> referring to a system in its early, formative stage). Poland presents a compelling case: rapidly transforming from an emigration to an immigration country while simultaneously facing migration instrumentalization at its eastern border and the largest refugee influx since the Second World War. </jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Purpose</jats:title> <jats:p>This study identifies institutional stakeholders' preferences regarding Poland's emerging migration policy, examining the extent to which these preferences reflect a security‐oriented framing of migration policy. Three research questions guide the analysis: (1) What migration policy model dominates the preferences of institutional stakeholders in Poland? (2) How do respondents from different types of institution (government, local authorities, NGOs, business, or academia) differentiate the selection of migration policy objectives and values? (3) Which policy instruments are most salient among stakeholders: restrictive, economic, integrative, or settlement‐oriented?</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Approach and methods</jats:title> <jats:p>Research was conducted as a quantitative survey in 2024 among representatives of institutional entities directly or indirectly involved in migration processes in Poland, including government and local administration, social and international organizations, business entities, and educational institutions.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Findings</jats:title> <jats:p>The results indicate that stakeholder preferences reflect a model that combines security with economic, social, and humanitarian priorities rather than exclusive securitization. Security was most frequently selected (68.7% among maximum three values), but human rights (59.2%), social cohesion (55.9%), and economic prosperity (54.0%) retained substantial support. Institution type significantly differentiates preferences. Stakeholders favour pragmatic, short‐term instruments (qualification recognition, labour rights protection) over long‐term settlement mechanisms.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Policy implications</jats:title> <jats:p>CEE migration policy, in particular Poland's, requires balancing security with humanitarian values through multi‐institutional dialogue mechanisms. The preference for short‐term economic instruments over settlement policies risks social segmentation and “parallel societies,” necessitating strategic integration approaches beyond labour market utility.</jats:p> </jats:sec>