.

.

The debate surrounding freedom of speech and its possible limitations has been presentfor many decades and even centuries, although this debate has recently been intensifiedwith the rise of right-wing populism in Europe, the so-called refugee crisis and someterrorist attacks occurred in several European cities. Europe is suffering from increasingdivisions, hate speech and discrimination - especially against Muslim migrants andrefugees. Thus, the main purpose of this study is to research the content of the statementsabout migration and security of certain MEPs from the Europe of Nations and Freedom(ENF) and Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD), during the plenarysessions of the European Parliament in order to know how migrants and refugees areportrayed by them and if there is hate speech in those interventions.For doing this, Critical Discourse Analysis is applied to the texts selected, morespecifically the discourse-historical approach from Ruth Wodak, to explore theconstruction and reproduction of identities in political discourse, as well as thejustifications and argumentations used to exclude and discriminate. Finally, it can be seenthat immigrants and asylum seekers are portrayed in a very negative and derogatory way,such as terrorists and criminals who are intolerant, extremist and dangerous for Europe,economically, socially and culturally speaking. This picture is created with the help ofrhetorical strategies, metaphors and fallacies, whereas there is a completely opposing selfrepresentationof the native Europeans in a positive way. Furthermore, if someinstitutional and legal standards of hate speech are applied, these interventions could beconsidered as racist hatred, although the element of incitement might prove problematicto identify and it is very complex and not so usual to punish a MEP for hate speechbecause of their political immunity and a lack of international consensus and standardsabout hate speech.