This paper is about understanding which of two securitizing theories are the most dominant within the EU discourse from 2015 when immigration rose dramatically to the EU and up to 2019 when a new regulation heavily expanded the authority of Frontex, the European border- and coastguard. The two theoretical schools are the Copenhagen School, based on the thoughts of Ole Wæver and Barry Buzan and colleagues, and securitization based on International Political Sociology, mainly based on the thoughts of Didier Bigo. The Copenhagen School bases their thought on securitization of that of a ‘speech act’ made by an authoritative actor. By uttering something as a security threat it allows extraordinary measures to deal with the issue. Securitization according to IPS is based on actions, rather than discourse, and claims that through the development and cooperation of securitizing organisations and investments in high tech surveillance systems a spiral of (in)securitization is created. Through studying documents from the European Commission, the analysis examines which one of these two schools of thoughts is the most dominant. Even if there are clear evidence of securitization acts according to the Copenhagen School in the analysed material, the most prominent theory, mainly due to the EU structure, is that of securitization according to IPS.