Borders, Risks, Exclusions

Abstract

To contend that borders are sites of exclusion is far from novel. Integral to modernity and sovereignty, the porous character of borders has and continues to be concealed by the exercise and contemporary (re)articulation of sovereign power. Since the events of 9/11, even the most genteel of borders, such as the Canada/US border, have witnessed an increased preoccupation with exclusionary practices, virulent applications of risk management, and a general embrace of biometric and Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technologies focused on identity management of varying forms. As a result, the border has been further securitized and in some regards, even militarized.Although strengthened borders and the intensified securitization of migration related to these changes in border security are relatively well documented, such accounts tend to argue that borders are "thickening." Specifically in the Canada/US case, the notion of a thickened border post-9/11 is nearly prosaic. While not altogether rejecting the metaphor of the thickened border, there is something more complex afoot. Rather than simply making the border more difficult to cross, the invocation of specific technologies-namely biometrics and RFID-which are contextualized within a near obsessive application of risk management by the

Introduction

“…As a result, the institutions, techniques, and technologies that monitor and regulate global flows have commanded reinforced academic attention. This is evident from inquiries into a broad range of topics: the discursive and practical regimes that attempt to sketch out the presumable danger from unrestricted movement (e.g., Jackson 2005;Balzacq 2011;Bigo 2002;Huysmans 2006;; the transformation of borders and border checkpoints in the struggle against (illegal) movement (e.g., Salter 2004;Walters 2006;Pallitto and Heyman 2008;Muller 2009;Parizot et al 2014); airports and their security regimes as the most symbolic sites of the fight against global terror after 9/ 11 (e.g., Salter 2008;Adey 2004;Leese and Koenigseder 2015;Lyon 2006;Schouten 2014); the practice of information-gathering, databases, and algorithms that inform risk assessments and other forms of anticipation (e.g., Amoore and De Goede 2008;Lyon 2003;Gandy 2010;De Vries 2010;Amoore 2011;Rouvroy 2013;Leese 2014); or the modes of cooperation and information exchange between security agencies and security professionals (e.g., Bigo et al 2007;Balzacq 2008;Geyer 2008;De Hert and Bellanova 2011). This is another list that could be continued, but it suffices to illustrate the wide array of inquiries into mobility against the backdrop of the politics of security.…”

Resisting social death with dignity. The strategy of re-escaping among young asylum-seekers in the wake of Sweden’s sharpened asylum laws

“…With a 'capacity to carry out up to 500 assessments a month' in each of the six Migration Agency regions (AIDA, 2017a, p. 37) the bone measuring on asylum-seeking youngsters has become systematic and institutionalised. This institutionalisation is a sign of increasing use of 'bio-politics' to control migration within the national territory (e. g. Djampour, 2018;Fassin, 2005) and the implementation of technology in (internal) border control management (e. g. Muller, 2009). The Swedish asylum application process consists of three consecutive legal instances starting with the Migration Authority processing, and moving on to the second level, the Migration Court, through to the final level, the Migration Court of Appeal.…”

Flickering Presence: Theorizing Race and Racism in the Governmentality of Borders and Migration

“…Indeed, in many accounts race only operates in the background (Amin-Khan, 2012;Moffette & Vadasaria, 2016). Discussions regarding differential mobilities, sovereign bans, regimes of detention and deportation, or risk profiling draw attention to operations of profiling, segmentation, partition, and the fostering and capitalization of anxiety (Bigo, 2002;Geiger & Pécoud, 2013;Muller, 2009;Rumford, 2006). Yet the connections to racialization and the postcolonial are generally muted or presumed.…”