Letter from the Editor

by Rhemi Marlatt, Research and Education Coordinator

Border externalization is becoming an increasingly relevant topic as physical borders and the laws governing them have become obfuscated by social and political agendas. In many cases, these laws are trojan horse policies that champion homeland security on the outside while contributing to human rights violations on the inside. Current events have been populated by the echoing cries of victims of border externalization. Some of the more prominent examples include Europe’s response to the The Syrian Refugee Crisis, as well as President Trump’s controversial immigration policies and immigration deterrents such as the Zero-Tolerance Policy and the proposed border wall. It is important that we as students are informed on these issues and understand how they arise, are perpetuated, and what can be done to mitigate their effects. The ultimate goal is to hopefully find better solutions. Ergo, this issue of the Colectivo Digest looks at the anthropology of policy in regards to border externalization in three diverse settings with the aim of educating our readers about the issues that immigrants and refugees face.

What is Border Externalization?

Border externalization is the process through which policies are made to prevent refugees and migrants from reaching their target country through methods such as offshoring, complicating the immigration process, and providing incentives to nearby countries to secure their borders before refugees and migrants can meet their target country. Such policies are often cloaked in racist rhetoric while advocating homeland security as opposed to human rights. Border externalization is not a recent phenomena and its use within the United States can be traced back to the beginning of the 20th century.

Overview of This Issue

Our first piece, by Leah Breevoort, features an in-depth look at Australia’s Refugee Detention policy that sanctions the offshoring and interdiction of refugees trying to enter Australia for the purposes of claiming asylum. This piece shows how Australia uses its regional authority to its advantage by creating off-shore detention centers in neighboring countries such as Papua New Guinea, Nauru, and Manus Island. Australia holds that by detaining refugees in a “safe third country” they are not violating the principle of non-refoulement (meaning refugees cannot be returned to their place of origin if they fear persecution) in the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees. However, by offshoring  refugees, Australia “excuses itself” from providing refugees with the means to claim asylum and instead puts the onus of resettling refugees on its neighbors. In addition to explaining Australia’s offshoring and interdiction processes, Breevoort offers policy recommendations that would ameliorate refugee processing systems in Australia as well as improve refugee rights in the South Pacific.

The second piece we present, written by Summer Downs, is entitled “Externalizing Borders, Externalizing Harms, The Violent Impact of EU Policies on Migrant Rights in Libya.” In this piece, Downs explores the relationship between border externalization policies and human rights violations among immigrant populations in Libya. First, Down looks at how the characterization of migrants as a security threat has resulted in the enactment of border externalization policies that criminalize migrants in Libya and subject them to horrendously conditioned detention centers. In these detention centers, migrants are sold as slaves and face inhumane conditions as a result. Additionally, the Mediterranean Sea has proved quite deadly as many migrants crossing from Libya to Italy die en route either due to rough seas or risk interception by the Libyan Coast Guard that then return the migrants do Libyan detention centers. By outlining the issues that migrants from Libya face, Downs pinpoints two areas in desperate need of renovation in the EU: immigration pathways and financial support of Libyan detention centers. Through these policy recommendations Downs calls for a humanitarian response to the deadly results of the EU’s border externalization policies.

Our final piece, written by Amanda Kragt, is “Externalization of U.S.-Mexico Border: Obscuring Accountability and Implications for Migrants. This piece looks at US border externalization policies from the beginning of the 20th century to the present. Kragt explores the evolution of border externalization processes in the legal system, border enforcement, and US based detention centers. The evolution of these policies are shown to be based in loopholes that obscure U.S. accountability and responsibility for refugees and migrants. Some of these loopholes include designating “safe-third country” options for migrants/refugees, encouraging other countries to adopt strict immigration policies,  militarizing and securing borders. By tracing these loopholes, Kragt shows how borders are experienced across time and space through externalization and internalization of racist policies that allow the U.S. to avoid accountability in the international community for refugees and migrants.

Concluding Remarks

Through these three articles, our audience will see how countries such as the EU, the U.S., and Australia engage in border externalization through the use of “safe third  countries,” off-shoring, and red tape lined immigration processes. Despite the dismal realities of border externalization, our authors offer policy recommendations that aim to restore human rights to conversations and policies concerning immigration, border enforcement, and homeland security.