Image: Reuters
Migration and border control are some of the most complex and heated debates in the current political discourse. While border control is necessary for a nation’s security, it also brings to mind those who fall outside of this domain of security. In a traditional sense then, every nation-state is the referent object in their securitization act, and everyone outside of it ends up being a threat object. But what happens to those who don’t fall under the domain of security of any nation?
To humanize the debate on border control, understand the drivers of migration and the place they occupy in the security discourse, we must analyse it in light of a case study such as that of the European Union. The European Union is one important global security actor in the international security arena that seeks to stretch security to most EU countries within the Schengen Area. Thus, it becomes essential to critically analyse the security policy of such an influential supranational union with evolving capabilities and immense strategic power that impacts the lives of millions of people within its borders and beyond.
EU frames migration as a security issue in economic and social contexts. It sees the influx of migrants as a risk, which has the potential to lead to terrorism, organised crime and social unrest. EU’s own security apparatus, border control agencies like Frontex, and implementation of policies such as the EU-Turkey statement seek to maintain stability in member states. When one views these regimes through realist lenses, they appear necessary and fair means. However, it is gross oversimplification of this regime that denies women and other racialised, vulnerable groups any form of protection under the pretext of national security. But then what is the basis of this security that denies from those in need and demonises them for wanting to survive and seek protection?
Image: Forbes
A gendered and racialised analysis of such politics of institutions like EU’s migration policies reveal how migrants especially migrant women are disproportionately affected solely due to their identity. The more complex their identity based on factors such as race, class, religion, the further they are ostracised. This ostracization takes various forms but can be most evidently seen through the invisible forces of structural violence that such migrant women go through. Facing high risks of exploitation and abuse, with undetermined legal status especially if they are estranged from their father or husband who define their identity, along with the added misery of bureaucratic red tape and discriminatory laws that impact their ability to even receive remittance, aid or shelter, let alone be allowed to migrate. Everyday violence against migrant women on the border is ignored the same way that Barkawi observes small wars are ignored in global politics (Barkawi, 2004).
Practices of border security are highly influenced by perceptions and policies. Depending on representations of visiblised or invisiblised bodies, ascribe or deny agency to the migrants and border guards, thus reproducing gendered and racialised hierarchies (Columba Achilleos-Sarll, Sachseder, & Saskia Stachowitsch, 2023). How migrants are construed as, also defines their fate. Thus, conceptions of whether they seem like passive victims and/or notions of worth determine whether they might be entitled to protection or asylum (Maja Korać, 2020). Women migrants and refugees are also often portrayed in stereotypical ways such as victims (mothers), threats (monsters), or objects of desire (whores) further marginalising them and their claim for agency and rights (Sjoberg L. & Gentry C., 2008). But the reason why this is problematic is because this risk analysis of migrants often comes from a place of racial and gender bias and not neutrality. The unique challenges that are faced by women in their migration journeys are further exacerbated by institutions like the EU where there is an absence of gender sensitive policies and support mechanisms. Excessive securitization and militarisation only exacerbate gender-based violence at the border. For the same, EU’s gendered and racial migrant policies are critiqued for avoidable deaths (Roberts D., 2008).
It feels almost refreshing then to look at what Enloe has to say about such notions of security that spatialise borders. Unlike institutions that place the nation state at the centre of security discourse, Enloe encourages us to place the human at the centre of security discourse (Enloe, 2007). When the human is placed at the centre of security discourse, all the violence against migrants in the name of state security gets discredited. One then has to reconceptualise what the point of security is, which is not just the protection of physical boundaries but the individuals that comprise in it and outside of it. Immediately, the idea of security expands to being shaped by individual experiences and contexts rather than a strict, one-size-fits-all approach. It is only when we rethink such traditional notions of security and prioritise human security that specific concerns of marginalised communities can even begin to be addressed.
References
Achilleos-Sarll, C., Sachseder, J., & Stachowitsch, S. (2023). The (inter)visual politics of border security: Co-constituting gender and race through Frontex's Risk Analysis. Security dialogue, 54(4), 374–394.
Barkawi, Tarak. 2004. ‘On the Pedagogy of “Small Wars”’. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) 80 (1): 19–37
Enloe, C. (2004) The Curious Feminist: Searching for Women in a New Age of Empire. London and Berkeley CA: University of California Press
Korac Maja (2020) Gendered and racialised border security: Displaced people and the politics of fear. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy 9(3): 75-86.
Krause, Keith, and Michael C. Williams. 2018. “Security and ‘Security Studies’: Conceptual Evolution and Historical Transformation.” In The Oxford Handbook of International Security, edited by Alexandra Gheciu and William Curtis Wohlforth. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press
Sjoberg, L., & Gentry, C. (2008). Mothers, Monsters, Whores: Women's Violence in Global Politics. London: Zed Books
Roberts, D. (2008) Human Insecurity: Global Structures of Violence. London: Zed Books
Thank you for your insightful analysis Ananya! You have largely talked about how migration policies disproportionately affect women and racialized individuals. exposing how structural violence, exploitation, and abuse intersect with gender and race, leaving migrant women particularly vulnerable. what role would you assign to intersectionality taking into account the gendered and racial identities' of the people who are affected by migration policies?
Thank you for sharing this insightful analysis of migration and border control from a feminist perspective. I appreciate the way you highlight the importance of understanding the drivers of migration and the place of migrants in the security discourse, particularly in the context of the European Union. The structural violence and bureaucratic red tape that migrant women face, often resulting in exploitation and abuse, is a significant concern that requires urgent attention.
Thank you for delving into the complexities of EU migration policies through a feminist lens. It's alarming to see how institutional biases perpetuate violence and discrimination against migrant women.