Redalyc.Securitization of Migration: an Australian Case Study of Global

Home , Arab Australians, Australian Border Force

Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios sobre Cuerpos, Emociones y Sociedad ISSN: 1852-8759 [email protected] Universidad Nacional de Córdoba Argentina

Humphrey, Michael Securitization of Migration: an Australian case study of global trends Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios sobre Cuerpos, Emociones y Sociedad, vol. 6, núm. 15, agosto- noviembre, 2014, pp. 83-98 Universidad Nacional de Córdoba Córdoba, Argentina

Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=273231878007

How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios sobre Cuerpos, Emociones y Sociedad www.relaces.com.ar

Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios sobre Cuerpos, Emociones y Sociedad. N°15. Año 6. Agosto 2014 - Noviembre 2014. Argentina. ISSN: 1852-8759. pp. 83-98.

Securitization of Migration: an Australian case study of global trends*

El aseguramiento contra la migración: Un estudio de las tendencias globales a partir del caso australiano

Michael Humphrey** University of Sydney [email protected]

Abstract Post September 11 migration has increasingly been framed as a security problem. In the 2010 Australian election campaign migration was connected to security (defense of our borders, terrorism and social cohesion) and to related issues of insecurity about the future (population size, sustainability and economic growth). This framing of migration as a national security issue overlooks the reality that Australian immigration is part of the global flow of population. Migration is an international issue experienced by states as a national question of border control and sovereignty seeking to manage the consequences of global inequality and mobility. This paper analyses the 'security turn' in mi - gration debates in Australia and the North and the way the securitization of migration signifies the transformation of security from the problem of producing national order to the problem of managing global disorder resulting in the merging of national and international security strategies. 4 1

Keywords: Migration; Securitization; Hypergovernance; Australia; Transnationalization. 0 2

e r b m e i v

Resumen o N

Luego de los acontecimientos del 11 de Septiembre, la migración se ha enmarcado cada vez más como un problema 4 1 0 2

de seguridad. En la campaña electoral australiana en 2010, la migración estaba conectada con la seguridad (defensa o t de nuestras fronteras, terrorismo y cohesión social) y con cuestiones vinculadas con la inseguridad sobre el futuro s o g A (tamaño de la población, sostenibilidad y crecimiento económico). Este tratamiento de la migración como un asunto , 8 9 de seguridad nacional pasa por alto la realidad de que la inmigración australiana es parte del flujo global de población. - 3 8

La migración es un asunto internacional experienciado por los Estados como una cuestión nacional de control de las . p

, 6 fronteras y la soberanía que busca gestionar las consecuencias de las desigualdades mundiales y la movilidad. Este ̃ o n A trabajo analiza el ‘giro de seguridad’ en los debates sobre migración en Australia y el Norte, y las formas en que el , 5 1

aseguramiento contra la migración significa la transformación de la seguridad desde el problema de producir un ° N

orden nacional al problema de la gestión del desorden global que resulta de la fusión de estrategias de seguridad a b o nacionales e internacionales. d ́ r o C

, D

Palabras clave: Migración; Securitización; Hiper-gobernanza; Australia; Transnacionalización. A D E I C O S

S E N O I C * O An earlier version of this paper was published as Humphrey, Michael. 2013. “Migration, security, insecurity." Journal of Intercultural M E

Studies 34(2):178-195. S

** O BA Hons, PhD (Macq); Professor MichaelHumphrey holds a Chair in Sociology in the Department of Sociology andSocial Policy at the P R E

University of Sydney. U C

[83 ] Cuerpos, Emociones y Sociedad

Securitization of Migration: an Australian case study of global trends

Introduction governments to frame and give priority to public policy targeting existential threats (Buzan et al.,1998: 25). After the international terrorist attacks on 11 The securitization of migration, the construc - September 2001 international migration has increa - tion of migration as risk, is an expression of the glo - singly been framed as a security problem in the West. balization of security to manage the new threats of Borders and entry have become first and foremost an international crime and terrorism post-September issue of security. At national borders immigration ser - 11.Securitization is ‘a political technique of framing vices no longer merely scrutinise the validity of docu - policy questions in logics of survival with a capacity to ments and grant permission to enter but provide mobilize politics of fear in which social relations are ‘border protection’ by assessing the risk of passengers structured on the basis of distrust’ (Huysmans, 2006: as potential criminals, terrorists or visa over-stayers xi). Securitization policy is state-centric and reflects based on their documents, security profiling, biome - the rationality of political elites and security profes - trics and matrix of databanks. Internationally North sionals (Karyotis, 2012).It has become emblematic of borders are increasingly militarised to control unwan - the anxieties of state sovereignty seeking to manage ted entry. The Australian government’s military opera - migration as an expression of globalization - control 4

1 tions to ‘stop the boats’ on the high seas (Morrison, borders, plan population growth, promote social co - 0 2 e r 2013), the Texas governor’s deployment of the National hesion and support (middle class) sustainability. Each b m

e Guard in response to the arrival over a period of 6 of these issues refers to the national capacity to order i v o months 57,000 minors from Central America 1 and Fron - and regulate the population and, integral to that, to N

4 tex’s militarization of the Mediterraneanto contain mi - derive legitimacy from being seen to care for and pro - 1 0 2 gration from Africa are all examples of the enhanced tect citizens and determine entitlement. Framing mi - o t s o militarization of North borders. The security function gration as a ‘security’ issue gives it political priority g A

8 of the state has expanded beyond national defense and justifies extraordinary legal, policing and policy 9 - 3

8 through military preparedness to encompass the pro - measures to manage it (Leonard, 2007). By making

. p

, tection of citizens through the intensification of survei - migration a security problem migrants are constituted 6

̃ o n llance of our organizationally and technologically as the object of policies directed at managing risk. It A

5 complex societies to manage public anxiety about un - misrecognizes structural issues such as refugee flows, 1 ° N

, certainty. Agencies whose functions were once regar - urban riots, crime, unemployment and welfare de - a b o ded as marginal to state security (immigration, pendency as the attributes of migrants which need to d ́ r o C

customs, ambulance) have now become integral to it be policed and regulated. Blaming migrants becomes , D

A and their officers/officials increasingly publicly encoun - a strategy of governance to produce social cohesion, D E I

C tered as security-like in their ready-for-action dress. Se - mobilize political support and claim political legiti - O S

Y curity has become a pervasive discourse of macy. Moreover at the margins cultural and racial dif -

S E

N ference are used to define sovereignty and delineate O I

C a state of exception for those seennot to deserve the O 1

M ‘Texas Governor Rick Perry to deploy 1,000 troops to Mexican

E same protection of the law.

S border’, The Guardian 22 July 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/

O Securitization frames migration as a national P world/2014/jul/21/texas-governor-rick-perry-troops- R E mexico(accessed 22 July 2014). issue concerned with determining ‘who comes here’ U C

[84 ] Michael Humphrey

(controlling borders), enforcing visa requirements (lo - gent patterns of governmentality revealed in the se - cating overstayers), selecting the ‘best’ migrants, and curitization of migrants and migration. It considers the policing social categories as risk management. Howe - Australian experience of the securitization of migrants ver in reality migration, the large scale transnational and migration through a focus on Muslims migrants flow of populations, is an international issue challen - and refugees as transnationalized categories and ging the capacity of individual states to manage the identifies parallel processes targeting these same mi - impact of big structural questions: global inequality, grant categories in Europe. The paper draws on the transnational social mobility and displacement of the author’s extensive research on Muslims and Islam in most vulnerable as a result of economic crisis, envi - Australia as well as comparative research on Australia ronmental degradation and war. The ‘security turn’ in and Europe (Humphrey, 1998; 2000; 2002; 2005; relation to migration signifies the transformation of 2007;2009; 2010).While the empirical focus is on Aus - security from the problem of producing national tralia the policies and practices of the securitization order to the problem of managing global disorder. Na - of migration are found at all North-South borders. tionally governance has combined security (policing, Theoretically the paper extends Watson (2011)’s in - surveillance) with the management of citizen insecu - sight about the emergence of securitization as signif - rity and public perceptions of danger. Transnationally, ying a crisis in institutionalized forms of security by the state has outsourced security to other states, to tracing the externalization of security with respect to security professionals, corporations, international migrants and migration. agencies and NGOs (Bigo, 2008) for them to manage unwanted immigrants through containment. This in - cludes interception and detention en route as well as Securitization and Governance trying to keep people at home through ‘human secu - rity’ oriented development policies. This is referred to Securitization of migration is not merely a stra - as the ‘externalization’ of migration control (Paoletti, tegy of policing and risk management it has become 2010). Securitization extends governmentality beyond a mode of governance. Securitization combines dis - national borders by providing a common language to persed self-disciplining through surveillance (Fou - connect diverse fields and create a shared political cault, 1977) with collective disciplining through project by ‘shaping political identities and subjectivi - citizen-spectatorship, and the management of fear 4 ties’ (Risley, 2006: 28). (Debord, 1977). Policing becomes less about repres - 1 0 2

This paper examines the securitization of mi - sion and more about constituting the politically visible r b gration and migrants as a national and transnational through the mediatization of society (Feldman, 2004). m e i v project seeking to manage global disorder by firstly, As Feldman argues, “the new surveillance/public sa - o N

creating a transnational border in the North through fety regime requires the labor of spectator-citizenship 4 1 0 2 transnationally shared policies, laws and agency coo - (2004: 77)”. Policing through the panopticon, the sur - o t s peration to manage international migration as risk, veillance of all under the state’s gaze, shifts towards o g A

secondly by turning particular kinds of migrants into the ban-opticon, the constitution of risk objects by 8 9 - transnational categories for transnational manage - profiling under the gaze of the citizen-spectator (Bigo, 3 8

. p

ment – e.g. Muslim immigrants and refugees - and 2008). The ban-opticon is characterized by the “ex - , 6

̃ o thirdly, the hypergovernance of migrants along migra - ceptionalism of power (rules of emergency and their n A

, tion routes or in countries of origin by externalization tendency to become permanent),by the way it exclu - 5 1 ° N

through outsourcing sovereignty to other states and des certain groups in the name of their future poten - , a b

NGOs to intercept them on the way or keep (unwan - tial behavior (profiling), and by the way it normalizes o d ́ r o ted) migrants at home. Hyper-governance refers to the non-excluded through its production of normative C

, D the transnational management of populations, the imperatives, the most important of which is free mo - A D E I

ability of some states to intervene in and shape other vement (the so-called four freedoms of circulation of C O S

states and societies as a neo-imperial project through the EU: concerning goods, capital, information, servi - Y

S E

military action, humanitarian relief and NGOs organi - ces and persons)” (Bigo, 2008: 32). N O I zation of civil society to stop conflict, bring develop - The ban-optic security lens institutes a form of C O M

ment and support state building (Bhatt, 2007). governmentality based on state management of une - E

, S

The aim of this paper is to develop a conceptual ase and by providing a “reassuring and protective pas - O P R framework to bring into focus transnationally emer - toral power” (Bigo, 2008: 33). It moves away from E U C

[85 ] Cuerpos, Emociones y Sociedad

trying to guarantee order to proactive policies desig - were stigmatized as a culturally problematic and so - ned to target risk categories, to anticipate future risk cially marginalized immigrant community (Humphrey, scenarios and to manage the population’s feelings of 1998; Dunn, 2004; Dunn et al., 2007). According to the insecurity. The state’s aim is not primarily to make pe - 2006 census, Muslims are 1.7% of the Australian po - ople feel safe by guaranteeing order but to govern by pulation (340,393, 2006 census) and rapidly becoming managing their feelings of insecurity which in turn be - a second-generation Australian born population (38%, comes the basis of unity through exclusion of the 2006 Census). 2 The Muslim population is culturally Other. The political technique of the ban-opticon dis - and geographically diverse with communities from places political order based on the social contract for the Middle East, South Asia, South East Asia, East Asia “misgiving as a mode of ruling” concentrating fear on and Africa. However the impact of September 11 was a difficult to identify adversary (Bigo, 2002: 81). It to transform Muslims from an ethnic/religious mino - makes risks legible in the categories it constructs and rity in a multicultural society to a transnational risk ca - identifies as the “enemy” (Krasmann, 2007). These so - tegory, potential sources of religiously inspired cial categories are produced through laws and policies extremist violence (Humphrey, 2005). which identify the dangerous/subversive behavior at - The securitization of Muslims made them a tributed to them and then made visible through poli - focus for targeted policing as dangerous encultured cing social surfaces in the media witnessed by the bodies nationally and transnationally (Humphrey, citizen-spectator. “This form of policing emerges with 2010; 2007). Although implemented nationally secu - the disappearance of enforceable physical national ritization is the product of transnational harmoniza - borders and compensates for the loss of tangible bor - tion of policies and law around counter-terrorism, ders by creating new boundary systems that are vir - immigration and integration to manage Muslims and tual, mediatized such as electronic, bio-metric, and Islam as a transnational risk category across Western digital surveillance nets” (Feldman, 2004: 74). states. In general counter-terrorism measures have Securitization involves the expansion of proac - provided exceptional powers to the state and seen tive preventive measures and practices beyond the Muslims targeted as a risk category, immigration po - state which draw on a wide range of agencies that ma - licy has made it harder for Muslims to visit, migrate nage risk which include insurance companies, private and in some cases become citizens of Western coun - investigators, retail superstores, banks and public wel - tries and integration policies have policed cultural dif - 4

1 fare institutions. Internationally, security becomes de- ference by supporting ‘moderate’ and rejecting 0 2 e

r centralized through outsourcing responsibility to ‘extremist’ forms of Muslim culture, religious leaders - b m other states, international agencies, private compa - hip and community organization. e i v o nies and NGOs. New technologies of surveillance fa - After 11 September 2001 44 new anti-terror N

4 cilitate the emergence of transnational bureaucratic laws were introduced under the Howard Coalition go - 1 0 2 networks and databanks created by the activities of vernment between 2001 to 2007 covering “(…) every - o t s o security professionals managing fear and risk (Bigo, thing from banning speech through to new sedition g A

8 2008). Their professional activities and knowledge laws to detention without charge or trial to control 9 -

3 transnationalize the security field; as the categories orders that permit house arrest to closing down 8

. p

, of their surveillance and policing are themselves courts from public view” (Williams, 2009). The poli - 6

̃ o n transnationalized. tical effect of anti-terrorism laws has been to create A

5 The securitization of migration has increasingly a perpetual state of emergency (reflected in the na - 1 ° N

, become the securitization of migrants whose bodies tional terrorist alert status) and engender fear in Aus - a b o are made surrogate borders culturally and politically. tralian citizens (Aly and Green, 2010). These d ́ r o

C The effect of securitization is to diminish the rights of emergency laws define terrorism is broadly, proscri -

, D

A those profiled as risk categories and to racialize or cul - bed political groups deemed terrorist, allows deten - D E I

C turalize the justification for treating particular trans - tion without trial and criminalizes association with O S

Y nationalized categories differently. anyone belonging to a proscribed terrorist organiza -

S E N O I C O 2 Muslims in Australia – a snap shot, Department of Immigration M

E Securitized Muslims and Islam in Australia

, and Citizenship, http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/ S O

P multicultural/pdf_doc/Muslims_in_Australia_snapshot.pdf (ac - R

E Before 11 September 2001 Muslims in Australia cessed 6 August 2010). U C

[86 ] Michael Humphrey tion, lock-down entire suburbs to conduct searches bings by Dr Bilal Abdulla and Safeel Ahmed against without judicial approval, and to permit the rapid de - targets in London and Glasgow on 30 June 2007 re - portation of non-citizen residents considered security sulted in the detention of Dr Mohammed Haneef, a risks (Rix, 2006). second cousin of Safeel Ahmed, in Brisbane under In the introduction to the National Security Le - Australian anti-terrorism laws. 5 The kinship connec - gislation listed on the Australian Attorney-General’s tion, the alleged evidence of a mobile phone SIM card website the government frames the legislation as part connecting the cousins, the close working relationship of international counter-terrorism efforts – “Australia between Australian and UK police and intensive Aus - has long played a leading role in the development of tralian media witnessing of this UK terrorist event cre - laws to combat terrorism”(cited in Rix, 2006: 431).Yet ated the public perception that it was as if the event because Australia has previously had limited expe - had taken place in Australia. Eventually all charges rience with terrorism it had limited anti-terrorism le - were dropped against Dr Haneef but the case high - gislation, although colonial control orders regulating lighted how counter-terrorism policing could use a the Australian Aboriginal population shared similar fe - highly visible spectacle of terrorism to exercice highly atures of detention, separation and sedition (Davis secretive and broadly unaccountable powers to hold and Watson, 2006). Because of the lack of anti-terro - Dr Haneef in detention and, even after the case was rism laws Australia borrowed anti-terrorism laws dismissed, continue his detention through the legal mainly for the United Kingdom (Lynch, 2008). Howe - capacity of the Minister for Immigration to withdraw ver international terrorism has been a catalyst for the his residency visa on character grounds (Pickering and growing international harmonization of anti-terrorism McCulloch, 2010). laws changing its status as a normal crime under na - Parallel with the securitization of Muslims in tional law to being an illegal act under international Australia is their domestication. While securitization law (Nuotio, 2006).This has occurred through the re - essentializes Muslims as a transnational risk category plication of laws and through its Global Counter-Te - domestication establishes the line between accepta - rrorism Strategy launched in 2006 - however the ble and unacceptable migrants. In Australia the public Convention on International Terrorism is still being ne - scrutiny of migrant ‘performance’ – fitting in, making gotiated. 3 an effort to adjust – has gone hand in hand with a The harmonization of counter-terrorism laws mass migration program whose aim was to select the 4 produces a securitized transnational space which fa - ‘best’ migrants. For some time, Muslim migrants have 1 0 2

cilitates global surveillance, policing and prosecution been judged to be problem immigrants- unwilling to r b which is reinforced by the ban-optic global media wit - work, too bound by tradition, too controlling of their m e i v nessing of Western publics of terrorist events. The cu - women, too slow to learn English and, most recently, o N

rrent extent of global mass surveillance has been too unwilling to integrate and become Australian 4 1 0 2 revealed by whistle-blowers – Julian Assange through (Humphrey, 1998). However this Australian national o t s

Wikileaks and Edward Snowden a former employee discourse on migrant ‘performance’ has became o g A

4 ,

of the US National Security Agency. Local-global me - transnationalized in the form of ‘citizenship tests’ now 8 9 - diation of terrorist events, even at a large geographi - fashionable in the North America, EU and Australia 3 8

. p

cal distance, constantly remind Western spectator- (Löwenheim and Gazit, 2009). These tests constitute , 6

̃ o citizens (us) that they (we) are potential targets the - a neo-liberal citizenship, a citizenship that has to be n A

, reby tying the national space into a transnationally se - earned (Van Houdt and Schinkel, 2011). 5 1 ° N

curitized shared space. In Australia the Dr Haneef case But the moral panic around terrorism means , a b highlighted the way this securitized transnational that social inclusion is not determined merely by ‘ci - o d ́ r o space was activated and made visible by a terrorist tizenship tests’ but by the successful performance of C

, D event in the United Kingdom. The attempted car bom - being recognized as a ‘good Muslim’ (Humphrey, A D E I

2007). Muslim identity and Islam are made the mar - C O S

3 gins of citizenship. The ‘homegrown’ terrorist attacks Y See UN Action to Counter Terrorism. http://www.un.org/terro - S E

rism/instruments.shtml (accessed 20 June 2012). in London in 7 July 2005; terrorism attacks by British N O

4 I

The NSA Files, The Guardian , http://www.theguardian.com/ Pakistanis put integration at the top of the political C world/the-nsa-files (accessed 6 August 2014). O M

management of Muslim communities in Australia and E

5 ‘Haneef related to UK terror suspect’ ABC On-line News, 6 Fri , S

the EU. Muslim cultural difference was increasingly O

2007,http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/06/ P R

1971334.htm?section=justin (accessed 28 August 2010). constructed as cultural resistance and signified poten - E U C

[87 ] Cuerpos, Emociones y Sociedad

tial ‘extremist’ views. In 2006, the former Prime Mi - Advisory Council to regulate the appointment of Isla - nister John Howard explicitly targeted Muslims for mic clerics, especially those from overseas, and the po - their unwillingness to integrate accusing them of sition of Mufti. The Council’s first task was to review being unwilling to learn English and not adopting Aus - the suitability of the incumbent Mufti Tajad-din al Hi - tralian values especially in regard to treating women lali, a controversial Muslim leader based in the influen - equally (Duffy, 2006). In a similar vein Mr Peter Cos - tial Lebanese Muslim community, to continue in his tello, 6 the former Treasurer and Deputy Leader of the national religious leadership role (McGrath, 2006). The Liberal Party, declared there would be no ‘Shari’a’ in Australian government also supported the creation of Australia making Shari’ a signify a very essentialized an Australian National Imams Council (ANIC) to create view of Islam as culturally backward, intolerant and a register of imams, promote the local training of separatist. For Australian Muslims the actual practice imams and to make them more accountable to the of Shari’a generally means the religious law concerned ANIC than their mosque communities. with family law and inheritance (Humphrey, 1998). As in Europe Muslim women have been a pro - The domestication of Islam and Muslims in Aus - minent focus of domestication in Australia. The focus tralia, and in Europe, has sought to produce ‘national’ on women continues an earlier colonial pattern of in - Islams- in President Sarkozy’s phrase “to be Muslims of tervention in Muslim societies which viewed Muslim France practicing an Islam of France” (Bowen, 2004: 43) women as vehicles for cultural change (Massell, 1974; - and thereby build moderate Islamic leadership and Abu-Lughod, 2002). Laws and policies targeting Mus - institutions. Post 7 July 2005 London bombings domes - lim women have invariably been justified on the tication aimed at preventing Islamic radicalization grounds of gender protection and human rights. The amongst Muslim immigrants and their children. As a veil viewed as a symbolic marker of Muslim gender cultural classification by Western governments the oppression has been a constant focus of Australian term ‘moderate Islam’ is primarily a political judgment domestication practices, however unlike Europe vei - about loyalty and values (Modood and Ahmad, 2007; ling ( hijab ) has been legislated against, in Australia the Aly, 2005). Firstly, a ‘moderate Muslim’ is anti-terrorism veil is ‘tolerated’ but nevertheless widely regarded as and against the use of Islam as a militant political rhe - an oppressive symbol of Muslim patriarchy (Yaxley, toric. Secondly, a ‘moderate Muslim’ is also one who 2005). Other Muslim gendered cultural practices of holds modern and progressive views on the religious Muslim immigrants that have been criminalized in - 4

1 interpretation of the Qur’an and Hadith. The idea of a clude legislation against female genital mutilation 0 2 e

r Euro-Islam, a secularized Islam informed by human (FGM) (Crimes Act 1900 –Sect 45) and arranged/for - b m rights, would be viewed as the most progressive posi - ced marriage (Mercer, 2005). Even though these laws e i v o tion (AlSayyad and Castells, 2002). Thirdly, while it may are culturally neutral they are popularly understood N

4 appear to mark out a middle ground from a Western to as targeting oppressive Muslim practices against 1 0 2 perspective the term moderate is pejorative for many women and designed to protect Muslim women and o t s o Muslims. It be interpreted as meaning a Muslim who is support their fuller integration into Australian society g A

7 ,

8 co-opted and represents no-one or even worse is so se - (Family Law Council, 1994). 9 -

3 cular that more religious members of the Muslim dias - A critical aspect of the present securitizing of 8

. p

, pora would regard them as lapsed ‘Muslims’. Islam and Muslims is the way ‘culture’ is being cons - 6

̃ o n Domestication of Islam in Australia has been tructed under globalization. The nation-state is seeking A

5 particularly focused on Islamic religious leadership to manage Islam as a transnational cultural system wi - 1 ° N

, and organizations. The Australian state has tried to thin a national imaginary which is re-emphasizing cul - a b o create more centralized and authoritative national Is - tural singularity to reassert sovereignty and unity. The d ́ r o

C lamic organizations to counteract the historical ab - focus on the radicalization of Australian Muslims

D 8 A sence of a church like structure in Islam and the (home grown) only reinforces the construction of a D E I

C pattern of ethnic fragmentation of religious organiza - shared transnational category, now conceived as even O S

Y tions and structures in Australia (Yusuf, 2005).The Aus -

S E

N tralian Federal government appointed a Muslim 7 Given there are first generation migrants from Egypt, Somalia, O I

C Ethiopia, and Sudan, African countries with some of the highest O

M levels of FGM, the practice certainly continues in Australia (Ma - E

, 6

S ABC News Online , 2006. “Costello defends Muslim Citizenship thews, 2011).

O 8 P comments”, February 24, http://www.abc.net.au/news/sto - See the Building Identity and Resisting Radicalization (BIRR) In - R E

U ries/2006/02/24/1577268.htm (accessed 06/06/09). itiative, http://www.birr.net.au/about/about.html C

[88 ] Michael Humphrey more dangerous and increasing the risk of terrorism not just the Coalition’s tough line of reintroducing the (Schmitt, 2013). Paradoxically the Salafist project to “Pacific Solution” 9 (force the processing of asylum recreate the Islamic Caliphate engages in the same es - claims off-shore in an excised migration zone or sentialized transnational culture project but with very neighbouring country) but the EU’s complex system different political goals of dismantling nation-states of treaties, agreements and practices erecting new not defending them (Bhatt, 2014).Securitizing Islam kinds of borders/barriers to prevent the movement represents a bureaucratic response of classification to of people towards Europe. The securitization of mi - try to manage potential threats to disorder. Hence cu - gration flows constructs ‘illegal migrants’ and ‘refu - rrent racism towards Muslims (coined as Islamophobia gees’ – those not arriving through the normal in Europe) is not just a legacy of orientalism reawake - regulated channels - as a problem of ‘border protec - ned by international jihadist violence but has become tion’ which in Australia has been as much about ma - integral to the processes of governance as risk mana - naging the number of illegal boat arrivals as it is gement. Securitization only reinforces the essentiali - managing public worrying about too many boats arri - zation of cultural difference as a strategy to make ving. In Australia, as has occurred in North America threats legible and to provide a target for public an - and Europe, the securitization of asylum seekers as xieties. Muslim resistance to this bureaucratic project potential terrorists has only served to raise the bar to of cultural essentialization has provoked its counter be granted asylum status. essentialization in the defense of authenticity and re- In Europe the securitization of migration was authorizing of tradition including Muslim revivalist and linked to the political project of EU integration. Immi - neo-fundamentalist projects of the recovery of ‘pris - gration emerged as a major focus of EU harmoniza - tine’ Islam (Werbner, 2004). tion of policy and laws from the early 1990s. The Dublin Convention (1990), the Treaty of Amsterdam and European Council (Tampere) Common Asylum Hypergovernance of borders Policy (2000) all aimed at the harmonization of EU as - ylum and migration policies to create a common bor - Integral to the national securitization of migra - der. Harmonization of immigration and asylum tion at home has been the risk management of trans - policies inside was complemented by transferring national migration flows to prevent the arrival of border controls to non-European states thereby dis - 4 illegal immigrants, asylum seekers and unwanted cul - tancing the problem from EU borders (Humphrey, 1 0 2

tural and political influences from diasporas. Hyper - 2002). The consequence of outsourcing was the cre - r b governance of migration is increasingly taking a ation of a series of concentric borders. The first circle m e i v militarized turn by not just securitising migrants and was the EU, ‘fortress Europe.’ The second circle con - o N

potential migrants but by making them targets of sisted of the states aspiring to join the EU—that is, 4 1 0 2 “state counterinsurgency” of “ungoverned space” Central and Eastern Europe (CEE countries). The third o t s

(Bhatt, 2014). The thrust of transnational manage - o g A

ment of unwanted migration has been to stop migra - 9 8

‘In September 2001 Parliament passed the Migration Amend - 9 - tion flows arriving at their borders through 3 ment (Excision from Migration Zone) Bill 2001 and The Migration 8

. p

deterrence, interception and intervention. Dete - Amendment (Excision from Migration Zone) (Consequential Pro - , 6

visions) Bill 2001 , giving legislative effect to the Pacific Solution. ̃ o rrence seeks to prevent people leaving home by im - n A

The Bills amended the Migration Act 1958 to excise Christmas, , plementing a restrictive and harsh policies which 5 Ashmore, Cartier and Cocos (Keeling) Islands from the migration 1 ° N

shrink asylum rights under the Refugee Convention, zone. As a result, any unlawful non-citizen attempting to enter , a

Australia via one of these islands was now prevented from making b interception seeks to prevent their arrival at the bor - o d a valid application for a protection visa unless the Minister for Im - ́ r o der through detention and immediate return policies C

migration determined that it was in the public interest for that , D and intervention seeks to “stabilize” local communi - person to do so. On 19 September 2001 Australia signed an Ad - A D E ministrative Agreement with Nauru to accommodate asylum se - I ties of origin through security, state building and de - C O

ekers for the duration of the processing of their applications. This S

velopment to produce local ‘stabilization’ to prevent Y

was replaced by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed S E departure. When the Australian Prime Minister Julia on 11 December 2001. Australia also signed an MOU with Papua N O I

Gillard in 2010 announced Labor’s new regional policy New Guinea on 11 October 2001, allowing the construction of a C processing centre to accommodate and assess the claims of as - O M

to process ‘illegal boat arrivals off-shore’ [“A boat ride E

ylum seekers on Manus Island. The centres were managed by the , S to Australia would just be a ticket back to the regional O

International Organization for Migration (IOM)’ (Phillips and P R processing centre,”] (Levy, 2010) she was imitating, Spinks, 2010). E U C

[89 ] Cuerpos, Emociones y Sociedad

circle encompassed the former Soviet Union (CIS), asylum assessment, the transfer of boats arrivals to Turkey and North Africa. The designated role of these neighbouring countries, and the adoption of a ‘push- states was to enforce European border laws at their back’ policy for ‘illegal boat arrivals’. The arrival of own borders. The fourth circle was the “Middle East, boats engenders a political crisis and justifies tougher China and Black Africa” where EU policy sought to eli - controls, a phenomenon Mountz (2010) has also ob - minate ‘push factors’ for migration and refugee flows served in Canada. However the removal of processing through a combination of security intervention and offshore denies asylum applicants the right to appeal development assistance programs. to Australian court and also renders them politically The first three concentric circles involved out - invisible to the Australian public and therefore beyond sourcing border controls to non-EU governments, compassion. Their individual human stories of perso - agencies and businesses to manage the transit of mi - nal suffering are unheard and their claims for protec - grants towards Europe. For example, the European tion as refugees are subordinated to combating Commission entered into an agreement with the Lib - international crime. In Orwellian speak combating in - yan government to establish detention centers with ternational crime is constructed as an ‘humanitarian’ the UNHCR acting as a mediator to assure their hu - policy in which ‘stopping people smugglers’ making manitarian management. Financial sanctions have money out of the misery of asylum seekers by endan - been imposed against haulage contractors transpor - gering their lives (Humphrey, 2002). Just as has occu - ting people with invalid documents (up to US$ rred in the EU, the Australian government has made 630,000) and the obligation to return those intercep - illegal migrants and refugees “the target of a discourse ted to the point of departure. The EU agency Frontex that justifies combating them in order to help them” is an example of the decentralization of control “be - (Morice and Rodier, 2010: 8). yond any democratic oversight, and it also enables Eu - In the fourth concentric circle of regions - Mid - ropean countries to evade the obligations that apply dle East, China and Black Africa –EU policy has focused to their territory because of commitments made to on the containment of unwanted migrants and un - fundamental rights” (Morice and Rodier, 2010: 8). In - wanted politics (terrorism) in their places of origin. terception of illegal boat arrivals has become a ‘push- From the early 1990s, the EU identified migration and back’ and not a rescue exercise. The Italian navy either refugee flows as a key security issue in post Cold-War redirects boats away from shore under their ‘push Europe. Since then, wars and international terrorism 4

1 back’ policy or transfers passengers to boats of a co - have only reinforced this perception and intensified 0 2 e

r llaborating country – until recently onto Libyan vessels hypergovernance of migration and refugees – e.g. the b m (CPT Report, 2010: 15; Paoletti, 2010). impact of the breakup of former Yugoslavia, the on - e i v o Since the 1990s, Australian governments have going wars in the Middle East (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, N

4 managed asylum seekers through a combination of Syria) and Africa (Somalia, Sudan), the September 11 1 0 2 harsh onshore deterrence policies designed to under - attacks, military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, o t s o mine their rights under the Refugee Convention and international jihadist terrorists attacks in Europe and g A

8 a series of regional agreements denying asylum see - the political fallout of the Arab Spring throughout the 9 -

3 kers access to onshore processing and Australian Middle East. For this outer circle, the Action Plans re - 8

. p

, courts. The features of both Coalition and Labor party commended a comprehensive approach to migration 6

̃ o n immigration and asylum policies closely resemble cu - policy through political, human rights and develop - A

5 rrent EU practices: long term detention of ‘illegal arri - ment agendas which included alleviating poverty, cre - 1 ° N

, vals’ and asylum seekers, slowdown in asylum ating employment, improving living conditions, a b 10 o processing of particular categories, increased use of preventing conflict, consolidating democracy and d ́ r o

C the deportation of ‘illegals’, the enlistment of neigh - strengthening the rule of law and addressing the

, D

A bouring countries in border controls, the negotiated rights of minorities, women and children. By targeting D E I

C creation of detention centers in neighbouring coun - the main ‘refugee-producing’ countries the EU aimed O S

Y tries with UNHCR officials assuming responsibility for at alleviating ‘push factors’ on the one hand and es -

S E

N tablishing the opportunity for repatriation of rejected O I

C asylum seekers on the other. O 10 ‘Australia stops accepting refugee claims from Sri Lanka and Afg - M

E The major thrust of EU containment policy is

, hanistan’ The Guardian, 9 April 2010, p.12. S

O http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/09/australia-refu - framed by the development and security paradigm. P R

E gees-afghanistan-sri-lanka (accessed 1 September 2010). Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton summed up this pa - U C

[90 ] Michael Humphrey radigm in the recent statement: “Development… groups threatening to export the “new terrorism”. today is a strategic, economic and moral imperative Hypergovernance of the border has increa - – as central to advancing American interests and sol - singly seen the security lens eclipse the human rights ving global problems as diplomacy and defense. It is lens. The militarization of interception and the dis - time to elevate development as a central pillar in all course of ‘stop the boats’ (as if they represented an we do in foreign policy (Bunting, 2010: 19)”. The invasion) has resulted in increased state to state coo - equation for peace is based on the proposition that peration, even with the state refugees are seeking as - “poverty causes conflict and development brings ylum from. In response to the ongoing arrival of Tamil peace” and “modern warfare is not fought around pe - refugees by boat during 2009 with the end of the civil ople but among them” (Bunting, 2010: 19). war in Sri Lanka the Australian Labor government en - After September 11, security took priority over tered into an agreement with the Sri Lankan govern - development and “narrowed on strategic regions, sub- ment designed to stop the refugee flow at source. The populations and programs with a direct security out - asylum claims of the Tamil refugees were transfor - come; including helping ineffective states to better med into a problem of states cooperating to combat police their borders and peoples” (Duffield, 2004: 3). people smugglers. The agreement also committed However, rather than the recovery of state authority, Australia to help with postwar rehabilitation and re - human security is increasingly the outcome of a new construction. 11 Asylum policy and illegal boat arrivals “assemblage of governance” which seeks “to promote is a hot button policy issue in Australian politics ho - choice and opportunity for the world’s peoples wever symbolic importance of ‘stopping the boats’ to through intervening, acting upon and regulating the assert territorial sovereignty is far greater than the economic, social and political contingencies of life” impact of the actual numbers arriving. Between 2006 (Duffield, 2004: 5). But, as Duffield (2004: 5) asks, and 2011 around 11,000 asylum seekers arrived by “How do you secure humans in an insecure world?” boat and around 850,000 arrived as permanent set - The expansive nature of the human security project tlers making asylum seekers about 1.4% of arrival in can be gauged by the International Commission on In - that period if all asylum claims are accepted. 12 tervention and State Sovereignty’s report The Respon - The current Abbott government has gone a sibility to Protect combining humanitarian intervention step further and militarized its off-shore management with “complex forms of global coordination and cen - of asylum seekers placing an Australian Army general 4 tralization necessary to regulate the conflict, post-con - in charge and calling it ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’. 1 0 2

flict, migratory, economic, health and educational As a consequence information about boat arrivals and r b contingencies of life” (Duffield, 2004: 5). asylum seeker processing have been declared military m e i v

The development and security paradigm is de - ‘operational matters’ and therefore secret. The hu - o N

signed to prevent further population flows and to per - manitarian logic of asylum seeking to save life has 4 1 0 2 mit the repatriation of rejected asylum seekers to been completely inverted: instead of saving people o t s their countries of origin after they have been made from persecution by their state it is now about saving o g A

safe through Western intervention. One dimension of them from drowning at sea as a result of exploitation 8 9 -

Australian government participation in the wars in at the hands of people smugglers selling them passa - 3 8

. p

Iraq and Afghanistan as a member of a US led coali - ges on unseaworthy boats. Humanitarianism has , 6

̃ o tion and the NATO force respectively was the oppor - been securitized and turned into a problem of ‘people n A

, tunity it presented to halt the refugee flows from smuggling’ – i.e. an international criminal activity. 5 1 ° N

these two key ‘refugee generating’ countries by re - Stopping the boats has been framed as breaking the , a b gime change and “stabilization” through state-buil - ‘business model’ of the people smugglers (Morrison, o d ́ r o ding, democratic government and the rule of law. It 2014).Following this inverted logic which turns asylum C

, D added military-humanitarian intervention as an ins - seeking into the need for protection from internatio - A D E I

trument in Australia’s refugee containment and repa - nal human traffickers the Australian government has C O S

triation strategies. By joining in the war to overthrow Y

11 E the Taliban government in Afghanistan, and subse - The Hon Stephen Smith, Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs N O I quently Saddam Hussain in Iraq, the Australian go - and Trade, Joint Ministerial Statement, 9 November 2009. C http://www.foreignminister.gov.au/releases/2009/fa- O M

vernment expected to simultaneously eliminate the E

s091109_js.html (accessed 1 August 2011). , S

‘push’ factors for Afghan and Iraqi refugees and clo - 12 O

See the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship P R sedown the transnational terrorist sanctuaries of 2012 http://www.immi.gov.au/settlement/ E U C

[91 ] Cuerpos, Emociones y Sociedad

sought assistance of the Sri Lankan Navy, providing tization of Muslims and Islam at home and abroad. them with patrol boats, to help stop the postwar flow The increasing racialization and criminalization of of Tamil refugees by boat from Sri Lanka. 13 Controver - “illegal” boats arrivals in public discourse and anti-ra - sially the government handed over 41 Tamil asylum se - dicalization policy aimed at policing the diaspora for ekers it had intercepted on a boat directly to the Sri extremism. In Australia the term ‘refugee’ has be - Lankan Navy (Knott, 2014) but were prevented from come code for ‘Muslim’ because the overwhelming handing over another 153 Tamil asylum seekers by an majority of illegal boat arrivals have been Muslims Australian High Court injunction to determine govern - from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan. 16 The arrival ment’s obligations of non-refoulement, the principle of Tamils from Sri Lanka between 2010-2012 has been under international law that a victim cannot be rende - the exception. The logic of the ‘war on terror’ was to red to their persecutor (Shanahan, 2014).The govern - reestablish political order in failed states by disman - ment now explicitly links security and markets arguing tling of radical Islamist militias, in particular al Qaeda, that the “border” is a “national asset” which must effi - in order to prevent further terrorist attacks in the ci - ciently regulate the legal flow of people and goods. In ties of the North. In the “ungoverned space” of failed a speech announcing the creation of the Australian states civil society is not seen as part of the solution Border Force, a new government agency combining im - but part of the problem until it “becomes substituted migration and customs, the Minister for Immigration by visible and policy comprehensible INGO gover - and Border Protection declared the border was now nance” (Bhatt, 2014: 824). even greater ‘national asset’ because the recent free After the 7 July 2005 attacks against the Lon - trade agreements with Japan and South Korea, and don transport system conducted by radicalized “ho - China still under negotiation(Morrison, 2014). megrown” British Pakistan Muslim youth counter- The Australian Agency for International Deve - terrorism began to target the export of radical jihadist lopment (AusAID) projects in Afghanistan highlight politics, especially radical preachers and recruiters in the connection between security (military patrols and the Muslim diaspora. Military intervention abroad to training), development assistance and the solution for defeat Islamic militants in conflict zones became part refugee flow. 14 Australia participates in military ope - of the expanded hypergovernance of migrants at rations in Afghanistan under the United Nations man - home. The perceived increased risk of radicalization dated International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). of diaspora Muslims has only intensified the securiti - 4

1 Australian military involvement has been in Oruzgan zation and domestication of young Muslim males as 0 2 e

r Province with the mission of “improving agriculture a terror risk category. The geographical focus of state b m and rural development, improving basic service deli - “anti-radicalization” programs is on “jihadi corridors”, e i v o very, supporting good governance and supporting vul - the space linking diaspora and homeland politics N

15 4 nerable populations.’ An important development constituted by the experience of training, ideological 1 0 2 outcome mentioned in the report is the successful re - indoctrination and fighting for Islamist causes (Kas - o t s o patriation since 2002 of more than 5 million Afghan hmir, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia) by different ji - g A

8 refugees from neighbouring Pakistan and Iran under hadi militias (Bhatt, 2010). 9 -

3 the UNHCR’s voluntary repatriation program and the The link between 9/11 and state failure in Afg - 8

. p

, return home of around 500,000 internally displaced hanistan has come back to haunt the West. Hypergo - 6

̃ o n Afghans. Nevertheless over 2.6 million registered Afg - vernance through military intervention in Iraq and A

5 han refugees remain in Pakistan and Iran. political support for Arab Spring democracy move - 1 ° N

, The hypergovernance of the border has also led ments against authoritarian regimes has not delivered a b o to the convergence of the domestication and securi - “favoured governments”. The growing influence and d ́ r o

C power of Sunni Islamist militias in Syria, Iraq and Libya

, D

A 13 ‘Scott Morrison urged to visit war-torn north during trip to Sri and the loss of state territorial sovereignty through D E I

C Lanka’, Guardian Sunday 6 July 2014 http://www.theguardian.com/ armed rebellion has renewed fear of diaspora radica - O S

world/2014/jul/06/scott-morrison-to-head-to-sri-lanka-amid-row-

Y lization in the West. Recruitment of ‘jihadis’ for these

S over-fate-of-asylum-boat (accessed 23 July 2014) E 14 N AusAIDProgrammes, Afghanistan http://www.ausaid.gov.au/ O I

C country/country.cfm?CountryID=27886219&Region=AfricaMid - 16 Submission to the Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Immi - O

M dleEast (accessed 1 September 2010). gration Detention Network September 2011, Department of Im - E

, 15

S AusAIDProgrammes, Afghanistan http://www.ausaid.gov.au/ migration and Citizenship http://www.immi.gov.au/media/ O

P country/country.cfm?CountryID=27886219&Region=AfricaMid - publications/pdf/2011/diac-jscaidn-submission-sept11.pdf (ac - R E dleEast (accessed 1 September 2010). U cessed 1 June 2012). C

[92 ] Michael Humphrey conflicts by radical clerics and cyber appeals from ‘ji - repatriation through the recycling displaced and tran - hadis’ at the front for “brothers” to join them has led sient populations through local deals with states of to much higher recruitment from the Muslim diaspora origin or transit ones where ungoverned spaces resist in the West as well as other Muslim countries. 17 The ordering the emergence of the new military techno - response of Western governments has been the co - logies, such as drones and robots, have opened up the ordinated intensification of Muslim domestication, opportunity for perpetual war. In the militarized securitization and hypergovernance to prevent fur - hypergovernance of these ungoverned spaces the dis - ther radicalization and recruitment at home, to stop tinction between combatant and civilian collapses jihadi recruits leaving, to monitor the activities of their and “the moral indifference to civilian deaths beco - “nationals” in conflict zones and, on their return, to mes part of the rationality of war, as does the outrage investigate them for criminal activity – e.g. consorting at the death of a soldier” (Bhatt, 2014: 821). As go - with proscribed terrorist groups overseas. The fear is verned spaces, such as the EU area of “freedom, se - that participation in jihadist militias will increase the curity and justice” (AFSJ), 18 become more harmonized risk of terrorist attacks at home on their return. The and intensively regulated ungoverned space becomes border is used to quarantine recruits to either prevent the target of militarized hypergovernance and strip - them from leaving to join jihadist militias by suspen - ped of “freedom, security and justice”. ding their passports or detaining and prosecuting them under anti-terrorism laws on their return to limit the contamination of the diaspora at home and Conclusion possibly initiating terrorist actions on their return. Transit countries such as Turkey and Lebanon are also The patterns of securitization, domestication cooperating in the anti-radicalization containment and hypergovernance pursued by the Australian state strategy fearing the consequences of radicalization in the contemporary management migrants and mi - amongst their own populations. The Australian go - gration are embedded in a web of international prac - vernment has already cancelled passports of those se - tices emerging in the North. Australia not only eking to fight in Syria and Iraq (Cox, 2014). borrows laws and policies from the North and extends As the hypergovernance of postcolonial states transnational governance through the adoption of UN in crisis becomes more difficult so the international conventions and treaties, it shares the transnationa - 4 agenda for peacekeeping, peacemaking and nation- lized security objects – especially Muslims and refu - 1 0 2

building becomes more expansive. LakhdarBrahimi, gees – and the produces the collective gaze of r b an Algerian statesman and veteran UN envoy to Afg - Australian spectator-citizens. While migration is m e i v hanistan, commented: “[the plans] become more am - usually strongly framed as a national question it is in - o N

bitious and multifaceted, seeking to promote justice, creasingly being managed in the North as an interna - 4 1 0 2 national reconciliation, human rights, gender equality, tional one along an imaginary transnational border o t s the rule of law, sustainable economic development, between the North and South. o g A

and democracy, all at the same time. From day one, Nation-states are increasingly confronting the 8 9 - now, immediately, even including in the midst of con - limits of their sovereignty in managing the impact of 3 8

. p

flict” (Rashid, 2008: 402). Hypergovernance as a stra - globalization. The securitization of migration and mi - , 6

̃ o tegy of transnational governance of populations grants represents a strategy by which states in the n A

, appears to be becoming more complex and never-en - North now seek to manage population flows from the 5 1 ° N

ding. The unresolved project of state building in Iraq South and to internally police the impact of migration , a b and the souring of the Arab Spring, especially in Libya, on their own societies and to intervene in others. The o d ́ r o

Egypt and Syria, as a non-jihadist route to regime bodies of migrants have been made surrogate bor - C

, D change and social change has witnessed the intensi - ders on which the state inscribes its sovereignty A D E I

fication of securitization and hypergovernance of mi - through inclusion or exclusion. As social control, se - C O S

grants/diasporas. Interception, detention and curitization involves a shift from the punishment to Y

S E

the prevention of crimes, from a panoptic lens (the N O I

17 ‘Up to 11,000 foreign fighters in Syria; steep rise among Western logic of totalitarian control under the gaze of the C O

Europeans’, 17 December 2013, International Centre for the Study M E

, of Radicalization http://icsr.info/2013/12/icsr-insight-11000- S

18 O foreign-fighters-syria-steep-rise-among-western-europeans/ (ac - European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.http://free- P R group.eu (accessed 5 August 2014). E cessed 22 July 2014). U C

[93 ] Cuerpos, Emociones y Sociedad

state) to a ban-optic lens (the management of threats malization, the policing of social surfaces through the under the gaze of the citizen spectator). But securiti - mediated circulation of images watched by spectator- zation of migration also represents a mode of gover - citizens. The profiling of risk categories has led to cul - nance based on policing social categories of threat tural essentialization to make risks/threats legible and and risk to produce social cohesion/consensus as a thereby gain political legitimacy by visibly policing way to manage the problems of globalization. them. Racism is being entrenched by the optical logics The securitization of migration has emerged as of securitization. a political project of spatial integration through the Securitization is an expression of hypergover - harmonization of policy and laws managing risk across nance, the transnational management of populations states of the North. As Watson (2010) argues, securi - beyond state borders to contain threats at a distance. tization is best thought of as being at one end of the In the case of migration this has involved intercepting security spectrum between non-institutionalized and unwanted migrants – illegals and asylum seekers – be - institutionalized practices. But as Karyotis (2012) ar - fore they arrive at the border and trying to keep them gues the securitization of migration is a fallacy be - at home. States in the North have consistently sought cause of its complexity and uncertainty. The to distance asylum seekers victims from voters by de- emergence of securitization is an expression of the in - humanising them, denying their rights though excep - adequacy of institutionalized forms of international tional laws (especial deny them access to national and national security to manage new risks and threats jurisdictions), criminalising them by association (their that have emerged with globalization. Perhaps secu - resort to people smugglers), and even producing a dis - ritization represents an emergent pattern to be insti - course claiming to save them in the name of combating tutionalized? Yet the very shift from panoptic to people smugglers by denying them their rights. In other banoptic forms of disciplining suggests this is the new words, interception beyond the border makes refugees pattern of transnational security which prioritizes po - and asylum seekers politically and legally invisible and licy, and with it politics, on the latest risk objects. Even allows the state to avoid legal and moral responsibility humanitarianism has assumed this form of prioritizing to address asylum claims. It becomes a strategy of se - discourse for urgent political attention on the referent crecy thereby spatially delimiting the international legal object of human suffering (Watson, 2011). obligations and avoiding democratic scrutiny. The transnationalization of migration policy in Reaching beyond the state also involves the 4

1 the North constitutes a sphere of overlapping sove - outsourcing of sovereignty by getting other states, 0 2 e

r reignties. The transnational management of migration NGOs and private companies to assume responsibili - b m and migrants has been an important mechanism for ties for managing migration flows. States from the e i v o EU political integration through the harmonization of North are increasingly negotiating the abdication of N

4 laws and policies. Securitization has reinforced the EU their responsibilities towards refugees and asylum se - 1 0 2 project of integration but it has also led to a wider har - ekers (treaty obligations, international law) by unloa - o t s o monization of laws and policies as a shared project of ding responsibilities onto to others on the basis of g A

8 the North. Securitization has accelerated the process coercion or inducement - accession to the EU; deve - 9 -

3 of constituting a form of transnational governance fo - lopment loans; trade benefits; regional security agre - 8

. p

, cused on risk management by producing transnational ements. But, as the situations in Afghanistan and 6

̃ o n categories for shared regulation – refugees, irregular Pakistan reveal, it is no longer enough to keep pro - A

5 migrants, terrorists and Muslims. In the area of migra - blems at a distance by exporting development and se - 1 ° N

, tion the Inter-Governmental Consultations (IGC) on curity programs. ISAF’s hypergovernance of a failed a b o Asylum, Refugee and Migration Policies in Europe, state like Afghanistan is in practice contested by Isla - d ́ r o

C North America and Australia is a good example of mic forms of hypergovernance projected by religious

, D

A high-level discussion and forum for policy transfer and movements connected to the Saudi state’s regional D E I

C harmonization (Humphrey, 2002). The bureaucratic ambitions for influence (Humphrey, 2012). There are O S

Y exchange of policies and laws is also referred to as competing patterns of the franchising of sovereignty

S E

N “best practice” (Mountz, 2010). Securitization has to Western secular as well as Islamic religious NGOS O I

C emerged as a mode of governance to produce social (Bhatt, 2007). What is at stake is not just local disorder O M

E cohesion/consensus around a threat. It combines or the reach of salafi jihadist millenarianism but the

, S

O technologies of surveillance, states scrutinizing the very future of postcolonial states in crisis. In Afghanis - P R

E conduct of risk categories, with technologies of nor - tan state building and stabilization turned into a pro - U C

[94 ] Michael Humphrey ject of generating support for a predatory state which for intervention at a distance, hypergovernance, will only generated “violent ‘tribal’ militia” (Bhatt, increase resulting in the reconfiguration of societies 2012:825). and states, but unlike in the era of western domination, The impact of the securitization of migration in contested by new counter imperialisms. If this is the the 21 st century is on course to intensify with the gro - scenario unfolding we will see greater displacements wing anxiety in the North about the South. By juxtapo - and more large-scale migrations. sing national order with global disorder, the impetus

References

ABU-LUGHOD, L. (2002) “Do Muslim women really (eds.) Terror, Insecurity and Liberty: Illiberal practices need saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural of liberal regimes. Abingdon: Routledge. Relativism and Its Others.” American Anthropologist N° 104 (3), p. 783-790. BOWEN, J. (2004) “Does French Islam Have Borders? Dilemmas of Domestication in a Global Religion.” ALSAYYAD, N. and CASTELLS, M. (2002) Muslim Eu - American Anthropologist N° 106 (1), p. 43-55. rope or Euro-Islam: Politics, Culture, and Citizenship in the Age of Globalization. Lanham: Lexington Books. BUNTING, M. (2010) “Weapon to defeat poverty or ALY, A. and GREEN, K. (2010) “Fear, Anxiety and the tool of war?” The Guardian Weekly N° 20 March, p. 19. State of Terror.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism N° 33 (3), p. 268-281. BUZAN, B., de WILDE, J. and WAEVER, O. (1998) Secu - rity: A New Framework for Analysis . Boulder, CO: ALY, W. (2005) “The clash of ignorance.” The Age, 6 Lynne Rienner. August. http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/ the-clash-of-ignorance/2005/08/06/ COX, L. (2014) “Passports of jihadists cancelled, says

1123125843879.html (accessed 2 July 2009). Julie Biship.” The Sydney Morning Herald, 23 July. 4 1 0 2 http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political- e r BHATT, C. (2007) “Frontlines and Interstices in the news/passports-of-australian-jihadists-cancelled- b m e i Global War on Terror.” Development and Change N° says-julie-bishop-20140622-3aly1.html (accessed 22 v o N

- 38 (6), p. 1073–1093. July 2014). 4 1 0 2

o t

______, (2010) “The ‘British jihad’ and the cur - CPT REPORT (2010) “Report to the Italian Govern - s o g A

ves of religious violence.” Ethnic & Racial Studies N° ment on the visit to Italy carried out by the European , 8 9 33 (1), p. 39-59. Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhu - - 3 8

man or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) p

, 6

______, (2012) “Human Rights and the Trans - from 27 to 31 July 2009.” CPT/Inf 14. ̃ o n A formations of War.” Sociology N° 46, p. 813-828. http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/ita/2010-inf-14- , 5 1 °

eng.pdf (accessed 28 August 2010). N

, a

______, 2014. “The Virtues of Violence: The Sa - b o d ́ r lafi-Jihadi Political Universe.” Theory, Culture & So - DAVIS, M. and WATSON, N. (2006) “”It’s the Same Old o C

, ciety 31(1):25-48. Song”: Draconian Counter-Terrorism Laws and the D A D E

Déjà Vu of Indigenous Australians.” Borderlands – I C O S

BIGO, D. (2002) “Security and Immigration: Toward a ejournal N° 5 (1). http://www.borderlands.net.au/ Y

Critique of the Governmentality of Unease.” Alterna - vol5no1_2006/daviswatson_song.htm (accessed 28 E N O tives N° 27, p. 63-92. August 2010). I C O M E

______, (2008) “Globalized-in-security: the Field DEBORD, G. (1977) Society of the Spectacle . Cam - S O P and the Ban-opticon.” in: BIGO, D. and TSOUKALA, A. bridge, MA: Zone Books. R E U C

[95 ] Cuerpos, Emociones y Sociedad

DUFFY, C. (2006) PM stands by Muslim integration HUMPHREY, M. (2009) “The Securitization and Do - comments. The World Today, ABC Online, 1 Septem - mestication of Diaspora Muslims and Islam: the case ber http://www.abc.net.au/news/2006-09-01/pm- of Turkish immigrants in Germany and Australia.” In - stands-by-muslim-integration-comments/1253202 ternational Journal of Multicultural Societies , N° 11 [accessed 5 July 2014] (2), p. 136-154.

DUFFIELD, M. and WADDELL, N. (2004) “Human Se - ______, (2010) “Securitization, Social Inclusion curity and Global Danger: Exploring a Governmental and Muslims in Australia” in: Yasmeen, S. (ed.) Mus - Assemblage.” ESSRC Report, New Security Challenges lims in Australia: The Dynamics of Exclusion and Inclu - program (RES-223-25-0035). sion, Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

DUNN, K. M. (2004) “Islam in Sydney: Contesting Dis - ______, (2012) “Counter-militancy, Jihadists and course of Absence.” Australian Geographer N° 35 (3), Hypergovernance: managing disorder in the ‘uncom - p. 333-353. pleted’ postcolonial state of Pakistan.” Arab Studies Quarterly N°34(3), p. 144-157. DUNN, K. M., KlOCHER, N. and SALABAY, T. (2007) “Contemporary racism and Islamaphobia in Australia: HUYSMANS, J. (2006) The Politics of Insecurity: Fear, Racializing religion.” Ethnicities N° 7 (4), p. 564-589. migration and asylum in the EU . London and New York: Routledge. FAMILY LAW COUNCIL (1994) “Female Genital Muti - lation: A Report to the Attorney-General prepared by KARYOTIS, G. (2012) “The Fallacy of securitizing Mi - the Family Law Council”, June, Commonwealth of gration: elite Rationality and Unintended Consequen - Australia. ces.” Pp. 13-30 in Security, insecurity and migration in Europe, edited by G. Lazaridis.Franham, surrey: As - Feldman, A. (2004) “Deterritorialised Wars of Public hgate Publishing Co. Safety.” Social Analysis N° 48 (1), p. 73-80. KERBAJ. (2006) PM stands by Muslim integration com - FOUCAULT, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish : The Birth ments. The Australian, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/ 4

1 of the Prison. New York: Vintage. story/0,20867,20322022-601,00.html(accessed 0 2 e

r 05/06/09) b m HUMPHREY, M. (1998) Islam, Multiculturalism and e i v o Transnationlism: from the Lebanese Diaspora . Lon - KNOTT, M. (2014) “Asylum Seekers screened at sea N

4 don: Centre for Lebanese Studies with I.B. Tauris. and returned to Sri Lanka.” The Sydney Morning He - 1 0 2 rald, 7 July. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-poli - o t s o ______, (2000) “Injuries and Identities: Authori - tics/political-news/asylum-seekers-screened-at-sea-r g A

8 sing Arab Diasporic Difference in Crisis” in: Hage, G. eturned-to-sri-lanka-20140707-3bh3x.html (accessed 9 -

3 (ed.) Arab-Australians Today: Citizenship and Belon - 11 August 2014). 8

. p

, ging . Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. 6

̃ o n KRASMANN, S. (2007) “The enemy on the border: Cri - A

5 ______, (2002) “Humanitarianism, Terrorism and tique of a programin favour of a preventive state.” Pu - 1 ° N

, the Transnational Border.” Social Analysis N° 46 (1), nishment and Society N° 9 (3), p. 301-318. a b o p. 117-122. d ́ r o

C LEONARD, S. (2007) “The ‘Securitization’ of Asylum

, D

A ______, (2005) “Australian Islam, the New Global and Migration in the European Union: Beyond the Co - D E I

C Terrorism and the Limits of Citizenship” in: Akbarzadeh, penhagen School’s Framework.” Paper presented at O S

Y S. and Yasmeen, S. (eds.) Islam and Political Violence: the SGIR Sixth Pan-European International Relations

S E

N Reflections from Australia. Sydney: UNSW Press. Conference, 12-15 September 2007, Turin (Italy). O I C O M

E ______, (2007) “Culturalising the Abject: Islam, LEVY, M. (2010) “Gillard Timor policy ‘responds to xe -

, S

O Law and Moral Panic in the West.” Australian Journal nophobia’.” The Age 6 July, http://www.theage.com.au/ P R

E of Social Issues N°42 (1), p. 9-25. national/gillard-timor-policy-responds-to— U C

[96 ] Michael Humphrey xenophobia-20100706-zy9m.html (accessed 22 July MOUNTZ, A. (2010) Seeking Asylum: Human Smug - 2014). gling and Bureaucracy at the Border . Minneapolis/ London: University of Minnesota Press. LÖWENHEIM, O. and GAZIT, O. (2009) “Power and Examination: A Critique of Citizenship Tests.” Security NUOTIO, K. (2006) “Terrorism as a catalyst for the Dialogue N°40 (2), p. 145-167. emergence, harmonization and reform of criminal law”. Journal of international criminal justice , 4(5): LYNCH, A. (2008) “Control Order in Australia: A Fur - 998-1016. ther Case Study in the Migration of British Counter- Terrorism Law.” Oxford University Commonwealth PAOLETTI, E. (2010) The Migration of Power and Law Journal N° 8 (2), p. 159-185. North–South Inequalities: The Case of Italy and Libya . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. MASSELL, G. (1974) The Surrogate Proletariat: Mos - lem Women and Revolutionary Strategies in Soviet PHILLIPS, J. and SPINKS, H. (2010) “Boats Arrivals Since Central Asia, 1919-1929 . Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni - 1976.” Social Policy Section, Parliament of Australia, versity Press. Parliamentary Library, updated 10 May 2010. http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/BoatArri - MATHEWS, B. (2011) “Female genital mutilation: Aus - vals.htm (accessed 5 August 2010). tralian law, policy and practical challenges for doc - tors.” The Medical Journal of Australia N° 194 (3), p. PICKERING, S. and MCCULLOCH, J. (2010) “The Haneef 139-141. case and counter-terrorism policing in Australia.” Po - licing and Society: An International Journal of Rese - MCGRATH, C. (2006) “Muslim Advisory Group Set to arch and Policy N° 20 (1), p. 21-38. Confront Community Concerns.” ABC Radio AM, 25 February. http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/ RASHID, A. (2008) Descent into Chaos: How the war s1578298.htm (accessed 1 Sept 2010). against Islamic extremism is being lost in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia. London: Allen Lane. MERCER, P. (2005) “Australia acts on forced ma - 4 rriage.” BBC News, 3 August, http://news.bbc.co.uk/ RISLEY, S. (2006) “The Sociology of Security: Sociolo - 1 0 2

1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4740871.stm (accessed 4 Au - gical Approaches to Contemporary and Historical Se - r b gust 2011). curitization” in American Sociological Association m e i v

Annual Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. o N

MODOOD, T. and AHMAD, F. (2007) “British Muslim 4 1 0 2 Perspectives on Multiculturalism”. Theory, Culture RIX, M. (2006) “Australia’s Anti-Terrorism Legislation: o t s and Society N° 24 (2), p. 187-213. The National Security State and the Community Legal o g A

Sector .”Prometheus December 2006 N° 24(4), p. 429- 8 9 -

MORICE, A. and RODIER, C. (2010) The EU´s expulsion 439. 3 8

. p

machine, Le Monde Diplomatique, June , pp 8-9. , 6

̃ o

SCHMITT, E. (2013) “Worries Mount as Syria Lures n A

MORRISON, S. (2013) “Operation Sovereign Borders” West’s Muslims.” New York Times, July 27, 2013. 5 1 ° N

Department of Immigration and Border Protection, 23 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/28/world/middle - , a b

September. http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/ media/ east/worries-mount-as-syria-lures-wests- o d ́ r o sm/2013/m208387.htm (accessed 22 July 2014). muslims.html?pagewanted=all (accessed 11 August C

, D

2014). A D E I

MORRISON, S. (2014) “Transcript of speech to the C O S

Lowy Institute for International Policy by the Minister SHANAHAN, L. (2014) “High Court blocks return of Y

S E

for Immigration and Border Protection, Scott Morri - 153 asylum-seekers to Sri Lanka military.” The Austra - N O I son.” http://australianpolitics.com/2014/05/09/mo - lian, 7 July. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/natio - C O M

rrison-australian-border-force.html (accessed 20 July nal-affairs/high-court-blocks-return-of-153-asylumse E

, S

2014). ekers-to-sri-lanka-military/story-fn59niix- O P R

1226980884195 (accessed 11 August 2014). E U C

[97 ] Cuerpos, Emociones y Sociedad

VAN HOUDT, F. and SCHINKEL, W. (2011) “Neoliberal WILLIAMS, G. (2009) “Time to change terrorism laws.” communitarian citizenship: Current trends towards Sydney Morning Herald, 24 February. ‘earned citizenship’ in the United Kingdom, France and the Netherlands.” International Sociology N° 26 YAXLEY, L. (2005) “Bronwyn Bishop calls for hijab ban (3), p. 408-432. in schools.” The World Today, August 29. http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1 WATSON, S. (2011) “The ‘human’ as referent object? 448343.htm (accessed 06 June 2009). Humanitarianism as securitization.” Security Dialogue N° 42(1), p. 3-20. YUSUF, I. (2005) “Wanted: home-grown imams to give Islam an Australian voice”. The Sydney Morning He - WERBNER, P. (2004) “The Predicament of the Dias - rald, 29 December. http://www.smh.com.au/news/ pora and Millennial Islam: Reflections in the After - opinion/wanted-homegrown-imams-to-give-islam- math of September 11.” Ethnicities N° 4 (4), p. an-australian-voice/2005/12/28/ (accessed 20 June 451-476. 2012).

Citado. HUMPHREY, Michael (2014) “Securitization of Migration: an Australian case study of global trends” en Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios sobre Cuerpos, Emociones y Sociedad - RELACES, N°15. Año 6. Agosto - Noviembre 2014. Córdoba. ISSN: 1852.8759. pp. 83-98. Disponible en: http://www.relaces.com.ar/index.php/relaces/article/view/333

Plazos. Recibido: 01/07/2014. Aceptado: 26/08/2014. 4 1 0 2 e r b m e i v o N

4 1 0 2 o t s o g A

, 8 9 - 3 8

. p

, 6

̃ o n A

, 5 1 ° N

, a b o d ́ r o C

, D A D E I C O S

S E N O I C O M E

, S O P R E U C

[98 ]