Fatal Journeys: Tracking Lives Lost during Migration
1.4.5 Definitional inconsistencies Finally, at issue in documenting border-related deaths is determining which migrant deaths can be deemed “border-related.” As noted above in section 1.3, some sources collecting data stick to recording deaths that occur at the external boundaries of States. Others follow a definition more similar to what Leanne Weber and Sharon Pickering have referred to as the “functional border,” which extends beyond the physical parameters of a nation State and includes all sites at which border functions are performed (Weber and Pickering, 2011). Weber and Pickering (2011) note the increasing “de-territorialization of borders,” suggesting that national boundaries are increasingly detached from sovereign territory. Migration zones and buffers may be created that extend beyond the territorial boundaries of the State – such as the excision of offshore territories by Australia – and remote methods of border control exist through visa policy and refugee determination processes (ibid.). Border control can be enforced by various actors, both state and non-state. For those illegally residing in a country, the border may remain present through exclusion from many of the State’s social and legal protections. Extending even further, conditions of illegality may contribute to situations of social and economic marginalization that lead to additional vulnerabilities (ibid.).9 Thus, we can see how the border may extend far from the traditional conception of physical boundaries. When counting deaths attributable to borders, at what point does one draw the line? Should deaths in detention, through efforts to evade deportation, or due to exploitative working conditions, among others, be included, or should counts stick to deaths that occur at the physical perimeters of States? The physical border and the exercises of sovereignty and governance within a State can be broadly defined as the external and internal borders, respectively, together building the “functional border.” As will be shown throughout this report, the various entities collecting data have chosen different points between the external and internal borders at which to limit their counts. As noted in section 1.3, IOM’s figures correspond to deaths that occurred at the external borders of States or during migration towards an international destination. They exclude deaths along the “internal border,” such as those that occur in detention facilities, during deportation, or on forced return to a migrant’s homeland, as well as deaths more loosely connected with migrants’ irregular status, such as those resulting from labour exploitation. This approach is chosen because deaths occurring at physical borders and while en route represent a more clearly definable category. When including fatalities more indirectly associated with border control and migration, it becomes difficult to determine where to limit counts and issues of comparability between sources 9
For an in-depth discussion of the “functional border,” see L. Weber and S. Pickering, Chapter 1, Globalization and Borders: Death at the Global Frontier (2011).
Fatal Journey 2014.indb 31
31
10/16/2014 4:18:44 PM