ABSTRACT
Visa requirements have become one of the most ubiquitous and efficient forms of controlling international migration. As with other forms of immigration and border control, the use of visas can be viewed as a barometer of national anxiety (Salter, 2003: 32). In both Australia and Canada, the use of visa requirements reveals an increasing number of anxieties associated with international migration, and humanitarian migration in particular. Visas have been used to limit access to refugee claimants and to ensure that humanitarian migrants use the “proper,” state-sanctioned means of obtaining protectionresettlement. They also reflect anxiety about the use of the humanitarian migration program by non-humanitarian migrants. Lastly, visas reflect a general anxiety about the insecurity of the international passport regime. These anxieties and fears stem from a dominant discourse in which foreigners are identified as threatening and the state as a sovereign entity with a duty and right to control entry. The visa is, in essence, a letter of permission that allows a non-resident to
be in a foreign state for a specified purpose and period. This permission is granted only after the foreigner has been certified by the receiving state as safe and not inadmissible. Because the passport alone is an unreliable means of controlling migration and ensuring the identity and intentions of migrants (see Salter, 2003) the visa has become the key element in the remote control of international migration. Combined with carrier sanctions, the use of visa requirements has made it very difficult for unauthorized foreign nationals to reach receiving states (Guiradon and Lahav, 2000: 178). The use of visas stems from the perceived need to assess the level of threat
posed by foreigners prior to their arrival at the state; this reflects a securitized relationship in which nationals of foreign states are regarded with suspicion, mistrust and fear (Bigo and Guild, 2005: 236). Fear of foreigners is not simply a product of modernity and is a recurrent theme in human history, but with the advent of nationalism and the nation-state, fear of foreigners has been entrenched as state authorities have embarked on a process of expropriating the legitimate means of movement (Torpey, 2000). In this process of expropriation, states have developed several technologies of control, including identity cards, passports, border crossings, carrier sanctions and the visa.
These technologies of control have become so commonplace that Erika Feller argues that visas have always been accepted for the purpose of controlling immigration, drug trafficking, terrorism and for generating income (Feller, 1989: 50). At the same time, the fallibility of these control mechanisms has served to
reproduce the representation of the foreigner as threatening; unauthorized arrivals and those who violate the conditions of their visa demonstrate that the state remains incapable of fully controlling migration. Unauthorized arrivals in particular are seen as threatening both because of what their arrival reveals about the sovereignty of the state as well as what their method of arrival intimates about their own character. Well-publicized unauthorized entries expose the inability of the state to control its borders-signaling the hypocrisy of its own claims of sovereignty and potentially encouraging future unauthorized arrivals. Furthermore, in most cases, unauthorized arrivals would have been excluded had they applied for a visa and had the state been able to control its borders. This has meant that unauthorized arrivals are assumed to possess characteristics or belong to groups already viewed as a threatening and inadmissible by much of the receiving society (Collinson, 1996: 78). Though states continue to develop new technologies of control in response
to the failure of existing practices (see Guiradon and Lahav, 2000) visa requirements remain the “first line of defense” against the threat posed by foreign nationals (Torpey, 1998: 252; Bigo and Guild, 2005: 235). Foreign nationals regarded as undesirable or dangerous require pre-approval by the state to arrive at its entry points, while those perceived as desirable and lowrisk are not subject to a visa requirement. (Neumayer, 2005: 75). The visa regime has been based on the initial categorization of threat posed by foreign nationals based solely on their nationality-as visas are applied to states (Bigo and Guild, 2005: 255). Thus, certain nationalities face very different constraints on international mobility than others. Exceptions to the general norm of exclusion are granted based on national characteristics (in the case of visa waivers granted to states) or through a process of individual assessment (in the case of granting a visa). Through the individual assessment process, front line immigration officers assess whether or not individual claimants represent a security threat based on three categorizations of risk: poverty, health and criminal/terrorist tendencies. Theoretically, these controls could be exerted and threatening foreigners
turned away after they arrived at the state’s border; however, the move toward remote control reflects the perception that the border is no longer an effective place to control entry (Bigo and Guild, 2005: 235). Arrival at the border triggers certain responsibilities on the part of the state (including those outlined in Chapter two) and assessing the risk posed by a prospective migrant at the border would either require the state to grant entrance during the process or bear the costs of housing and feeding (or detaining) applicants while their application is processed. By ensuring that this process takes place while the
migrant is in their home state or a third state, the receiving state reduces the costs associated with the thorough assessment of potential migrants and avoids triggering international obligations spelled out in the international refugee regime, human rights agreements and domestic legislation. Remote assessment prevents access to legal protections extended to those physically in a state’s territory-unlike a negative refugee determination in-state, a negative decision by visa officers is not subject to various legal avenues of appeal. Consequently, the value of visas as a remote immigration control device has been enhanced due to the development of international norms pertaining to the treatment of foreign nationals that come into effect once the foreign national is on one’s territory or at one’s border.
