Alternatives: Global,

Local, Political
http://alt.sagepub.com/

The Global Visa Regime and the Political Technologies of the International
Self: Borders, Bodies, Biopolitics
Mark B. Salter
Alternatives: Global, Local, Political 2006 31: 167
DOI: 10.1177/030437540603100203
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://alt.sagepub.com/content/31/2/167

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Published in Association with the Center for the Study of Developing Societies

Additional services and information for Alternatives: Global, Local, Political can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://alt.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://alt.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - Apr 1, 2006

What is This?
Downloaded from alt.sagepub.com at UNC on December 2, 2013

Alternatives 31 (2006), 167189

The Global Visa Regime

and the Political Technologies
of the International Self:
Borders, Bodies, Biopolitics
Mark B. Salter*

This article examines the micropolitics of the border by tracing the interface between government and individual body. In
the first act of confession before the vanguard of governmental machinery, the border examination is crucial to both the
operation of the global mobility regime and of sovereign
power. The visa and passport systems are tickets that allow
temporary and permanent membership in the community,
and the border represents the limit of the community. The
nascent global mobility regime through passport, visa, and
frontier formalities manage an international population
through and within a biopolitical frame and a confessionary
complex that creates bodies that understand themselves to be
international. The author charts the way that an international
biopolitical order is constructed through the creation, classification, and contention of a surveillance regime and an international political technology of the individual that is driven by
the globalization of a documentary, biometric, and confessionary regime. The global visa regime and international borders are crucial in constructing both international mobile
populations and international mobile individuals. KEYWORDS:
borders, visas, biopolitics, migration, exception.
As a matter of fact the only young girl who is really free, is
she whose chaperon is never very far away. She need give conventionality very little thought, and not bother about her Ps
and Qs at all, because her chaperon is always a strong and

*School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa, 75 Laurier Avenue East, Ottawa,

Ontario, K1N 6N5, Canada. E-mail: msalter@uottawa.ca

167

Downloaded from alt.sagepub.com at UNC on December 2, 2013

168

The Global Visa Regime: Borders, Bodies, Biopolitics

protective defense; but a young girl who is unprotected by a

chaperon is in the position precisely of an unarmed traveler
walking alone among wolveshis only defense is in not
attracting their notice.
Emily Post1
Divided between the forest and the citythe werewolfis,
therefore in its origin the figure of a man who has been
banned from the city . . . it is a threshold of indistinction and
passage between . . . exclusion and inclusion.
Giorgio Agamben2
But a port of entry is not a travelers home.
US Supreme Court3

On his entry to the United States, Oscar Wilde was asked the customary question: He apocryphally replied I have nothing to
declare except my genius!4 This act of confession before the vanguard of governmental machinery is crucial to both the operation
of the global mobility regime and the operation of sovereign
power. It is those first acts of examination, obedience, and confession that establishes the fundamental relationship between sovereign and subject, between the body politic and a particular body.
Sovereignty and boundary maintenance are inextricable: since
there is no hospitality without finitude, sovereignty can only be
exercised by filtering, choosing, and thus by excluding and doing
violence.5 The border represents a unique case of entry into the
social contract; it is not an entry that is inherited or claimed by
right but a status that is requested. Following R. B. J. Walker, I
would argue that border practices are examples of the very concrete practices that instantiate the abstract doctrines of sovereignty.6
Conventional political accounts of migration focus on masses of
moving populations (broad demographic and social trends) or the
public policy process by which the regulation of those populations
are constrained or enabled.7 My account here seeks to turn traditional analysis on its head and ask: What if we were to put the individual body at the center of our analysis of the border? The nascent
global mobility regime through passport, visa, and frontier formalities manages an international population through and within a
biopolitical frame and a confessionary complex that creates bodies
that understand themselves to be international.
This analysis of the global visa regime will chart out a research
program which sketches the ways in which a loose system of global
visa norms both instantiates a system of control best understood as
biopolitical8 and conditions how we understand ourselves as
Downloaded from alt.sagepub.com at UNC on December 2, 2013

Mark B. Salter

169

mobile bodies. I chart the way that an international biopolitical

order is constructed through the creation, classification, and contention of a surveillance regime and an international political technology of the individual is driven by the globalization of a documentary, biometric, and confessionary regime.

The Border as a Permanent Exception

At the border, one is neither citizen nor foreigner in the face of
the agent of customs, which we must take in both its meanings.9
Agambens discussion of the state of exception has been especially
provocative since the US responses to the September 11 terror
attacks. His portrayal of sovereign power as total, bare life, and the
model of the camp, have resonated with scholars from many disciplines. Agamben takes the arguments of Carl Schmitt that the
essential power of the sovereign is to decide when the law ceases to
constrain the sovereign: sovereign is he who decides on the exception as he famously puts it in the first line of Political Theology.10
The power to describe a situation as normal or exceptional lies at
the root of sovereignty: A regular situation must be created, and
sovereign is he who decides if this situation is actually effective.
. . . He has monopoly over the final decision.11 The border represents an exception to normal deliberative politics. While Didier
Bigo, David Lyon, and William Walters have all suggested ways in
which airports and other ports of entry might resemble the
camp, in this article I want to push the argument further and
suggest that the border can be understood as a permanent state of
exception.
The border is a permanent state of exception in that one
may claim no rights but is still subject to the law.12 The law is always
suspended at the border, because the decision of entrance to the
territory and correspondent membership in the community is irreducible to force. As Schmitt argues, the essence of the states sovereignty [is] not the monopoly to coerce or rule, but the monopoly to decide.13 The decision to include/exclude is irreducible to
the sovereign. Agambens account fails to understand the particular state of exception at the state border and the decision to
include/exclude; it lacks a capacity for agency. In this respect, Foucaults confessionary complex provides the missing component in
Agambens discussion of exceptional politics and explains the
dynamics of both decision and agency. I turn to the question of
agency below during the discussion of confession.
Through the passport, the sovereign who claims ones allegiance asks for entry and protection on behalf of the possessor;
Downloaded from alt.sagepub.com at UNC on December 2, 2013

170

The Global Visa Regime: Borders, Bodies, Biopolitics

thus entry to the body politic is mediated through the administrative bodies of the sovereigns.14 Entry to a sovereign state in which
one does not possess nationality is mediated through the visa
process and identity papers (passport, refugee, or stateless travel
documents). While the discussion of individual attachment or allegiance to the state/sovereign is usually understood as citizenship
or nationality, I would argue in the face of material facts on the
ground and ethical concerns prompted by the political consequences of those facts that we must widen our analytical scope to
include a multiplicity of forms of membership in political communities.15 Jean Bodin defines this important boundary of the political community: The mutual obligation between subject and sovereign, by which, in return for the faith and obedience rendered to
him the sovereign must do justice and give counsel, assistance,
encouragement, and protection to the subject. He does not owe
this to aliens.16 At this stage, it is important to note that the sovereign decision of inclusion/expulsion is irreducible and that the
space of decision is also a space of exception. The bordering
process constituted by the decision to include/exclude is a dialogue between body and body politic requiring the confession of
all manner of bodily, economic, and social information.
Borrowing from Alison Mountz, we might speak of the long
tunnel of in-between spaces that is constituted by international
travel. The gangway between the airplane and the agent of customs
precisely resembles the camp.17 The traveler is not simply in between states, but also denationalized.
It is useful to return to the anthropologists categorization of
threshold rites to understand the process of the border. According to Arnold van Gennep, for example, the territorial passage is
divided into three specific rites: pre-liminal rites (the rites of separation from a previous world); liminal or threshold rites (rites of
transition); and post-liminal rites (rites and ceremonies of incorporation into the new world).18 The preliminal rites are ones of
denationalization, status that is held in abeyance before the sovereign decision. Whoever entered the camp moved in a zone of indistinction between outside and inside, exception and rule, licit and
illicit, in which the very concepts of subjective right and juridical
protection no longer made any sense.19 The liminal rite of examination, obedience, and confession presents a challenge to Agamben. The sovereign in his account has no restraints and may simply
exert the power of decision. The border-crosser challenges this in
several ways: the decision to include/exclude is individual and institutional, and the border-crosser presents him/herself to the sovereign, and this element of agency is totally neglected by Agamben.

Downloaded from alt.sagepub.com at UNC on December 2, 2013

Mark B. Salter

171

How does the sovereign condition the possibilities of mobility

and structure resistance to the sovereign and make not only possible but necessary putting ones self into this state of exception
between states? We know that the ancient Greeks held the hospitality ethic as among the highest. From its Latin roots, we see the
connections on which Agamben might be tempted to draw upon
etymologically between hostia as sacrificial animal, hostis as stranger
or enemy, hostilus as hostile or like an enemy, and hostire as to requite or retaliate; and hospes as host, guest, friend, foreigner. What
characteristics of modern sovereignty condition the presumption
toward hostility rather than being a host? How has this possibility
of interstate hospitality been so inverted that we now expect interrogation rather than welcome? The product of the camp bureaucracy is the rendering of the bare life of the inhabitants into unmourned death. Similarly, the product of border bureaucracy is a
structure of decisions that make unappealable and unmourned the
exclusion from the community. The right of exclusion is absolute
and dissolves the difference between force and law.
Derridas discussion of hospitality is illustrative of the exceptionality of the relationship between sovereign and suppliant at the border. The foreign is at once outside of the law, but subject to the law.
Hospitality in Derridas terms is always partial and compromised:
The foreigner is first of all foreign to the legal language in which
the duty of hospitality is formulated, the right to asylum, its limits, norms, policing, etc. He has to ask for hospitality in a language which by definition is not his own, the one imposed by the
master of the house, the host, the king, the lord, the authorities,
the nation, the State, the father, etc.20

And yet, as Agamben illustrates in terms of the homo sacer, the

appellant is subject to the law, but not a subject in the law.
What makes the border a state of exception? The sovereign
decides the political status of the individual as they cross the frontier: national, stateless, refugee, foreigner, alien. This decision is
absolute. The agent of the sovereigns customs decides not only the
nationality and status of foreigners but of all travelers. There is a
zone of indistinction wherein a traveler possesses not even his/her
nationality unless it is confirmed by the decision of the sovereign.
Nothing can compel a particular decision; no appeal can be made;
the only expulsion that bears any intersovereign consequence is
denationalization or becoming a refugee. Thus, the traveler only
gains some kind of advantage with other sovereigns once s/he can
prove that s/he is abject, will be afforded no protection whatsoever,

Downloaded from alt.sagepub.com at UNC on December 2, 2013

172

The Global Visa Regime: Borders, Bodies, Biopolitics

that one is bare international life, a seeker of refuge, a life that

without state rights but subject to the law of states.
Only the national border may be considered a state of exception, as opposed to other social or spatial borders. Entry to a house
is plainly governed by a set of legal restrictions on the power of the
state, such as the US Fourth Amendment right to be protected
from unreasonable search. However, rights are configured quite
differently at the border.21 In the United States, the authority by
which the Customs and Border Patrol is empowered to search border-crossers is different from that of police [19 U.S.C. 1467], which
derives from an early congressional act of July 31, 1789 [1 St. 43].
It is the very space of the border that makes the burden of law different. The threshold between law and force is spatialized or rather
conditional on a particular mobility: searches made at the border, pursuant to the longstanding right of the sovereign to protect itself by
stopping and examining persons and property crossing into this
country, are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the
border.22 The right to detain, examine, and search travelers is defined in relation to their foreignness, their origins outside, which
renders them without protection while under question at the border. Searches within states territory and at the border bear two different standards: probable cause is replaced by reasonable suspicion. Thus, state actions at the border are a special case of law.
Border searches, then, from before the adoption of the Fourth
Amendment, have been considered to be reasonable by the single
fact that the person or item in question had entered into our country
from the outside.23 That which is outside both constitutes and
threatens the integrity of the inside, and the decision to include/
exclude both defines the population of the state and gives lie to
the presumed homogeneity and stability of that community.24 This
situation of permanent threat is neutralized through the successful
management of risk at the border in a way that renders threat permanent and insolvable. The visa regime, and the delocalization of
the border that it represents, is emblematic of this management.
However, Agamben has neglected the management inherent in the
moment of sovereign decision. He provides no account of the specific decisions of admission to the camp or by our extension to the
state population at the border. The conditions of possibility of this
decision are at the heart of the border regime as a state of exception. In the same way that the sovereign decision to declare a state
of emergency can have no rules or conditions (because all emergencies are by definition exceptions to normal conditions), so too
the specific decision for entry into the polis has no set of exhaustive
guidelines or regulations. I refer to Josiah Heyman and Janet A.

Downloaded from alt.sagepub.com at UNC on December 2, 2013

Mark B. Salter

173

Gilboy below whose anthropologies of immigration inspectors illustrate the way that all decisions to include/exclude rely on sovereign force rather than law.
The court holds in this case that the exception of the border is
not the result of a specific exigent circumstance but rather the
constant condition of threat represented by mobility. It is important
that the states right to search not be confined by any specific circumstance but rather the majority argues that the exception to the
Fourth Amendment is structural to the border, rather than a specific
emergency. In many ways, the state border resembles the camp,
which Agamben describes as a place where the state of exception
begins to become the rule . . . [what was once] essentially a temporary suspension of the rule of law on the basis of a factual state of
danger is now given permanent spatial arrangement, which nevertheless remains outside the normal order.25 Within the Nazi state
that provides Agamben with his paradigmatic example, admission to
the camps was made according to a series of institutions, such as
racial courts, that decided the quality and category of individuals.26
Foucault argues that we must progress from a theory of sovereignty, which is bound up with a form of power that is exercised
over the land and the produce of the land, much more so than
over bodies and what they do, toward a theory of a disciplinary
society that constitutes and normalizes in addition to rejecting and
excluding.27 I would argue it is a crucial supplement to Agambens
notion of sovereign decision that we examine Foucaults biopolitics
and the disciplinary society, which helps us explain and understand
the way in which obedience and choice are structured through a
power/knowledge network. Zygmunt Baumans investigation of the
Holocaust is crucial to my reading of obedience and power in this
respect: he argues that the rationality of Jewish collaborators was
undone in the asymmetrical environment of the Nazi state. The
question of agency in this case cannot simply be understood as collaboration: Stakes and resources are manipulated by those who
truly control the situation: who are able to make some choices too
costly to be frequently selected by those whom they rule, while
securing frequent and massive choices which bring closer their
aims and reinforce their control.28 Power constructs the obedient
subject but does not simply repress the disobedient: resistances are
possible. Thus, we must look not simply at the choice to enter a
state, but at how that condition of mobility is rendered such that
travelers facilitate their own entry into this state of exception
where their rights are abrogated.
Derrida describes how becoming suppliant before the law at
the border is inevitable: The foreigner is someone whose name

Downloaded from alt.sagepub.com at UNC on December 2, 2013

174

The Global Visa Regime: Borders, Bodies, Biopolitics

must be asked in order that he or she might be received. The foreigner must state and guarantee his or her identity, like a witness
before a court. This is someone to whom you put a question and
address a demand, the first demand, the minimal demand being,
What is your name? or then In telling me what your name is, in
responding to this request, you are responding on your own behalf,
you are responsible before the law and before your hosts, you are a
subject in law.29 And yet, as Agamben illustrates in terms of the
homo sacer, the appellant is subject to the law, but not a subject in
the law. This article continues to address the question of the politics
of decision below. What are the asymmetric structures of choice
that create the frequent and massive movement of individuals
through the border, into a zone of indistinction and control, where
they are subject to the law but do not enjoy rights? While the characteristics of the globalized world make movement necessary (in
addition to desirable), the structure of the global mobility regime
reinforces the act of crossing the frontier as an exceptional act.

Visa and Dj Vu
(Being Seen by the State)
The visa is a necessary supplement to the passport system, which
constitute one quarter of the global mobility regime: frontier formalities, passports, visas, and les sans-papiers (the stateless and the
refugee). James Hollifield and Rey Koslowski have offered grim
prognoses on the health of the global mobility regime, when measured by the traditional standards of regime theory.30 However, if
we use James N. Rosenaus progressive model of instantiation of
global governance (ideas, behaviors, and institutions),31 the global
mobility regime seems to be more robust. I have argued elsewhere
that there exists a broad consensus on the fundamental tenets of
the global mobility regime, despite the lack of specific legal
treaties.32 There is a normative consensus in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Every individual has a right to a nationality, to leave their country, and to return to their country.33 There is
also a broad behavioral consensus in relation to the documentary
regime.34 There are also functional institutions, such as the International Civil Aviation Organization and International Air Transportation Agency, that set global standards for travel. Fundamental
to this regime is the lack of a significant right of entry, and the concomitant function of a state not only to regulate its population not
only entry into it. Barry Hindess has argued that the rights of citizenship, with its attendant right of entry, can be viewed as a way of

Downloaded from alt.sagepub.com at UNC on December 2, 2013

Mark B. Salter

175

managing international population.35 Nevzat Soguks discussion of

the refugee regime as a management of that surplus international population not encompassed by the nation-state norm is
also central to this perspective.36 At its root, then, the international
global mobility regime endows the citizen with a right to exit their
home, a right to return home, and a right to become a refugee,
at which point other sovereigns have an obligation to permit
admission.
The visa and passport systems are tickets that allow temporary
and permanent membership in the community. In this structure,
the fundamental right of the sovereign is to be able to exclude and
define the limits of its population with little reference to other
states or sovereigns. Mobility is structured in terms of entry, which
is made obligatory by citizenship or refugee status, or entirely the
discretionary by noncitizenship. I want to unpack this discretionary
moment that is vital to the delimitation of the population of the
state.
From the French vis, meaning having been seen, the visa refers to (1) the authorisation given by a consul to enter or to pass
through a country, and (2) the stamp placed on the passport when
the holder entered or left a foreign country.37 In modern usage, it
refers to the prescreening of travelers and represents a prima facie
case for admission.38 The visa in no way guarantees actual admission, which remains the prerogative of the sovereign and its agents
at the border. The visa regime allows for a delocalization of the
border function so that states may engage in sorting behavior away
from the physical limit of the state.39 In some instances, visas may
be applied for and received at the actual border of a state, but in
such cases it is viewed mostly as a revenue generator rather than a
security function.
Paralleling my earlier work in Rights of Passage, in which I
examined the governmental problems to which a passport was an
administrative solution, it is important to detail the way in which
the contemporary visa system has been built in response to (apparent and real) failures. As the British Passport Office states, The
British passport and visa system as it now is, has been built up as
the result of practical experience gained during and since the war
and is applied in a practical spirit, in the light of conditions which
exist in the world today.40 This method of international political
sociology, whereby the practices and beliefs of actors are taken into
account in the consideration of public and international policies,
pays close attention to the importance of experience.
I agree with Koslowski that mobility is a better description of
the field of social relations than the more restrictive migration

Downloaded from alt.sagepub.com at UNC on December 2, 2013

176

The Global Visa Regime: Borders, Bodies, Biopolitics

which is why I talk about a global mobility regime and try to understand the system of tourist, business, and settler trajectories.41
Simon Dalby has suggested ways in which mobility has become a
luxury of the rich and developed populations, while fixity has
become an encumbrance of the poor.42 Bauman discusses a politics
of exclusion, which draws substantial interest toward the notion of
rejection: The mark of excluded in an era of time/space compression is enforced immobility.43 Generally, states issue settlement and temporary visas, which are distinguished by the length of
stay and degree of integration into the host community (often in
terms of labor/taxes). Thus settlers are allowed to work and must
contribute to the tax system; visitors are not allowed to work and
need not contribute to the tax system.
Hollifield suggests the delocalization of border functions acts
as a solution to the problem of liberal rights.44 To preclude asylum
seekers from claiming rights inherent in the liberal community,
decisions are made outside of the state where no such appeal can
be claimed. We may see this dynamic in European discourse
wherein refugees and economic migrants have been recast as asylum seekers and the attempts to locate camps at the margins of the
European community.45 The United States, on the other hand,
uses expedited removal, a process by which a traveler with false
travel documents is refused entry and barred entry for five years.
Expedited removal is not subject to judicial or administrative
appeal.46 The voluntary departure program at the US/Mexico
border illustrates the power of the bureaucracy to condition marginalized migrants to give up their rights: Arrested aliens are permitted (indeed, encouraged) to waive their rights to a deportation
hearing and return to Mexico without lengthy detention, expensive bonding, and trial.47 In each of these cases, rights of applicants are suspended at the border of the community as an exceptional case of normal law.
Preliminary empirical work suggests that there are a number of
common requirements for visas: a fee for processing (a remote
tax); return tickets (good faith illustration that the applicants stay
is temporary); statement of qualifications (to distinguish the degree
of skilled labor); funds for stay; a health certificate (declarations
that one is not an epidemiological risk: AIDS/HIV; yellow fever;
tuberculosis; etc.); and affirmation of acceptable behavior (declarations that one is not a criminal/felon). Thus, the mobile subject
is configured by the receiving state in terms of health, wealth,
labor/leisure, and risk. The guarantee of the passport is its isomorphic representation of a particular body to a set of governmental
records. The visa application, which always tests and depends on the

Downloaded from alt.sagepub.com at UNC on December 2, 2013

Mark B. Salter

177

validity of the passport, attempts to render the position of the applicant in terms of state, educational, health, and police institutions.
As Don Flynn has suggested, the product of the visa bureaucracy is
rejection, and efficiency is determined by rates of rejection against
some imagined norm of regularly occurring fraud.48
In 1920, we see responsibility for vetting travelers shift from
sending states to receiving states at the Conference on Passports,
Customs Formalities and Through Tickets, which represented the
first modern institutionalization of the global mobility regime. In
the first proceedings, preliminary visas (issued before arrival at the
border) were free of charge, and only to be issued if the validity of
the passport was in doubt; entry and exit visas were eliminated for
nationals; and visas were to be issued with the same period of validity as the passport itself.49 The League Technical Committee recommends that, like passports, except in special or exceptional
cases, entrance visas should be abolished by all countries, either
generally or under condition of reciprocity, each country retaining
its full freedom of action in respect to the enforcement of its legislation with regard to police measures for foreigners, the regulation
of the labour supply, etc.50 Public health threats are also mentioned as a key concern for states at this meeting, and states agree
to a standard inoculation document. Despite the lack of a formal
visa (or passport) conference, treaty, or institution, these norms of
necessity, reciprocity, and cooperation typify the modern visa system. Eric Neumayer outlines some of the nascent patterns in the
global visa regime in the first empirical analysis of visa requirements. Travelers from OECD countries possess far fewer restrictions on their travel than non-OECD travelers, though there is a
general trend toward reciprocity in the system: The average OEC
citizen faces visa restrictions in travel to approximately 93 foreign
countries, the average non-OECD citizen needs a visa to travel to
approximately 156 countries.51
As in the interwar period, the management of international
populations is conditioned presently by nationality/statelessness,
labor/leisure, health/disease, and normalcy/risk. The loose structure of the global visa regime represents an important aspect of this
international control of bodies or control of international bodies.

World Biopolitics and Political Technology

of the International Self
The US-led war on terror has drawn attention to the relationship
between the sovereign and the body: the capture of biometric

Downloaded from alt.sagepub.com at UNC on December 2, 2013

178

The Global Visa Regime: Borders, Bodies, Biopolitics

information on border crossers; the creation of extralegal zones

such as Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Sangatte, France; and the use
of extraordinary rendition by which US agents of state send terror suspects to illiberal states where torture is routine. As an exemplar of the triumph of the colonial gaze, the discovery of Sharbat
Gula in Afghanistanthe woman whose face appeared on the
cover of National Geographic magazine and who since 1985 has been
the face of UNHCRwas touted as emblematic of the liberation of
the female body from the strictures of Islamic fundamentalism that
was the result of the US invasion.52 At the remote Woomera detention center, asylum seekers engaged in lip-sewing and other disturbing practices to direct international attention to their plight.53
Uday and Qusay Husseins dead bodies were displayed to world
audiences as visible evidence of the progress of the US invasion
of Iraq.54
In this context it is especially necessary for us to take seriously
work that has been done to engage with the scholarship now often
known as the corporeal turn in which the body, the socialeconomic-political conditions of embodied subjectivity, and the
relationship between the body and the body politic are taken as
important sites of political struggles. The history of the body
politic is inextricably intertwined with the history of the political
body; this is also the case with international society and our international bodies. Kam Shapiro, for example, has examined the reciprocal entanglement of politics and bodies.55 His political somatics provide a productive lens through which to view Hegel and
Schmitts theories of sovereignty and the marshalling of the body
as a political resource. I argue that it is necessary to engage in an
analysis of the ways in which bodies are constructed not only in
relationship to a single sovereign, but also as bodies that negotiate
mobile subjectivities with respect to more than one sovereign, a
process that conditions the ways in which we understand ourselves
as international bodies.
This corporeal turn has been taken by a number of theorists:
Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Michel Foucault, Pierre Bourdieu, Judith
Butler, Mary Douglas. Because I am interested here in the ways that
power is manifest through the networks of power/knowledge in
play at the border crossing, I will focus on the work of Foucault.
Many of Foucaults works can be seen as investigating the body.
The body is also directly involved in a political field; power
relations have an immediate hold upon it; they invest it, mark
it, train it, torture it, force it to carry out tasks, to perform ceremonies, to emit signs. This political investment of the body is

Downloaded from alt.sagepub.com at UNC on December 2, 2013

Mark B. Salter

179

bound up, in accordance with complex reciprocal relations,

with its economic use; it is largely as a force of production
that the body is invested with relations of power and domination; but, on the other hand, its constitution as labor power is
possible only if it is caught up in a system of subjection (in
which need is also a political instrument meticulously prepared, calculated, and used); the body becomes a useful force
only if it is both a productive body and a subjected body.56

In Discipline and Punish, Michel Foucault argues that the body is

molded by a great many distinct regimes; it is broken down by the
rhythms of work, rest, and holidays; it is poisoned by food or values,
through eating habits or moral laws; it constructs resistances.57 To
this, I would add that there is an internationalization of the body:
through biometric capture, the assignation of risk profiles according to race, gender, ethnic, national and religious scripts, and the
visa system within the institutions of customs and immigration controls. The visa system as an essential component in the attempt of
the state to claim a monopoly over legitimate movement classifies
mobile bodies as legitimate through the schema of production and
subjection.
We have already seen the criteria by which this management of
population is organized: labor, health, and risk. To understand the
way this governmentality creates populations and individuals, I will
use two of Foucaults key ideas: biopolitics and political technologies of the individual.
Foucaults writings on the topic of biopolitics ground this analysis. Foucault examined the concomitant evolution of industrial and
institutional techniques of modern governance through an investigation of how mobile, productive, healthy, moral bodies were constructed, schooled, policed, and harnessed for labor.58 His investigation of the how the penal system in particular led into the
evolution of a disciplinary society stopped at the borders of the state,
but in principle can be expanded to encompass a biopolitics of international relations: the management of international bodies.
Fundamental to the evolution of the modern state was the control over mobility of citizens, which Foucault illustrates architecturally in the panopticon and plague town, Timothy Mitchell within
Egyptian schools and urban architecture, and John Torpey through
state passports.59 What these authors neglect is the international
aspect of this control of mobility. Following work by Barry Hindess,
Nevzat Soguk, and William Walters, who describe a structure of
international management of population through the regulation of
citizenship, refugees, and stateless persons, the international control
Downloaded from alt.sagepub.com at UNC on December 2, 2013

180

The Global Visa Regime: Borders, Bodies, Biopolitics

of persons is just as vital to the stability of the modern state system

as the domestic control of mobility. We can see the ways in which
the visa system contributes to the definition and control of international populations: through the ascription of biopolitical characteristics in terms of labor skill or capitalization, epidemic or
health liability, and risk or normalcy. But, how do mobile individuals come to recognize themselves as part of this population and
engage in self-disciplinary behavior? For an explanation, I turn to
the moment of discretion and the construction of the confessionary complex.

Confession
There is a Catholic mnemonic to recall how to cross ones self:
spectacles, testicles, wallet, and watch. This rhyme is an excellent
entry into the importance of confession in the recognition of the
self as an international self. In addition to recalling the notion of
appeal to authority that is never quite authorized (hence the need
for a pneumonic), it also marks the stations of the modern state:
vision and surveillance, health and reproduction, commerce and
capital, and time. The gesture refers at once to an absolution of
sorts and a sanctification of actions and words. A penitents presentation to the agent of God to name his sins, in return for which
he is given absolution, stands as a central metaphor in understanding the modern relationship between individual and state.
Foucault poses the question of obedience and society in a genealogical frame: How is it that in Western Christian culture the government of men demands, on the part of those who are led, not
only acts of obedience and submission but also acts of truth,
which have the peculiar requirement not just that the subject tell
the truth but that he tell the truth about himself, his faults, his
desires, the state of his soul, and so on?60
This part of the mechanism for the creation of the modern
subject who knows himself in relation to the confessionary state is
a function of unconditional obedience, uninterrupted examination, and exhaustive confession and appears as an indispensable
component of the government of men by each other.61 Though
not traced by Foucault himself, the confessionary complex (obedience, examination, confession) provides a crucial link between the
political economy of the body62 and the biopolitical governmentality of international management of populations. It is not simply
that the international population is managed, but that we come to
manage ourselves through the confessionary complex. Foucault

Downloaded from alt.sagepub.com at UNC on December 2, 2013

Mark B. Salter

181

describes the importance of the way by which, through some political technology of individuals, we have been led to recognize ourselves as a society, as a part of a social entity, as a part of nation or
of a state.63 Balibar relates the governmental function of the border as the limit of community to the process of identity-formation:
The normality of the national citizen-subject . . . is also internalized by individuals, as it becomes a condition, an essential reference of their collective, communal sense, and hence of their identity. . . . As a consequence, borders cease to be purely external
realities.64 The confessionary complex is a structure framed by law
and instantiated in various practices at the border (and in the faces
of agents of the state).
This is doubly true in the case of terrorism, which is not viscerally visible. The exceptional application of law in this instance is
also revealing of the weakness of Agamben in explaining the
moment of decision. In US vs. Montoya de Hernandez, the Supreme
Court held that for offense for which there will be no external
signsinspectors will rarely possess probably cause to arrest or
search, yet governmental interests in stopping smuggling at the
border are high indeed.65 As with general searches at the border,
the standard of probable cause is held in abeyance at the
body/border. Terror is similar to alimentary canal smuggling (swallowing balloons of cocaine in this instance), in that the signs of the
bad intent are secondary: nervousness, discomfort, anxiety. This
confessionary complex is also written on the body in terms of
embodied anxiety and the signs of untruth: a . . . mechanism of
shame that makes one blush at expressing any bad thought.66
Thus, reasonable suspicion must be visible not only in the body but
in the mind of a border guard. The examination at the border is a
corporeal documentary affair. As Gillian Fuller suggests, States
dont deal with strange peculiarities of networked and virtualised
individuals, they prefer to keep the subject within the more knowable constraints of identity.67 Thus, at the border the document is
compared to the body which is compared to the story. If the isomorphism between this body-dossier-narrative tests the guards
credibility, exclusion looms.
This lighter reasonable suspicion standard is applied to other
travelers at the airport. In US v. Sokolaw, the court argued that
adherence to a law enforcement profile, which does not meet the
standard of probable cause, may meet the standard of reasonable
suspicion. The case revolved around a drug smuggler detained due
to a number of suspicious activities that met a particular profile.
The court upheld that meeting an established profile would lead to
reasonable suspicion and thus grant law enforcement the authority

Downloaded from alt.sagepub.com at UNC on December 2, 2013

182

The Global Visa Regime: Borders, Bodies, Biopolitics

to stop the traveler.68 Consequently the test of reasonable suspicion, tied with the exceptional state of the border, leads to the rule
by decision. However the moment of decision must be disaggregated. What are these profiles? How are they managed? How are
decisions made? Since Agamben neglects this moment of decision,
focusing as he does on the capacity for decision, we must turn to
anthropologists or sociologists of the border.
This leads to consideration of the agents of discretion. Timothy Mitchell, Heyman, and Mountz have discussed the ways that
governmental bureaucracies enact specific roles within an administrative structure, so that we may not infer practice from policy
documents alone.69 Gilboy charts how immigration inspectors informally share experiences that lead to the supplementing of official risk profiles with national stereotypes.70 Heyman describes the
thought-work of immigration officers, consisting of developing
conceptual schema through which to apply abstract rules to specific cases.71 In his evaluation of the thought-work of officers on
the US/Mexico border, Heyman develops a broad model, with
some specific implications for the policing of populations. In addition to a legal superstructure, he points to covert classifications
used by officers to structure their discretionary decisions.72 The
covert classification is made according to perceived moral worth,
national origins stereotypes similar to those elaborated by Gilboy,
and apparent social class.73 These ethnographies of the bureaucracy suggest there is a slippage between risk profiles and stereotypes. Didier Bigo suggests that within the European context the
emergence of a cohort of migration managers has shifted policing
from the control of and hunt for individual criminals . . . to the
surveillance of so-called risk groups, defined by using criminology
and statistics.74 The reliance on technology to cope with the
rapidly increasing number and variety of risk profiles should be
viewed with skepticism: Notwithstanding the increasing appeal to
sophisticated computer-based models within geodemographics, the
systems persist in relying on stereotypical images, and on small-scale
narratives of dispositions and their intended consequences.75 The
credibility of the entrants story becomes crucial to the decision to
admit or reject, a decision that is always made on the basis of insufficient evidence and mistrust of the speaker, and complicated by an
incomplete documentary trail. It is clear that the right to be presumed innocent or to have a fair trial must be held in abeyance at
the border under the twin rubrics of efficiency and security.
These social scripts are reached through the auto-confession of
the body, through the presumption in training that the examined
body will confess even if the soul is reluctant. This auto-confession

Downloaded from alt.sagepub.com at UNC on December 2, 2013

Mark B. Salter

183

happens through the interpretation of body, face, teeth, clothes,

posture, and language skills as evidence of class, social group, ethnicity, gender, sexuality. It also is assumed to happen through the
examination process. Psychologist Paul Ekman trains law enforcement officials and others in his theory of micro-expressions, by
which interrogators can learn the self-confessing secrets of facial
expressions that last one twenty-fifth of a second.76 Training for
Canada Customs agents in the past has focused on this kind of
visual acuity, described by one agent as training in one of these
things is not like the other. Other technologies on offer to the
security apparatus of the state include heat cameras that detect
blush responses around the eyes during deception and motion sensors that detect awkward or abnormal movement. Thus, a corporeal lens makes visible to us the ways in which the body comes to
testify, along with our documents, about our intentions, character,
utility, moral quality, and social and economic origins. If we do not
confess in a way that echoes with the story that the examiner has
told him/herself about us, then we are suspect.
The confessionary dynamic is illustrated by the ubiquitous no
joking rule now posted at most airports. In the words of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, you should never joke or
make small talk about bombs, firearms or other weapons while
going through pre-board screening.77 Small talk and jokes are
dangerous because they express untruths. But border examiners
rely on the anxiety of the passenger and themselves to affect obedience, examination, and confession. Like doctors, judges, and
teachers, we must all tell the truth to agents of the state: not just
the truth from a certain point of view, but the whole, entire, selfpolicing truth. These regulations against joking and small talk
train travelers to self-police their speech and behavior to present a
low-risk profile toward the authority figure. The ritual of obedience, confession, and examination thus binds the mobile subject to
the sovereign, but does not accord him/her rights.
Walters suggests that within the (inter)state system, individuals
are treated not as souls to be trained but as another form of luggage to be transported, examined, and moved. The global mobility
regime, he argues, is not about the training of souls, but rather the
objectification of travelers. I disagree for two reasons: Intention
cannot be garnered from the risk profile, the biometric data, or
the documentary trail itself and so interrogation remains a crucial
part of the bordering/admission process; and the social sorting by
which high-risk and low-risk or undesirable and desirable travelers
are distinguished is not done with body alone but through the
enacting of the confessionary complex.

Downloaded from alt.sagepub.com at UNC on December 2, 2013

184

The Global Visa Regime: Borders, Bodies, Biopolitics

Lines of Flight
There are three directions for further research and analysis: the
corporeal turn in global mobility studies, the global mobility
regime as biopolitical management of international populations,
and the confessionary complex.
Corporeal Turn
The field of migration studies has been hamstrung by two dominant
approaches: microstudies of migration networks, and macrostudies
of push-pull factors. This article argues for the consideration of a different kind of micropolitics of power, that of the border itself. We
must investigate the legal state of exception at the border and the
ways that these exceptions are instantiated in laws and policies. The
interface of the body and the body politic is hotly contested, and
scholars need to take seriously the question of admission and exclusion to the political community at its border, not solely from an
immigration/refugee rights perspective but from a wider view of the
global mobility regime and human rights. This corporealism must
also take into account the management of international populations
through biopolitics in creating, classifying, and policing specific
kinds of international bodies, and the way in which political technologies of individuals such as passports, visas, and frontier control
educate mobile subjectivities in kinds of obedience and auto-confession. We must ask: How does the global mobility regime foster conditions under which we reorganize ourselves into international bodies and characterize those bodies as national or stateless, laboring or
leisured, healthy or diseased, and safe or pathological?
Managing Mobility
This is aided by understanding the visa as part of a global biopolitical system. In the loose visa regime, we see the control of population through the self-confession of our status as national, working,
healthy, and safe bodies through application procedures. We need
to unpack the way in which visa systems erase the middle ground
previously occupied by gastarbeiter programs and shunt economic
migrants into the category of asylum seekers, a category that does
little to acknowledge the material basis of well-founded fears of
economic persecution. Some of this work has been done by human
rightsbased advocacy groups like Statewatch and Amnesty International, but we also need to conduct close ethnographies of the
bureaucracies responsible for the management of these decisions.

Downloaded from alt.sagepub.com at UNC on December 2, 2013

Mark B. Salter

185

Confession Is Good for the Soul

In particular, I see two dangers in this corporal/confessional regime.
The issue of consent is erased on both technological and governmental levels. First, the body comes to testify or confess for the subject without the consent or even perhaps knowledge of the subject.
Leaving aside the sociological issue of the ways in which body politics are constructed through stereotypes, there is an issue of data
being collected, analyzed, and assigned to a particular body without any kind of check or balance. Second, the dynamics of these
data flows are not transparent. Once this corporeal information is
added to our governmental profile, we have little way of tracking
its progress through private and official channels. As David Lyon
and Elia Zureik have argued elsewhere, the burden of surveillance
falls disproportionately on the poor and marginal.78
We must be vigilant of the expansion of state policing powers,
especially at the borders where the operation of state power is both
naked and hidden from view.

Notes
1. Emily Post, Etiquette in Society, in Business, in Politics and at Home
(New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1922). Bartleby.com, www.bartleby.com/95/
19.html (May 14, 2005).
2. Giorgio Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, trans.
Daniel Heller-Roazen (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998), p. 105.
3. U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Thirty-Seven Photographs,
402 U.S. 363 (1971).
4. The Columbia World of Quotations (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1996). www.bartleby.com/66/ (May 18, 2005).
5. Jacques Derrida, Foreigner Question, in Derrida and Anne
Dufoumantelle, eds., Of Hospitality, trans. Rachel Bowlby (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2000), p. 55.
6. R. B. J. Walker, Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 13.
7. Caroline B. Brettell and James F. Hollifield, eds., Migration Theory:
Talking Across Disciplines (New York: Routledge, 2000); Stephen Castles and
Mark J. Miller, The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the
Modern World, 2d ed. (New York: Guildford Press, 1998).
8. Sara Kalm, Towards Global Migration Management? A Biopolitical Approach, paper presented at International Studies Association
Annual Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii, 2005.
9. For a broader consideration of the border see, Mark B. Salter, At
the Threshold of Security: A Theory of Borders, in Elia Zuriek and Salter,
eds., Global Surveillance and Policing: Borders, Identity, Security (London:
Willan, 2005).
10. Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985 [1922]), p. 5.

Downloaded from alt.sagepub.com at UNC on December 2, 2013

186

The Global Visa Regime: Borders, Bodies, Biopolitics

11. Agamben, Homo Sacer, note 2, p. 16.

12. Ibid., p. 83.
13. Schmitt, Political Theology, note 10, p. 13.
14. Mark B. Salter, Rights of Passage: The Passport in International Relations (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2003), Chap. 6.
15. See debates on cosmopolitan and flexible citizenship; for example, Andrew Linklater, Cosmopolitan Citizenship, Citizenship Studies 2
(1998): 2341; A. Ong, Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logic of Transnationalism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999).
16. Jean Bodin, Six Books of the Commonwealth, trans. M. J. Tooley
(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955), pp. 2021.
17. Alison Mountz, The Shifting Geographies of Border Enforcement, paper presented at the Workshop on International Labor Migration, University of Ottawa/Carleton University, Ottawa, May 28, 2005.
18. Arnold van Gennep, The Rites of Passage, trans. M. B. Vizedom and
G. L. Caffee (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 21.
19. Agamben, Homo Sacer, note 2, pp. 170171.
20. Derrida, Foreigner Question, note 5, p. 15.
21. Also, rights differ substantively between jurisdictions. See Regina v.
Jacques [1996], 3 S.C.R., in which the Supreme Court of Canada held that
unsubstantiated suspicion is not enough to warrant a customs search. See
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1996/vol3/html/
1996scr3_0312.html.
22. U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977): http://
laws.findlaw.com/431/606.html. My emphasis.
23. Ibid. My emphasis.
24. William Connolly, Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991), p. x.
25. Agamben, Homo Sacer, note 2, p. 169.
26. Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wipperman, The Racial State: Germany 19331945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), Chapter
3, Barabarism Institutionalized, pp. 4473.
27. Michel Foucault, Society must be defended: Lectures at the Collge de
France 197576, eds., Mauro Bertani and Alessandro Fontana, trans., David
Macey (New York: Picador, 2003), p. 36.
28. Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
Uiniversity Press, 2000), p. 149.
29. Derrida, Foreigner Question, note 5, p. 27.
30. James Hollifield, The Emerging Migration State, International
Migration Review (fall 2004); Rey Koslowski, Possible Steps Towards an
International Regime for Mobility and Security, Global Migration Perspectives 8 (October 2004).
31. James N. Rosenau, Governance, Order and Change in World Politics, in Rosenau and Otto Czempiel, eds., Governance without Government:
Order and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1992), pp. 129.
32. Mark B. Salter And Yet It Moves: The Global Mobility Regime, in
Libby Assassi, Duncan Wigan, and Kees van der Pijl, eds., Global Regulation:
Managing Crises After the Imperial Turn (London: Palgrave, 2004), pp.
177190.
33. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. General Assembly resolution
217 A (III) of 10 December 1948. http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html.

Downloaded from alt.sagepub.com at UNC on December 2, 2013

Mark B. Salter

187

34. John Torpey, The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship,

and the State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000; Salter, Rights
of Passage, note 14, 2003.
35. Barry Hindess, Citizenship in the International Management of
Populations, American Behavioural Scientist 43, no. 9 (2000): 14871497.
36. Nevzat Soguk, States and Strangers: Refugees and Displacements of
Statecraft (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999).
37. Sub-Committee on the Passport Regime, Advisory and Technical
committee for Communications and Transit, Minutes of the 3rd Session,
held in Paris, October 2nd to 5th, 1925 (C.699.M.252. 1925 VIII), p. 5.
38. Horng-luen Wang Regulating Transnational Flows of People: An
Institutional Analysis of Passports and Visas as a Regime of Mobility, Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 11 (2004): 351376.
39. B. Bo, The Use of Visa Requirements as a Regulatory Instrument
for the Restriction of Migration in G. Brochmann and T. Hammar, eds.,
Regulation of Migration: International Experiences (Oxford: Berg, 1998), pp.
127.
40. United Kingdom Passport Office, Foreign Office, Miscellaneous
Document, n.d. [FO 612 355].
41. Koslowski, note 30.
42. Simon Dalby, Globalization or Global Apartheid? Boundaries and
Knowledge in Postmodern Times, in David Newman, ed., Boundaries, Territory and Postmodernity (London: Cass, 1999), pp. 132150.
43. Zgymant Bauman, Social Issues of Law and Order, British Journal
of Criminology 40, no. 2 (2000): 211.
44. James F. Hollifield, Migration and the New International Order:
The Missing Regime, in Bimal Ghosh, ed., Managing Migration: Time for a
New International Regime (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); Hollifield, Immigration and the Politics of Rights, in Michael Bommes and
Andrew Geddes, eds., Migration and the Welfare State in Contemporary Europe
(London: Routledge. 2000).
45. William Walters, Deportation, Expulsion, and the International
Police of Aliens, Citizenship Studies, 6, no. 3 (2002): 265-292; Didier Bigo,
Security and Immigration: Toward a Critique of the Governmentality of
Unease, Alternatives 27, no. 1 (winter 2002): 6392.
46. Stephen M. Knight, Defining Due Process Down: Expedited
Removal In the United States, Refuge 19, no. 4, September 2001: 4147.
47. Josiah Heyman, Putting Power in the Anthropology of Bureaucracy, Current Anthropology 36, no. 2 (April 1995): 266.
48. Don Flynn, personal correspondence. Workshop on International
Labor Migration, University of Ottawa/Carleton University, Ottawa, May
2728, 2005.
49. Provisional Committee on Communications and Transit, Conference on Passports, Customs Formalities and Through Tickets (Geneva:
League of Nations, November 1920).
50. Sub-Committee on the Passport Regime, note 37, p. 6.
51. Eric Neumayer, Unequal Access to Foreign Spaces: How States
Use Visa Restrictions to Regulate Mobility in a Globalised World, Economics Working Paper Archive at WUSTL, March 2005, pp. 1719. Available at: http://econwpa.wustl.edu:80/eps/lab/papers/0503/0503005.pdf
52. A Life Revealed, National Geographic, April 2002, accessed on May
1, 2002, at http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/afghangirl/.

Downloaded from alt.sagepub.com at UNC on December 2, 2013

188

The Global Visa Regime: Borders, Bodies, Biopolitics

53. Michael Leech, Disturbing Practices: Dehumanizing Asylum

Seekers in the Refugee Crisis in Australia, 20002002, Refuge 21, no. 3
(May 2003): 2533.
54. Office of the Press Secretary, White House White House Statement on Uday and Qusay Hussein, available at: http://www.whitehouse
.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030722-8.html, July 2003, accessed May
15, 2005.
55. Kam Shaprio, Sovereign Nations, Carnal States (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 2003), pp. 12.
56. Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans.
Alan Sheridan (New York: Vintage, 1977), pp. 2526.
57. Michel Foucault, Nietzsche, Genealogy, History, Aesthetics,
Method, and Epistemology: Essential Works of Foucault 19541984, Vol. 2, ed.
Paul Rabinow, trans. Robert Hurley (New York: New Press, 1998), p. 380.
58. Michel Foucault, The Birth of Biopolitics, Ethics: Subjectivity and
Truth: Essential Works of Foucault 19541984, Volume I, ed. Paul Rabinow,
trans. Robert Hurley (New York: New Press, 1997), p. 73.
59. Foucault, Discipline and Punish, note 56; Timothy Mitchell, Colonising Egypt (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988); Torpey, note 34.
60. Michel Foucault On the Government of the Living, in Ethics:
Subjectivity and Truth, note 58, p. 81.
61. Ibid., p. 84.
62. Foucault, Discipline and Punish, note 56, p. 25.
63. Michel Foucault, The Political Technology of Individuals, in
Luther H. Martin, Huck Gutman, and Patrick Hutton, eds., Technologies of
the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1988), p. 146.
64. tienne Balibar, What Is a Border? in Balibar, Politics and the
Other Scene, trans. Chris Turner (New York: Verso, 2002), p. 78.
65. US Supreme Court, US v. Montoya De Hernandez 473 U.S. 531 (1985).
http://laws.findlaw.com/473/531.htm, accessed on July 4th, 2005.
66. Michel Foucault, On the Government of the Living, note 60,
p. 84.
67. Gillian Fuller, Life in Transit: Between Airport and Camp, Borderlands e-journal 2, no. 1 (2003), available at: http://www.borderlandsejournal
.adelaide.edu.au/vol2no1_2003/fuller_transit.html.
68. The courts decision states:
While traveling under an alias or taking an evasive path through
an airport may be highly probative, neither type of evidence has
the sort of ironclad significance attributed to it by the Court of
Appeals, because there are instances in which neither factor
would reflect ongoing criminal activity. On the other hand, the
tests probabilistic factors also have probative significance. Paying $2,100 in cash for airline tickets from a roll of $20 bills containing nearly twice that amount is not ordinary conduct for most
business travelers or vacationers. The evidence that respondent
was traveling under an alias, although not conclusive, was sufficient to warrant consideration. Of similar effect is the probability that few Honolulu residents travel for 20 hours to spend 48
hours in Miami during July. Thus, although each of these factors
is not by itself proof of illegal conduct and is quite consistent with
innocent travel, taken together, they amount to reasonable suspicion that criminal conduct was afoot.
Downloaded from alt.sagepub.com at UNC on December 2, 2013

Mark B. Salter

189

US v. Sokolaw, 490 U.S. 1 (1989), pp. 710, http://laws.findlaw.com/

us/490/1.html.
69. Timothy Mitchell, The Limits of the State: Beyond Statist
Approaches and their Critics, American Political Science Review 85, no. 1
(1991): 7796; Heyman, note 47; Mountz, note 17.
70. Janet A. Gilboy Deciding Who Gets In: Decisionmaking by Immigration Inspectors, Law and Society Review 25, no. 3 (1991): 578580.
71. Heyman, note 47, p. 263.
72. Josiah McC. Heyman, Class and Classification at the U.S.-Mexico
Border, Human Organization 60, no. 2 (summer 2001): 131.
73. Ibid., pp. 131132.
74. Didier Bigo, The Landscape of Police Co-operation, in Eberhart
Bort and Robert Keat, eds., Boundaries of Understanding: Essays in Honour
of Malcolm Anderson (Edinburgh: International Social Science Institute,
University of Edinburgh, 1999), p. 70.
75. Michael R. Curry, The Profilers Question and the Treacherous
Traveler: Narratives of Belonging in Commercial Aviation, Surveillance
and Society 1, no. 4 (2003): 476.
76. Paul Ekman, Darwin, Deception, and Facial Expression, Annuals
of the New York Academy of Science 1000 (2003): 214215.
77. Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA), Frequently
Asked Questions, available at, http://www.catsa-acsta.gc.ca/english/help
_aide/faq.htm, accessed July 19, 2004.
78. David Lyon, Surveillance After September 11th (Cambridge, MA:
Polity Press, 2003); Elia Zureik with Karen Hindle, Governance, Security
and Technology: The Case of Biometrics, Studies in Political Economy 73
(spring/summer 2004): 113137.

Downloaded from alt.sagepub.com at UNC on December 2, 2013