Veronica Fynn Bruey, Assistant Professor, Legal Studies, Athabasca University, and Africa-Oxford Fellow, 2023-24

Border externalisation represents a growing trend in global migration policy, where nations seek to manage migration flows by pushing their border controls beyond their own territories. This practice disproportionately impacts African migrants, who face significant challenges and dangers as a result. This short piece examines these impacts through the lens of an African migrant scholar perspective, aiming to challenge the dominant narratives surrounding border externalisation. By critiquing the prevailing narratives that frame border externalisation practices primarily through security and economic lenses at the expense of the human costs and legal protection for African migrants, the paper argues for reframing migration policies to prioritize human dignity, rights and justice while proposing more equitable, compassionate, and humane approaches to migration.

Introduction: Scope of Border Externalisation

In recent decades, border externalisation has become a prominent strategy for Western countries to manage migration flows by outsourcing border control to other regions, particularly to countries in Africa.[1] Border externalisation policies and restrictive migration measures in transit countries have direct impact on African migrants as they often face harsh conditions including increased risks of exploitation, violence, and deprivation. For example, agreements between the EU and various African countries have led to the establishment of detention centres in places like Libya and Mauritanian where migrants frequently face severe human rights abuses.[2]

The concept of border externalisation, where states extend their borders beyond their physical limits to control migration, has increasingly become a focal point in global migration policy. Traditionally, this phenomenon has been analysed from the perspective of state sovereignty and security, often sidelining the experiences and agency of migrant scholars with lived experiences of being displaced. In this paper, I write as an Indigenous Liberian survivor of war, a global migrant, and an academic scholar with over 25 years of experience in the academy.

I intentionally seek to “flip the narrative” by centring the experiences of African migrants in the discussion on border externalisation. Through a critical analysis of policy frameworks, media representations, and firsthand accounts, this paper argues that understanding border externalisation from the perspective of African migrants is not only critical to the current debate but also reveals a more complex and human-centred discussion, one that challenges the dominant security-oriented discourse from the Global North.

Definition, Theory and Concept

Border externalisation has become a critical component of migration management for many countries in the Global North countries, particularly in Europe, North America, and Australia. This practice involves shifting the responsibility for regulating, monitoring, and consequentially controlling migration away from a country’s borders to countries in the Global South, especially those in Africa.[3] Border externalisation measures is criticized for their human rights implications and the way they shift the burden of migration management to less wealthy and often less stable African countries. Yet very little attention is given to the perspectives of African migrants themselves, who are directly impacted by border externalisation policies in the Global North.

Border externalisation can be understood through the lens of critical migration studies, which interrogates the power dynamics inherent in global migration governance.[4] This approach shifts the focus from state-centric perspectives to the lived experiences of migrants, emphasizing the ways in which policies impact migrants’ rights, dignity, and well-being. The concept of “bordering,” as articulated by Balibar and Mezzadra, is particularly relevant here.[5] In this context, “bordering” refers not only to the physical demarcation of territories but also to the symbolic and discursive practices that define who belongs and who does not.

The paper applies the concept of bordering to analyse how African migrants are affected by, and respond to, border externalisation policies. For the purpose of this paper, a migrant is anyone compelled to leave their place of habitual residence for reasons critical to their survival. These reasons may be due to slavery (i.e., trans-Atlantic and modern), colonialization, imperialism, economical, violence in its broadest form, climate change, harsh environmental conditions, globalisation and big technology especially related to the extractive industry.[6]

This definition is operationalised to include all migrants, irrespective of whether they cross international borders created by the Westphalian or not. They may include internally displaced persons (IDPs), colonists, Indigenous Peoples, formally enslaved peoples, trafficked persons, migrant workers, economic migrants, so-called expats, and refugees. While migrants from the Global South are marginalised, stigmatised, racialised, exploited, and disenfranchised, especially in the Global North, the paper affirms that no human being is illegal and therefore no African migrant is illegal.

In managing borders, bilateral Agreements are signed. Bilateral agreement is when countries negotiate with transit states to manage migrant flows, often involving financial support or other incentives.[7] Often, detention centres are established in transit countries to hold and intercept migrants, including displaced Indigenous peoples. The spaces surrounding detention centres are highly securitised with border agents who seems to lack any ounce of emotional intelligence, empathy, compassion, or proper training on race relations.[8]

Evolution, History and Policy

As indicated above, border externalisation encompasses the practice of shifting the management of migration and border control to countries outside the originating state’s borders. This strategy includes (but not limited to) establishing migrant detention centres, funding border security initiatives in other countries, and forming bilateral agreements that enforce stringent border controls.[9] Historically, the practice of border has been crafted, adopted and continues to be (re)invented by European Union countries, the United States, Canada, and Australia with significant and intentional impacts on African nations.[10]

The practice of extending state control beyond national borders is not new; it has its roots in slavery and colonialism, where European migrants as colonists, slavers, and imperialist exerted power and control over Indigenous African territories and peoples. In the modern context, border externalisation manifests in various forms, including the creation of passport, travel documents, visa requirements, carrier sanctions, and lopsided international agreements that outsource migration control to the Global South.

A key component of state sovereignty, border securitisation tends to simultaneously insert neoliberal ideologies from the Global North and respond to the increasing mobility of people from the Global South by virtue of exploitative global trade.[11] In 2015, the arrival of over one million people, many of them fleeing conflict in Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq in Europe prompted the European Union (EU) to intensify its externalisation efforts. The EU signed agreements with countries such as Turkey and Libya to purposely stem the flow of migrants, offering financial incentives and other forms of support in exchange for their cooperation in controlling migration.

The EU signed agreements with Libya, Turkey, and Morocco, for example, are contemporary manifestations of this practice, wherein the EU externalizes its borders by enlisting other states to prevent African “dingy boat” migrants from reaching European shores. The EU’s Khartoum Process, launched in 2014, aims to combat human trafficking and smuggling in the Horn of Africa region.[12] Similarly, the EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa, established in 2015 provides funding for addressing the “root causes” of migration in African countries.[13] These initiatives are all part of a broader strategy to externalize the EU’s borders by outsourcing migration control to African states.

The current policy frameworks governing border externalisation are often justified on the grounds of national security and the prevention of irregular migration. However, these frameworks frequently overlook the structural factors driving migration, such as economic inequality, political instability, and climate change, particularly in African contexts. By focusing narrowly on deterrence, border externalisation policies often exacerbate the vulnerabilities of African migrants, exposing them to a myriad of exploitation, violence, and human rights abuses.

Media Representations and Public Perception

Media representations play a crucial role in shaping public perceptions of migration and, by extension, border externalisation. In many Western countries, African migrants are often depicted as a “threat” to national security and social cohesion.[14] This narrative, reinforced by political rhetoric and sensationalist reporting, fuels xenophobia and legitimizes harsh border control measures.[15] The depiction of African migrants as passive victims or dangerous invaders obscures their agency and the structural factors driving their migration.

African migrants are actively challenging adverse prevailing narratives through various forms of resistance and self-representation. Social media platforms, art, and literature have become important spaces where migrants have direct access to share their stories, assert their identities, and contest the stigmatisation they endure.[16] This paper explores several case studies of African migrants who have used these platforms to flip the narrative on border externalisation, offering unique perspectives to highlight their resilience, creativity, and humanity.

African Migrant Experiences

Motivations for Migration

To understand African migrants’ perspective, it is essential to consider what drives their decision to migrate. Migration from Africa to Europe or other regions is often driven by a complex interplay of factors, including legacies tied to slavery, colonialism, and globalisation which are inextricably tied to governance issues, socio-political challenges, violent conflict, exploitative extraction of natural resources, environmental degradation, and discrimination associated with racial divide.[17] Albeit it is crucial to recognize that migration is not solely a response to negative conditions; it is also an expression of agency, aspiration, and self-fulfilment.

Like their first ancestors and later European colonists, African migrants’ decision to migrate is categorically influenced by the desire to sustain life with favourable conditions. While externalisation policies aim to deter migration by making the journey more difficult, they often fail to address the underlying factors driving migration. As a result, many migrants are compelled do whatever it takes to preserve their lives.

Routes and Risks

African migrants encounter numerous challenges as they navigate the complex and often dangerous routes to Europe and other destinations. The journey is fraught with risks, including the threat of detention, (sexual) violence from smugglers and border guards, and the imminent threat of drowning in the Mediterranean Sea. These risks are compounded by border insensitive externalisation policies that literally push African migrants into more death-defying routes, thereby heightening their reliance on smugglers and other inhumane migration pathways. This section highlights the experiences of African migrants who have faced these challenges, emphasizing their agency amidst profound adversity. It also explores policy implications and proposes recommendations that align human rights norms.

Navigating Externalized Borders

African migrants often display remarkable resilience and resourcefulness in navigating the challenges posed by border externalisation. Notwithstanding the barriers erected by border externalisation policies, many migrants innovatively find ways to take the journeys, which may involve relentlessly scouting alternative routes, relying on smuggling networks, or adapting to changing circumstances on the move. Reliance on smuggling networks tends to expose migrants to further risks, including (sexual) exploitation, violence, and deaths. Even though smugglers networks are often demonised in the media and policy discourse, they play a crucial role in facilitating migration.

To many African migrants, smuggler networks are perceived as messiahs as they are sometimes safer alternatives for circumventing border controls than immigration and border guards.[18] African migrants often rely on social networks and community support to navigate the challenges posed by border externalisation. Migrant communities can provide crucial information, resources, and assistance to those attempting to cross externalized borders. These networks often operate informally, relying on trust and mutual aid to support migrants on the move.

Resistance and Resilience

Despite the formidable challenges they face, African migrants have developed various strategies of resistance and resilience. These strategies range from collective actions, such as protests and hunger strikes in detention centres, to individual acts of defiance, such as crossing borders despite the risks. This section highlights the stories of African migrants who have resisted border externalisation through acts of solidarity, community building, and advocacy. It also examines the role of migrant-led organizations and networks in supporting these efforts and amplifying the voices of those affected by border externalisation.

Detention and Deportation

One of the most devastating consequences of border externalisation for African migrants is their subjection to detention and deportation. Detention and deportation are central tools of border externalisation, used to deter migrants from attempting to cross borders and to remove those who have already arrived. African migrants are disproportionately affected by externalisation policies and practices as they tend to experience prolonged detention in inhumane conditions or being deported to countries where they face greater risks of persecution, hardship, and living without documents.

As part of externalisation agreements, migrants intercepted by authorities in third countries are often detained in facilities that are notoriously unfit for human habitation, reported as are sites of severe human rights abuses, including torture, rape, and forced labour. African migrants in detention are physically and mentally traumatised as the goal of such centres is to dehumanize and criminalize migrants. Many detained migrants are held without due process, with little or no access to legal representation or the ability to challenge their detention. The lack of accountability in these detention centres further aggravates the suffering of detained migrants.

Deportation is another tool used in the context of border externalisation to manage migration. African migrants intercepted at sea or detained in third countries are often forcibly returned to their countries of origin or other states where they may face danger. Deportation with/without due process disrupts the lives of migrants and reinforces a narrative of exclusion and rejection by the Global North. You are not welcome here, do not come here.[19]

Irrespective of the obvious challenges of detention and deportation, many African migrants remain determined and undeterred. Some attempt to escape from detention facilities and continue their journeys, while others may make multiple attempts to migrate after being deported. These actions not only affirm the failure of border externalisation but it also clearly demonstrates the resilience and agency of African migrants.

Direct Impact on African Migrants

While border externalisation policies are often justified as necessary measures to prevent irregular migration and protect national security, they have significant consequences for African migrants. As stated earlier, border externalisation policies can create dangerous and often fatal situations for those attempting to migrate by exacerbating existing vulnerabilities as such policies do not stop migration flow. So, by pushing migration control away from the borders of destination countries, externalisation policies only force migrants to take more dangerous routes where they face the likelihood of violence, abuse, and death.

One of the most immediate impacts of border externalisation is the accumulated risks associated with perilous journeys.[20] For example, the EU’s cooperation with Libya has led to the closure of safer Mediterranean routes, pushing migrants to attempt crossings in less secure areas. This has resulted in a higher number of fatalities at sea, with the Mediterranean becoming one of the deadliest migration routes in the world. Additionally, the physical dangers of border externalisation expose African migrants to various forms of exploitation and abuse.

For instance, in Libya, migrants intercepted by the Libyan Coast Guard—a force that has received significant support from the EU—are often detained in horrific conditions. Numerous reports have documented cases of torture, sexual violence, and forced labour in Libyan detention centres. These abuses are not isolated incidents but are part of a broader pattern of human rights violations enabled by border externalisation policies.

Even worse, border externalisation undermines the agency of African migrants by restricting their ability to seek legal protection since such policies prevents migrants from reaching the territory of the destination country, where they would have the right to claim asylum under international law. African migrants that are intercepted and returned to countries where they may be persecuted, violated, and/or face other forms of harm are subjected violation of the principle of non-refoulement, which is a cornerstone of international refugee law.[21]

Challenging the Externalisation Narrative

The prevailing narrative surrounding border externalisation is often framed in terms of security, control, and deterrence. This narrative emphasizes the need to protect (European, North American, Australian, and Canadian) borders from African migrants who are portrayed as threats and/or burdens. This narrow perspective obscures the ideals of human rights (i.e., equality and justice) and ignores the agency of African migrants. Flipping the narrative on border externalisation requires challenging these dominant discourses and centring the experiences of African migrants. By concentrating efforts on the human rights violations associated with border externalisation, we can shift the conversation from one of security to one of compassion, empathy, and kindness. To be clear, this conversation involves highlighting the ways in which border externalisation policies violate international law, undermine the rights of migrants, and contribute to their suffering.

Policy Implications and Recommendations

Reframing Migration Policy

The current approach to border externalisation is fundamentally flawed in its emphasis on deterrence and security at the expense of human rights and dignity. This paper argues for a fundamental rethinking of migration policy, one that prioritizes the needs and perspectives of migrants with lived experiences. Such a reframing would involve shifting from a punitive to a protective approach, ensuring that migration policies are guided by principles of justice, equality, empathy, compassion, and global solidarity.

Strengthening International Cooperation

Addressing the root causes of migration requires genuine international cooperation, particularly the structural factors driving migration from Africa. This includes efforts to genuinely engage with African migrants as critical agents of change, promote sustainable development through education, tackle systemic violent conflicts, and mitigate the impacts of climate change. Rather than outsourcing border control to third countries, regional and international cooperation, especially on the Continent of Africa, must focus on creating safe and legal pathways for African migrants, protecting the rights of migrants, and providing support for host countries in African with large numbers of displaced persons and refugees.

Enhancing Migrant Participation

African migrants must be recognised as key stakeholders in the development and implementation of migration policies that mainly affect them. Their voices and experiences should be at the forefront of policy discussions, and they should be actively involved in decision-making processes at local, national, and international levels. This requires intentionally and carefully creating spaces for meaningful participation and ensuring that migrants have access to the resources and support they need to advocate for their rights.

Amplifying African Migrant Voices

Finally, in addition to recognising and creating space for African migrants, it is crucial to amplify their voices when discussions migration policy. Emphatically, migrants themselves must be included fairly and squarely (not as tokens) in the decision-making processes that affect their lives. This decision-making process starts from the evolution of policy solution idea to their involvement with creating platforms for African migrants to share their experiences, advocate for their rights, participate in policy development, and lead interventions programs to realise such policy goals.

Conclusion

Border externalisation is a complex and contentious aspect of contemporary migration management, particularly for African migrants who are directly impacted by these policies. African migrants are not merely passive recipients of the effects of border externalisation policies. They are active agents navigating this complex and often dangerous terrain. This paper highlights the importance of understanding border externalisation from the viewpoint of those most affected by it and has offered recommendations for a more just and humane approach to migration governance.

Flipping the narrative on border externalisation requires a fundamental shift in how we understand and approach migration not just as academic scholars but also as policymakers. Flipping the narrative and centring perspectives of African migrants, implies gaining a deeper understanding of the challenges and the strategies necessary to overcome the root cause of migration. While externalisation is often justified in terms of security and control, it has significant human rights components.

By centring the experiences and perspectives of African scholars with lived experiences of being a migrant, we can challenge the dominant security-oriented discourse and advocate for humane and compassionate policies that respect the dignity and rights of all people, regardless of their migration status. As the need to migrate becomes ever pressing, it is imperative that we listen to the voices of African migrants and work towards a future where our humanity is fully recognised based on respect, dignity, compassion, and empathy.

Footnotes

[1] Luiza Bialasiewicz, “Off-Shoring and Out-Sourcing the Borders of EUrope: Libya and EU Border Work in the Mediterranean,” Geopolitics 17, no. 4 (October 2012): 843–66, https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2012.660579; Maribel Casas-Cortes, Sebastian Cobarrubias, and John Pickles, “Riding Routes and Itinerant Borders: Autonomy of Migration and Border Externalization: Riding Routes and Itinerant Borders,” Antipode 47, no. 4 (September 2015): 894–914, https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12148.

[2] Ian Urbina, “The Secretive Prisons That Keep Migrants Out of Europe,” The New Yorker, November 23, 2021, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/06/the-secretive-libyan-prisons-that-keep-migrants-out-of-europe; Philippe M. Frowd, “The Field of Border Control in Mauritania,” Security Dialogue 45, no. 3 (June 2014): 226–41, https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010614525001; Emanuela Paoletti, The Migration of Power and North-South Inequalities: The Case of Italy and Libya (Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011).

[3] Casas-Cortes, Cobarrubias, and Pickles, “Riding Routes and Itinerant Borders”; Maribel Casas-Cortes, Sebastian Cobarrubias, and John Pickles, “‘Good Neighbours Make Good Fences’: Seahorse Operations, Border Externalization and Extra-Territoriality,” European Urban and Regional Studies 23, no. 3 (July 2016): 231–51, https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776414541136; Sebastian Cobarrubias, “Scale in Motion? Rethinking Scalar Production and Border Externalization,” Political Geography 80, no. 102184 (June 2020): 2–11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2020.102184.

[4] Antoine Pécoud, Depoliticising Migration: Global Governance and International Migration Narratives (London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2015), https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137445933.

[5] Sandro Mezzadra and Brett Neilson, Border as Method, or, the Multiplication of Labor (Duke University Press, 2013), https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822377542; Étienne Balibar, James Swenson, and Étienne Balibar, We, the People of Europe? Reflections on Transnational Citizenship, Translation/Transnation (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2004).

[6] Xavier Ferrer-Gallardo and Lorenzo Gabrielli, “The Ceuta Border Peripeteia: Tasting the Externalities of EU Border Externalization,” Journal of Borderlands Studies 37, no. 3 (May 27, 2022): 645–55, https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2022.2048680; Martin Lemberg-Pedersen, “Losing the Right to Have Rights: EU Externalization of Border Control,” in Europe and the Americas, ed. Erik André Andersen and Eva Maria Lassen (Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Brill | Nijhoff, 2015), 393–417, https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004279247_016; Cecilia Menjívar, “Immigration Law Beyond Borders: Externalizing and Internalizing Border Controls in an Era of Securitization,” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 10, no. 1 (November 3, 2014): 353–69, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110413-030842; Violeta Moreno-Lax and Martin Lemberg-Pedersen, “Border-Induced Displacement: The Ethical and Legal Implications of Distance-Creation through Externalization,” Question of International Law 56, no. 1 (2019): 1–33, https://vbn.aau.dk/en/publications/border-induced-displacement-the-ethical-and-legal-implications-of#:~:text=Border%2Dinduced%20displacement%20is%20not,violence%20implicated%20in)%20border%20control.

[7] Lemberg-Pedersen, “Losing the Right to Have Rights.”

[8] Lilie Chouliaraki and Pierluigi Musarò, “The Mediatized Border: Technologies and Affects of Migrant Reception in the Greek and Italian Borders,” Feminist Media Studies 17, no. 4 (July 4, 2017): 535–49, https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2017.1326550.

[9] Giuseppe Campesi, Policing Mobility Regimes: Frontex and the Production of the European Borderscape, 1st ed. (London: Routledge, 2021), https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429291548; Jill M Williams, “The Safety/Security Nexus and the Humanitarianisation of Border Enforcement,” The Geographical Journal 182, no. 1 (March 2016): 27–37, https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12119.

[10] Ruben Zaiotti, Cultures of Border Control: Schengen and the Evolution of European Frontiers (Chicago,  IL: University of Chicago Press, 2011); Peter Gatrell, The Making of the Modern Refugee, First (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2013); Peter Gatrell, The Unsettling of Europe: How Migration Reshaped a Continent, First (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2019).

[11] Campesi, Policing Mobility Regimes; Julien Brachet, “Manufacturing Smugglers: From Irregular to Clandestine Mobility in the Sahara,” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 676, no. 1 (March 2018): 16–35, https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716217744529.

[12] European Union and Intrenational Centre for Migration Policy Development, “The Khartoum Process,” International, Khartoum Process, 2016, https://www.khartoumprocess.net/about/the-khartoum-process.

[13] European Union, “Emergency Trust Fund for Africa,” International, Home, July 16, 2024, https://trust-fund-for-africa.europa.eu/index_en.

[14] Veronica Fynn Bruey, “Forced Displacement and Racism: A Global Public Health Concern,” in Displacees and Health: Issues and Challenges, ed. Norvy Paul (Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India: Notion Press, 2021), 27–66.

[15] Veronica Fynn Bruey and Robert Fantauzzi, “Canada’s Legal and Policy Framework for Migration,” in Forced Migration in/to Canada : From Colonization to Refugee Resettlement, ed. Christina Clark-Kazak (Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2024), 117–27, https://repository.library.carleton.ca/concern/works/k643b269w?locale=en.

[16] Chouliaraki and Musarò, “The Mediatized Border”; Pierluigi Musarò and Paola Parmiggiani, “Beyond Black and White: The Role of Media in Portraying and Policing Migration and Asylum in Italy,” International Review of Sociology 27, no. 2 (May 4, 2017): 241–60, https://doi.org/10.1080/03906701.2017.1329034.

[17] Veronica Fynn Bruey and Heaven Crawley, “The Enduring Impacts of Slavery: A Historical Perspective on South–South Migration,” in The Palgrave Handbook of South–South Migration and Inequality, ed. Heaven Crawley and Joseph Kofi Teye (Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2024), 25–46, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-39814-8; Michael Collyer, “Geopolitics as a Migration Governance Strategy: European Union Bilateral Relations with Southern Mediterranean Countries,” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 42, no. 4 (March 15, 2016): 606–24, https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2015.1106111.

[18] Feargal Cochrane, Migration and Security in the Global Age: Diapora Commnities and Conflict, 0 ed. (London, UK: Routledge, 2015), https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315881768.

[19] Staff Reporter, “‘There Is No Way You Will Make Australia Home’ – Video,” The Guardian, April 11, 2014, sec. Australia news, https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/apr/11/140411nowayfromgaus.

[20] Veronica P. Fynn and Steven Bender, eds., Deadly Voyages: Migrant Journeys Across the Globe (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2019).

[21] Christina Boswell, The Ethics of Refugee Policy, Ethics and Global Politics (Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2005).