ABSTRACT
At the US–Mexico border, administrative practices routinely ignore the entry claims of stateless people in favor of detention and deportation, often without appeal. The result is both a practical and a moral crisis. Working within a critical interpretive framework, using theories from Michel Foucault and Jürgen Habermas, we explore the tension between facts and norms in the implementation of border policies. We offer activist efforts in support of migrant claims at the border as ‘counter-conduct’ and ‘counter- knowledge’: fundamentally democratic forms of resistance to governmental power. Border activism today is rich with potential guidance for further development of border practices from the grassroots to the legislative chamber.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Correction Statement
This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
Notes
1. With ‘migrants’ we refer broadly to undocumented immigrants in the U.S. and, in particular, to asylum seekers.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
María Verónica Elías
María Verónica Elías is a tenure-track faculty of public administration at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Her research interests lie in the areas of public administration theory and epistemology, participatory governance, and immigration policy and border governance. She has published in Public Administration, the Journal of Borderland Studies, VOLUNTAS, Administration & Society, and Critical Policy Studies, among others.
Camilla Stivers
Camilla Stivers taught at The Evergreen State College, Washington State, and at the Levin College of Cleveland State University, where she held the Levin Chair in urban studies and public service. Her most recent book, co-authored with David G. Carnevale, is Knowledge and Power in Public Bureaucracies: From Pyramid to Circle.