Thought Paper Gender-based violence and asylum & the securitization of the U.S

Thought Paper
Gender-based violence and asylum & the securitization of the U.S Mexico Border
Drawing on the readings that focus on the securitization and violence at the U.S Mexico Border and the gendered aspects of forced displacement and refugeedom, I would like you to explore at least one of the three questions listed below:
1) What is the relationship between the securitization and militarization of the U.S Mexico border and the prevalence of gender/sexual violence? (e.g. Jones, De León, Norman)
2) What are the gendered effects of the criminalization (or “crimmigration”) of forced migration and displacement? (e.g. Gorman, Norman)
3) In what ways migrants are not recognized as “rights-bearing subjects” but are exposed to profit maximization within the “immigration industrial complex”? (e.g. Martin, Norman)
The continuum of gender, military and paramilitary, and racialized violence, is further accentuated if we take into consideration the involvement of the U.S. in several of the case studies we have been discussing (for instance in the dirty wars in the Southern Cone as well as authoritative regimes in Central America, e.g El Salvador and Guatemala; see Stephen). The U.S involvement (Stephen) is important and needs to be underlined for three reasons: 1) for its role in destabilizing those countries, financially, socially, and politically, forcing people to migrate to the North, 2) the U.S supported military training of torturers and dictators and the institutionalization of anticommunist propaganda, and lastly 3) when it comes to the securitization and militarization of the border and the lucrative “business” of privatized immigration detention, where “racial capitalization” and “economies of dispossession” have turned migrants provisionally valuable in their detainability and excludability (Martin, Feltz and Baksh).
The criminalization of forced migration and the militarization of the border is forcing and intensifying the precarity and vulnerability of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers, who are forced to cross the border as they are fleeing structural, gender and interpersonal violence, gang-related violence, precarity, and dispossession, especially given the living memories and realities of everyday, structural, and political violence in the region (Jones, De León, Norman, Stephen).
In this framework of discussion, attempt to unfold the gendered effects and consequences assigned on the bodies who are crossing the border, but also the ways that the border, the public and private space, have become sites of militaristic, nationalist, heterosexist projections where the border becomes literally and symbolically a war zone and a theater for a specific type of identities, bodies, citizens to be projected, incorporated or excluded from the nation-state, by smugglers, organized crime, gangs, border patrol officers, but also the legal paradigm (Gorman). When the border becomes or is treated as a war zone in the name of state sovereignty and national security within states of emergency and “illegality industries,” then political and media rhetoric (Brendese), and necropolitical policies are justifying the systematic violations of human rights and bare life is preserved at the lowest cost and bare minimum (Martin).
Relevant readings (available)
At least two of the main readings listed below need to be incorporated into your analysis:
Week 7
De León. 2015. “Prevention Through Deterrence,” The land of open graves: living and dying on the migrant trail. California Series in Public Anthropology 36. Berkeley: University of California Press, 23-37.
De León. 2012. “Better to Be Hot than Caught:” Excavating the Conflicting Roles of Migrant Material Culture,” American Anthropologist, 144 (3): 477-495:
Jones. 2016. “The US-Mexico Border: Rise of a Militarized Zone,” Violent Borders. Refugees and the Right to Move. London & New York: Verso (Ch.2), pp. 29-47.
Week 8
Brendese. 2014. Borderline epidemics: Latino immigration and racial biopolitics. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 2(2): 168–187.
Stephen. 2017. “Creating Preemptive Subjects,” Latin American Perspectives, 45 (6): 1-19.
Week 9
Betts and Loescher. 2011. “Feminist Geopolitics Meets Refugee Studies” (Ch. 8). Refugees in International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yến Lê Espiritu and Lan Duong. 2018. “Feminist Refugee Epistemology: Reading Displacement in Vietnamese and Syrian Refugee Art,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 43, no. 3 (Spring): 587-615.
Week 10
Gorman. 2016. “Containing Kassindja: detention, gendered threats and border control in the United States,” Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 23 (7): 955-968.
Norman. 2016. “Falling through the Cracks: Superfluous Women at the Fault Lines of Citizenship, Sovereignty, and Human Rights,” Feminist (Im)Mobilities in Fortress(ing) North America, Routledge,
pp. 57-72.
Week 11
Martin. 2021. “Carceral economies of migrant control,” Progress in Human Geography, Vol. 45 (4): 740-757.
Feltz and Baksh. 2012. “Business of Detention.” In Beyond Walls and Cages: Prisons, Borders, and Global Crisis. Geographies of Justice and Social Transformation. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 143–51.
Ø Your response should specifically comment on elements of the texts that you have chosen to discuss, analyze, and respond on; for instance, when you are citing or paraphrasing a specific section or argument. You are also encouraged to use concepts we have encountered in our readings; the readings assigned for Weeks 7-11, are crucial for contextualizing and theorizing your analysis.
Ø Right after your introduction, you need to include a coherent thesis statement (it can be the last part of your introduction) and to support your argument(s) and opinion with concrete examples and analyses from the two papers you have selected. The analysis and argumentation will comprise the main part of your paper.
Ø Make sure that your paper has a conclusion, a references cited/bibliography page, and proper bibliographic citations. Please use a standard reference form, e.g Chicago or MLA. For instance, Chicago Manual of Style, 17th edition,