Against Borders: The Case for Abolition

by Gracie Mae Bradley, Luke de Noronha

Why we need to get rid of borders

Borders harm all of us: they must be abolished.

Borders divide workers and families, fuel racial division, and reinforce global disparities. They encourage the expansion of technologies of surveillance and control, which impact migrants and citizens both.

Bradley and de Noronha tell what should by now be a simple truth: borders are not only at the edges of national territory, in airports, or at border walls. Borders are everyday and everywhere; they follow people around and get between us, and disrupt our collective safety, freedom and flourishing.

Against Borders is a passionate manifesto for border abolition, arguing that we must transform society and our relationships to one another, and build a world in which everyone has the freedom to move and to stay.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Society, Social Justice, Sociology, Philosophy

192 pages, Paperback

Published July 19, 2022

Reviews

[Síofra · Rating 5 out of 5]

AMAZING.
a must read asf

[mariam · Rating 5 out of 5]

amazing!!! i agreed after reading the first few pages but was interesting to read about the logic behind it in more detail.

writing style slightly difficult to follow at times; could have been explained a fraction better - minor point though

[Brad · Rating 3 out of 5]

The broad set of border abolitionist policies in this book are a prefigurative series of what André Gorz called "non-reformist reforms":

Central to abolitionist work is the identification of non-reformist reforms. Non-reformist reforms are 'those measures that reduce the power of an oppressive system while illuminating the system's inability to solve the crises it creates.'...Non-reformist reforms are those material changes that further open the way to a world without borders.

Conversely,

Reformist reforms are those tweaks that make some kind of change while ultimately maintaining, or even expanding, the oppressive structures they seek to improve...The problem with reformism presents itself when our energies, resources and time are expended fighting for changes that ultimately move us no closer to the world we want to see, and in many instances might actively block our path [i.e. by "improving accuracy" of border controls with A.I. so that the "wrong people" don't get caught in the web of oppression--i.e. "we're only going after the hardened criminals"].

...The task of distinguishing reformist from non-reformist reforms is a vital one.

Think of the difference between any radical, universal demand in contrast to reforms that throw one community under the bus for another---indeed, this exclusion is built into border regimes enforcing global structures of inequity through the history of colonialism, capitalism and imperialism ([[book:Liberalism: A Counter-History|9670246]). (This has problematic implications for going 'straight into borderlessness'---more on that below).

In terms of the short vs. long-term approaches and their relationship:

History unfolds in rubato, and things speed up in times of crisis. When they do, it matters what infrastructure, relationships, and alternative forms of common-sense have been developed by people who kept imagining and fighting through the hard times. The point is therefore to make new things possible for those who come after us. We should build and nurture identities, relations and practices that refuse the logic of borders [my emphasis], and campaign for changes that will reduce their reach in the here and now. What political community will look like once we have abolished borders, and how they will be governed, remains unclear. That is okay. These are questions to be answered in the process of undoing and remaking...Still, border abolition is our lodestar, and non-reformist reforms are some of the waypoints along the path.

The question of the "logic of borders" in the abstract deserves some depth. In at least their current form, borders are rife with confusions and contradictions. They're not about consistency so much as control, even when superficially *illogical*. The authors are of course aware of this. But what of a world where there are "borders" as boundary lines, as in demarcation of space for logistical, administrative reasons (i.e. management of multinational efforts at green energy distribution)? Borders, in another perspective, are something like the state broadly: they will "wither away", rather than be abolished in a singular moment (the "nonreformist reform" approach above even hints at that). Hand-waving that "we don't know" grapples less than it perhaps should with what the process of transition could possibly be. This is largely reflective of an unapologetically sectarian position.

This leaves some gaps, and some in-built presumptions I would respectfully problematize. Since I enjoy being "that guy"...Taking for granted the authors' explicit position that "You can't build socialism in one country":

How do we approach "borders" between the geographically defined space of a political experiment where it begins and where it has yet to spread?
How do we collectively agree on the renegotiation and management of post-border global supply chains in a fair and just way?

Not to claim the authors think it can all be done overnight. Still, there's a discussion to be had here, and there are answers from different perspectives, but it's a disservice in my view not to grapple with this beyond hand-waving. Especially in this moment of resurgent/insurgent late-capitalist nationalism (neomercantilism?). A coalescing bloc of global south nation-states, if it could blur its own borders, would still have to contend with an imperial metropole locking its gates in a panic. Indeed, speaking of "prefiguring", we're seeing dark portents of this now. That's of course where movements in the "West" come in, to alleviate that pressure. But as we still struggle to work through a history of global inequity resulting from structured dependency/exploitation, this relative positioning in global anticapitalist struggle suggests that the Left broadly has to prepare for uneven outbreaks of radical action.

Those shortfalls aside, to entertain a call for border abolition is a refreshing contrast with realizing the state of things today.

When things are being taken from us -- rights, protections, the promise of a future -- we can end up focusing too much on short-term battles, defending a status quo that was never adequate in the first place. The suggestion that things not only might, but must be radically otherwise is most often treated with hostility and derision. We are consistently exhorted to work through procedural means towards 'realistic' or 'achievable' reforms; to follow interminable focus groups and opinion polls at the expense of imagination, hope and collective power.

That last bit re: liberal hostility and derision hits exceptionally hard right now.

[Esme Kemp · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic.

[Juliette · Rating 5 out of 5]

Such a great book to understand the case to end borders and see what reforms could be put in place instead. I wished everyone could read it.

[samsam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Combining pretty well with the more theoretical Border as Method, or, the Multiplication of Labor, this book explores the more practical side of borders - applied to the most obvious "borders", as in "separation between states", with the main illustration being immigration policies - by giving a clear and concise overview of the abolitionist position, as outlined in the title itself: Against Borders: The Case for Abolition.

To make its case hit home, the book describes the effects borders have in regards to the social concepts of "race" (borders are inherently a racist construct), "gender" (borders are inherently having differential effects on different genders, family situations and sexual orientations), "capitalism" (borders allow for the differential exploitation of workers based on their origins and citizenships, something capitalism needs), as well as the policies implemented by "Western" standards to "protect borders" and "curb immigration", in regards to "policing" (policies put in place to implement the borders physically and administratively), "counter-terror" (the use of the fear of terrorism concept to police immigrants), "databases" (storing and cross-referencing data about immigrants) and "algorithms" (to automate data processing and remove the human interactions with migrants).

Along with a couple of interludes - short stories illustrating possible futures - at the end, the book concludes with making a final case for border abolition, promoting "non-reformist" policies which would weaken the current system instead of reforming it to improve it.

The book's authors base their writings on the works on prison abolition, and so are obviously not advocating for a "here and now" abolition of borders, but for policies that render them redundant. The book is written within the British context, and one must remember it was published in 2022 for additional context (notably as it was then Boris Johnson who was the British PM). Still, the concepts can be transposed to mostly anywhere, and they are very clear to read and understand, so I would recommend its reading for people looking for an entry point in border-abolitionist theory and ideas for praxis.

[Liv · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very clarifying overview! The first two thirds went over a lot of ground that most familiar with politics of border regimes (incl me!) are largely aware of but the final third - on data, algorithms, non-reformist reforms of immigration structures and speculative futures - felt like a deeper investigation of borders’ modern particularities. As a whole, it left me tense, furious and gutted but feeling a lot clearer about strategic avenues for action. It also joins a host of co-authored anti-racist - and other - political titles published recently in Britain. Race To The Bottom, Empire’s Endgame, Abolition Revolution, (previously) Revolting Prostitutes (which this book most reminded me of), and presumably others I’ve missed. The preface of Empire’s Endgame on this subject remains a wonderful reminder of the value of this type of writing in militating against the individualism of academic and literary industries, providing an opportunity for meaningful, companionate thinking through of theory. Big fan of that!

[Gian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ik hou van dit soort boeken omdat ze een mooiere, veiligere en betere wereld schetsen, maar haat dit soort boeken omdat de wereld zich radicaal de andere kant op beweegt, een beweging die (soms) onomkeerbaar lijkt

[Colin Cox · Rating 4 out of 5]

Against Borders: The Case for Abolition is a sharp, thought-provoking primer that explores not only the argument for border abolition but also the ways borders function as a symbol for the interconnected forms of inequality and discrimination in our world. From gender to capitalism, policing to data collection, borders "follow people around, excluding them in various ways at different times, thus producing the precarity and disposability that characterises the migrant condition" (5). According to Gracie Mae Bradley and Luke de Noronha, the omnipresence of borders (and their sibling exclusionary mechanisms, like prisons) speaks to and facilitates their power. Therefore, the goal of border abolition is one grounded in the recognition of borders as deeply, unmistakably violent.

Advocating for border abolition is a proactive project that seeks to "cultivate new ways of caring for one another, nurturing forms of collectivity more conducive to human flourishing than the nation-states we currently inhabit" (10). While Against Borders: The Case for Abolition is, at times, utopian, it offers a cogent and timely analysis of the inequitable counters inherent to all borders.

[Kristofer Grattan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great book for better understanding two of the great issues we will face over the coming decades, mass migration as a result of the climate emergency and the outcome of increased militarisation of borders by the populist state. What is crazy is that very little of what is suggested could be described as truly radical, it is simply compassionate, selfless and ultimately a reimagination of a broken system

[Fran Henderson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nice but nothing I didn’t already know

[Zipporah · Rating 4 out of 5]

against borders gives a very comprehensive overview of the issues of immigration control in the UK touching on race, gender, detention, technology and a brief chapter at the end with steps towards abolition. turns out i knew shockingly little about immigration legislation so this was incredibly informative for me. in a political climate where trump is broadening the powers of ICE to detain and deport “illegal” immigrants (settler colonialists deeming others illegal you have to laugh) and nigel farage continues his lengthy diatribes against “small boat migrants”, it is essential to be clued up about what action we can take to protect migrants from scapegoating and marginalisation

[Boo (Harriet) Eaton · Rating 3 out of 5]

Disappointing. I didn’t like the format and it did not speak at all about a vision of a borderless world but instead just stated the negative aspects of borders which we should oppose. It’s a simplistic introduction to border abolition so seems quite surface level if you’ve done previous reading around borders and probably my fault for not having the right expectations but I thought this would be a more radical vision laying out what a borderless world would look like. This only really came about in the form of two fictional dystopian/ utopian imaginings which did not fit at all with the rest of the writing and didn’t make any sense as they did not specifically mention the impacts that (no) borders had. Accessible writing though!

[Fflur Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

A concise and clear overview of the harms borders cause and makes a compelling case for their abolition. If you're already familiar with border abolition the first half of the book might not provide you with anything new, but I particularly enjoyed their insightful analysis of the role technology plays and will play in our immigration systems.
I liked the exercise in fiction writing with regards to imagining a world beyond borders (dystopian and hopeful) but felt like those sections perhaps remained a little underdeveloped overall. Chapter 8 was however particularly helpful in identifying key steps on the pathway to abolition - something some abolitionist texts often shy away from.
Would definitely recommend, especially if you're unfamiliar with border abolition!

[Vinay S · Rating 5 out of 5]

Comprehensive and accessible. A radical introduction into border abolition. 10/10 would recommend.

[Sara Rozin · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 ⭐️

[Bethan Evans · Rating 5 out of 5]

So good I was nodding along to bits on the overground.

[Jack · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not much to say. It's a great manifesto against borders in any form, and the authors do a pretty comprehensive job of explaining the different sectors of life that borders serve to dehumanize us, especially those in the global South.

The subject material does read as if it assumes that you have a base level of understanding of leftist thought, but I'd absolutely recommend it to someone new to the topic in a heartbeat.

[KT · Rating 4 out of 5]

A decent, breezy read making a convincing case against borders - by depriving people of safer and more direct routes, borders therefore often expose them to harms, such as robbery, extortion, exploitation and violence, but they do not stop them from moving

The book is set against a UK context and as such provides describes its context and history, notably the UK defining itself as a nation state, an island nation, precisely through the exclusion of people from formerly colonised territories, via the introduction of border controls targeting Black and brown colonial and Commonwealth migrants

The book makes the case for abolition of borders through several themes including gender in which they argue that states seek to delimit whose family life counts, thus restricting access to those rights, in this process of determining what "proper" relationships with children, partners and employment should look like, states reinforce normative ideas about gender and sexuality
In addition to this point live-in migrant domestic workers are often considered "part of the family" in ways that prove most beneficial to employers. After all, overtime is not really overtime when the host family care about you, and might be doing you a favour by employing you as a desperate and poor third-world women. Migrant domestic workers are often excluded from national minimum wage and other labour market protections, partly because of this blurriness around work and care, public and private. Policies vary in different states, but for many live-in domestic workers, visas are tied to specific employers, which creates the conditions for extreme forms of exploitation and abuse, which has been a key site of struggle for migrant domestic workers around the world

Capitalism is also explored and similar to territory, citizenship is a property that belongs to the state, border abolition recognises that the territorialisation of labour is a key tool of racial capitalism. As Andrea Smith argues in her foreward to Harsha Walia's book "Undoing Border Imperialism": "For immigration to be a problem, people must live in a propertied relationship to land, that is, where land is a commodity that can be owned and controlled by one group of people"

Another theme explored is policing and how the spectre of the dangerous, violent criminal "foreigner" justifies illegalisation, detention and deportation according to the State, which is why a politics of border abolition should centre the migrants who are criminalised: because narratives around crime and criminality play an oversized role in justifying violent borders

I would recommend this book for anyone interested in an introductory primer to the case against borders and arguments arguing for its abolition

[Molly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ticking this off feels IMMENSE!! Man that was some hard shit to understand.

Let this not take away from the fact that, what I understood, I thought was so interesting! The ideas it presents goes against a lot of what I knew/thought - and puts across ideas in a way I hadn't thought of before and MAN, BOARDERS SUCK PEEPUL!!! the chapter on algorithms by far had me gasping at every sentence!!

Definitely recommend, just give yourself 6-8 months unless you're my sissy 😌😌

[David Tutt · Rating 3 out of 5]

Draws attention to some important issues, but neither offers a structured plan for the changes that it advocates nor analyses the potential consequences of doing so. This is an international issue and it is difficult to see how it could be implemented on a unilateral basis.

[Emmapettitt · Rating 3 out of 5]

More of a practical manifesto for change than the philosophy behind borders that I was after.

[Olivia Tomkinson · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting read, but leans too much towards critical theory over problem solving for me. Though that is the nature of border abolition study it seems. A good starting point

[Harris Layson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have been reading several books on the topic of borders. Largely because it is the current debate topic in my event. This may be the last of them because it made me really bored. I expected a comprehensive justification for why opening borders would not be sufficient to resolve histories of colonial violence and instead we need to abolish borders to eradicate their symbolic presence entirely. That was mostly what the book was about, as it largely found issues in how citizenship functions as well as how borders to support distinctions in nationality to support that citizenship. I just was not completely impressed by the warrants in the book and found it to be very repetitive. Perhaps I was just bored with the topic, not the book, so I'll still give it four stars.
This book attempts to tackle the root cause of many forms of violence, specifically, colonialism, patriarchy, and war. It argues the way that we form our identities to engage in these processes has to start with a community, which is the state. We make ourselves legible to the state, which oppresses others and ourselves, by submitting to citizenship. This gives the state the power to determine who deserves rights and who doesn't base on arbitrary conditions like birth place, etc. On top of these conditions, the state is able to go into another place and commit violence on the grounds that those are not its citizens. We have to reject borders entirely because they only exist to serve this function of identification. Thus, Bradley advocates for abolishing borders entirely. Not only would this resolve the physical violence of refugee camps on the border, but also attempts to resolve the root cause by forming a symbolic cosmopolitan identity instead of fragmented nationalities.
Do not read this book if you are not absolutely interested in it. If you are interested in borders, I suggest reading other books I've recommended that give a more in-depth explanation of the way violence occurs materially through them. If you are interested in the state, read something else like Zizek. Maybe you could read this book if you are a radical anarchist, but the solution it offers is in no way feasible. The abolition of the nation-state form and its borders will never happen and the author does not propose a concrete mechanism for doing so. Obviously is should be evaluated as more of a values statement, but then why should anyone care? Read something else.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Against Borders” by Gracie Mae Bradley and Luke de Noronha

Borders organize the world into nation-states, serving as a restraint on human movement and a justification for racist and gendered violence against migrant populations. Bradley and de Noronha argue in this thoughtful, sharp, and radical examination of borders that the only way to create equitable migrant experiences which honors their humanity: Abolish Borders. 


This book blew me away with its insightful critiques of borders and citizenship as methods of stratification within nation-states, with politicians and police relying on securitization scare tactics as a means of justifying their continued existence. The authors also produce a strong case for why reforms of immigration systems and citizenship are insufficient. Although I struggle with envisioning abolition, I recognize that this is the power of the organizing and system and that Bradley and de Noronha note that the absence of an organizing principle of borders is exactly the point. My one critique of the book is in the use of fictional futures only at the end of the book. I believe they could have been an effective device but the placement only at the end was an odd choice; they could have been more effectively developed if used to introduce or illustrate points throughout. 


A strong recommendation from me, but I think the complexity of the book does not render this a read for everyone. 

[Tiana · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5– this book was immensely helpful for me. While I’ve been engaged in a border abolition reading group— it can still sometimes be challenging for me to imagine a bounded political community without citizenship and how that functions to scale. This text didn’t give all the details for how our future would look, but asked insightful questions and explored the stakes of what citizenship/non-citizenship may look like if carceral, militarized, labor systems continue to entrench digital borders. I thought the chapters on counter-terrorism and algorithms were very compelling while the chapter on gender definitely needed some more work. One important thing taken from this book is sort of a reverse of the abolitionist idea that we need to be making a million experiments in care and non-carceral relations (one million experiments podcast). This book helped me realize that forces of state and private power have already pre-figured their extractive, violent policing, and surveillance experiments in war, in “humanitarian aid” in fragile states, and in colonized/post-colonial sites. In all, a helpful book— 4.5 stars because I think it could have used another round of editing for clarity and word-choice.

[Moska Saidy · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think this is a very valuable book as it collects all these different arguments in one place, sort of like a summary. I really liked the lens of prison abolition they used. "And what is prison if not a form of internal deportation?" I learnt most in the latter section of the book when they focused on data and algorithms, and how these are used at borders, and how AI should be considered in further activism.
I also really found the distinction between reformist and non-reformist reforms super intriguing - I had never heard of these terms before, but will definitely be using this lens when critical of reforms in the future. I was not a particular fan of the 'Interludes' chapters, but I do understand their role in the wider book, which is why I gave it 4.5/5. Definitely recommend to anyone who wants to learn more about border abolition! If you are already involved in these discussions, like me, this is a good summary of the most common arguments, so is valuable to all!

[George Cooper · Rating 5 out of 5]

As someone who is solidly left-leaning this book didn't need to do much to persuade me that borders (not necessarily just physical but digital, gendered, sexual etc) are just an extension of our capitalist, heteronormative, racist society. The way this book shows how western ideas of borders, justice, and illegal immigration genuinely seeps through everything across every society and country in the world was fascinating but also very worrying n i enjoyed the link the authors made between border abolition and prison abolition. Also loved learning about the concept of non-reformist reforms and how these can be used positively in the future without the need to search for a definite alternative to a borderless society

[_db · Rating 2 out of 5]

> "We do not provide a roadmap for how to get to border abolition"

> "We do not offer a blueprint for what comes after national citizenship"

> "We do not have all the answers to these vast questions"

okay, so what DO you have? half-baked ideas with little to no actual steps on how to obtain the goal and a couple of bizarre vignettes of the future...typical ultra-leftist infantilism

good luck keeping the capitalists out when you have no borders. the universal condemnation of nationalism regardless of historical and material context and the insistence on using terms like "authoritarianism" was embarrassing to read

a good demonstration of what NOT to do when you want people to take your sociological thesis seriously. silly book that could have just been a pamphlet or a poster

[Will Bell · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like this one. It's got a certain punchy feel about it but at the same time it's rather light and focuses on the messaging from a small number of authors who work in the same field as opposed to exploring the real issues that may arise from the problems and solutions they propose and see. It would benefit from more consideration of the overall situation that drives the immigration and border question. Though it hints at the literature which explores the concept of borders in the concept of the modern nation state, it does not fully reflect their own thoughts on this matter or the breadth of theory.