Media Responses to Border Technologies
in a Post 9/11 World
A Comparison of Australia and Canada
Tahnee Reed Student number: 961424
Joint European Master in International Migration and Social Cohesion. April 2015
Supervisors
University of Amsterdam: Dr Julien A. Jeandesboz University of Deusto: Dr Norma Fuentes University of Osnabrueck: Dr Christoph Rass
Contents
INTRODUCTION ... 5
The Case Of Airport Technologies And The Media In Canada And Australia... 7
AUSTRALIAN AND CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HISTORY... 9
A THEORETICAL APPROACH ... 14
Mobility or Migration? ... 14
Actors... 15
The Border - Binaries created at the airport... 18
Securitisation of Mobility ... 20
September 11 and its Impact on Mobility... 22
TECHNOLOGIES... 25
SmartGate/Automated Gate Clearance - What is it? ... 25
ePassports - What is it? ... 26
Biometric visa - What is it? ... 26
MEDIA DISCOURSE... 28
METHODOLOGY ... 30
RESEARCH ... 32
Australian Biometric Passport Discourse ... 32
Canada and Australia Biometric Passport Discourse Comparison ... 48
Australia SmartGate Discourse... 50
Canadian Automated Border Clearance Discourse... 57
Canada and Australia Automated Border Clearance/SmartGate Discourse Comparison ... 61
Australia Biometric Visa Discourse ... 63
Canada Biometric Visa Discourse ... 74
Canada and Australia Biometric Visa Discourse Comparison... 82
CONCLUSION ... 84
INTRODUCTION
After the events of September 11, 2001, media and political commentators claim that it was the day that "changed everything" and that the future will be affected by the events of this one day. Dick Cheney, the Vice-President of the United States at the time, stated that "a sort of theme that comes through repeatedly for me is that 9/11 changed everything"
(msnbc.com, 2003). Other articles state that world leaders were instantly aware that this day was to change the way that the world interacted (see The Guardian, 'Tony Blair knew immediately that 9/11 terror attacks 'changed everything'', O'Carroll, 2011, and The
Telegraph 'Former Australian PM (Prime Minister) recalls the horrors of 9/11 attacks',
2011). Investigations were launched, and because the hijackers had entered the United States through airports on different types of visas, airports and immigration were targeted to prevent such an event from occurring again. The United States reviewed their immigration laws, incorporating biometrics into the immigration process. As a result, the International Civil Aviation Organisation established the biometric passport as standard (Clark, 2011: 344). From this, a series of airport technologies were introduced in an attempt to categorise and manage passengers. However, these technologies were introduced to prevent the threat of terrorism but also to prevent the entry of irregular migration and asylum seekers. These measures appear as if governments are controlling their borders and protecting their citizens from the threat of the “out there.” As it is, technologies can be used to define who is
included into the nation state and who is excluded. In addition, the media represents these binaries to the public and in turn affects the use of categorical inequalities.
The airport is a place where such categorising happens as individuals try to cross an imagined international space. Individuals from different parts of the world, citizens and non-citizens intermingle as they are screened by immigration and custom agents. With the introduction of new types of technologies, airports play a major role in defining who is or is not a citizen and who can be allowed into the borders of the nation-state. Many nations attempt to introduce the same technologies; however, these technologies are not always portrayed or introduced by the media in the same way. This is an area that this thesis investigates assuming that technology is something that is objective and has meaning attached to it and that the media has a key role in its representation. These premises lead to the following questions:
- Does media analysis help us understand how airport technologies categorise people? And, how may this categorization vary between countries?
- After 9/11 how has the media constructed the "other"?
- What impact does the media have on how immigrants are viewed and treated in Australia and Canada? What can explain this?
In order to address such questions, I analyse the content and strategies of the mass media in Australia and Canada because it is the most widespread tool to reach the public. The media usually introduces airport technology in a very simple way, free of technical jargon, to make it accessible to the wider population. People who do not travel and experience airport technologies but who are concerned about the nation-state borders can still use media reports to obtain relevant information and input on public policies? While I wish to view
the technology through the lens of print media discourse, I have selected the cases of Australia and Canada given the similarity in the role of the media in these two nations.
The Case Of Airport Technologies And The Media In Canada And
Australia
The Australian case is a unique and interesting one. Australia, as an island nation, does not have a land border with other countries. It can only be accessed by air or by sea. As such, the airport border is the main one that the vast majority of individuals will pass through. On the contrary, Canada has one land border with United States yet it is still, like Australia, geographically isolated. But the fact that Canada shares its border with the United States, the country that arguably had the largest impact and reaction to September 11th, makes it an interesting yet compelling case study for a comparison on how airport technological security measures are introduced by the media. It is easy to assume that both Canada and Australia have a strong reaction to the influences of the United States but the findings from this thesis illustrate otherwise.
Australia has a strong security partnership with the United States, and Canada is their neighbour, sharing a border. The field of migration and security has an abundance of research conducted, especially in Europe and the United States. However, other "Middle Power" western countries like Australia and Canada have not received the academic attention that the high immigration flows of these nations deserve. Australia has one of the highest immigration ratios in the Western World, as 27 percent of the population is foreign born. Similarly, Canada has a foreign born population ratio of 20.6% (Esa.un.org, 2015). Due to such high rates of migration and limited research on this area, airport technologies and how they are displayed through the media as well as the impact of these innovations are
very relevant and timely areas for research. In order to compare the use and effect of airport technologies and the role of the media in these two countries, it is necessary to first draw similarities and differences in history of immigration and relevant policy designs in both nations.
AUSTRALIAN AND CANADIAN IMMIGRATION HISTORY
Australia has had a long and complex history of anxiety about immigrants which is closely linked with Australia's geopolitical location and national identity (Forrest & Dunn, 2011: 439). Scholars have claimed (Burke, 2002) that as an outpost of Britain, Australia has had a historical preoccupation with security. This pattern is reflected in debates involving
reactions to illegal immigration and national identity (Forrest & Dunn, 2011: 439).One of the most defining influences of Australian immigration history is that of the “White Australia Policy.” This policy was established in 1901 and dictated that Anglo Saxon, mostly British people, had immigration priority over other groups. This policy has been criticized because it led to institutionalised racism that prioritised white, northern European immigrants and excluded other races considered fundamentally biologically different and inferior. The "White Australia Policy" never actually specified which races were included and which were excluded. It allowed discretion to select and prevent the immigration of undesirable nationalities (Jupp, 1995: 208). Between 1799 and 1945, immigration to Australia was overwhelming British, exacerbated by public funds being made available for the British and the Irish to immigrate. This policy was removed in 1973 (Jupp, 1995: 211).
Modern Australian migration policy has not been successful in changing the negative effects of stereotypes brought about by the “White Australia Policy.” Australian have stereotyped Asians as being poorer and less skilled than Australians (Jupp, 1995: 214). However, this is not an everyday reality as the population is bifurcated. Since 1901, the "White Australia Policy" was founded under the popular assumption at the time that other races were biologically inferior to those of Northern European stock. This idea has since
morphed into "new racism" which moves from socio-biological explanations to cultural explanations. These non-white cultures are seen as threatening 'social cohesion' and 'national unity', since they supposedly exist at odds or present a threat to the host society (Forrest & Dunn, 2011: 436). Since 9/11, the ‘cultural other’ has been portrayed
predominantly as Muslims and Arabs, between which most Australians cannot
phenotypically distinguish. In addition, heightened anxieties about security and crime are often projected onto this group. However, this is not a fixed reality, as there is an evident increase in acceptance of better educated and skilled immigrants in the later years of the 2000s (Forrest & Dunn. 2011: 439). With a focus on highly skilled migrants, stereotypes have begun to change.
Scholars find that mass media in Australia can influence and stress community relations, depending on how they portray immigration and cultural diversity (Forrest & Dunn, 2011: 438). For example, a public polling showed that immigration tends to not be a major concern for Australians; however, this opinion changes when a media campaign against immigration is in progress (Jupp, 1995: 219). Polls show that levels of intolerance are present in areas that have low levels of immigration or where the inhabitants have little contact with migrants, and opinion are mostly dependent on mass media influences (Forrest & Dunn, 2011: 435). The Australian media portrays openly racist organisation as being more influential in shaping public opinions and policies than they really are (Jupp, 1995: 219). As such, public opinions about mobility and immigration are often influenced by mass media.
Canadian immigration history from the early 19th century was racist and Eurocentric and crafted to benefit the economic system of that time. The Immigration Act of 1910, known
as the White Canada Policy, stated that Canada had the right to prohibit immigrants from any race deemed unsuitable for migration. The races deemed unsuitable were normally from Asia, with a preference for Northern Europeans (Ongley & Pearson, 1995: 770). This system was overhauled in the 1960s and replaced with the more liberal 'points system' that allowed for selection based on economic and human capital criteria (Hiebert, 2006: 40). In the 1980s, changes were implemented that can still be seen in immigration policy today. The conservative government determined that immigration was necessary for demographic replacement and economic stimulus with annual quotas increased to 250, 000. This quota has been maintained despite periods of economic recession (Hiebert, 2006: 40). Historically, the immigration policy was crafted to benefit the domestic economy at the time. However, in the 1990s, the new policy moved away from the domestic economy base, and instead emphasised that new immigrants must be self-sufficient and able to contribute to Canada’s economy (Bauder, 2003: 173). In comparison to Europe and the United States, American scholar, Irene Bloemraad (2012) discusses the case of "Canadian exceptionalism, "arguing that Canadians are more likely to have positive opinions about immigration than Europe or the United States. This positive view is attributed to the point system of migration, and Canada's physical location which makes illegal entry difficult (Bloemraad, 2012: 1). While these opinions are currently positive, they may change in the future as the economy and policies change. The positive opinions are towards regular, permanent immigration. A recent increase in temporary visas may lead to more irregular migrants, which could impact Canadians views on immigration (Bloemraad, 2012: 1). A recent Canadian survey reveals that a majority of citizens believe that most refugees are not legitimate (Bloemraad, 2012: 4). Concerns over religious migration and lack of integration sometimes erupt into media
controversy (Bloemraad, 2012: 15). Thus, it is clear that more positive opinions are generally towards regular, managed migration, and not all types of migration.
Australia and Canada have many similarities in their migration history. They were first colonised by predominately British populations. Due to growth following World War 2, they turned to immigration to fill their expanding labour markets. Up until the 1960s, they both had immigration policies that favoured British and northern European immigration, and excluded non-Anglo immigrants. These discriminatory policies were both abandoned for the ‘points system’ which allowed immigration only based on three criteria: economic reasons, family reunification or humanitarian considerations (Ongley & Pearson, 1995: 766). The Australian and Canadian governments have both negatively reacted to boats carrying asylum seekers. For example, In July 1987, 174 Sikhs arrived in Canada by boat after being rejected for asylum in Europe. In response to this, the Canadian Parliament passed a bill in an emergency session that gave the government authority to detain refugees for seven days without reviewing their case. In addition, the government was given
authority to keep refugees in detention centres indefinitely and to turn back boat refugees. Recent amendments to this act have allowed the Canadian government to deport refugees to 'safe third countries' or the countries they entered or transited on their journey to Canada (Garcia & Griego. 2014: 128-31). This policy is similar to measures taken by the Australian government to deter the influx of asylum seekers.
While there are similarities in the two nation’s immigration histories and pattern of policy designs, there are also differences in the way local history and domestic politics shaped these policies. Canada has a longer history of integrating and accepting a more diverse group of people as "Canadians", notably with the French population. This history
influenced the earlier introduction of multicultural policies than has been the case of Australia. As Australia is more geographically isolated, in the early part of the 20th century it required military security for protection against Asia. This, in turn, led to an emphasis on expansion of the population (Ongley & Pearson, 1995: 786). Another key difference between Australia and Canada is the immigration quota allowance post 1976. For example, while Canada maintained the same immigration levels until 1995 (despite recessions and shifting economic conditions), Australia implemented policy that lead to a fluctuation in levels of immigration (Ongley & Pearson, 1995: 766). In addition, While Canada has been more selective and in favour of a more skilled immigration Australia recruited from different class backgrounds to expand the population for security and economic reasons (Ongley & Pearson, 1995: 767).
Australia and Canada have many similarities in their migration histories, in both contexts non-White migrant groups suffered from discrimination. The media played a key role in the categorisation and discrimination of these groups, transmitting messages to all areas of the public, including those who had very little contact to migrants in everyday (see Jupp, 1995). From understanding immigration history in Australia and Canada, we can now examine some key theories upon which this thesis is based.
A THEORETICAL APPROACH
Mobility or Migration?
There is a lot of controversy about migration and how it can promote terrorism, and bring terrorism into a country. This thesis focuses on people using airports to enter a country but not everyone who uses an airport is migrating. People can enter a country for holidays, for education or business purposes, to visit family. But individuals are treated differently when going through an airport. A person from Afghanistan travelling on an Afghan passport is likely to be subject to more extensive questioning, regardless of whether they are
vacationing or migrating permanently. Certain people are going to attract more suspicion than others. An Italian citizen might not arouse the same kind of response as an Afghan citizen, as it is assumed that the Italian citizen is not going to claim asylum and is in the country for legitimate reasons. Hence, the notion of migration through airports is not as relevant for this thesis as is the notion of mobility. Koslowski (2008) investigates why a global migration regime has not yet developed. Koslowski argues that the reason why a global migration regime has not emerged is because actors are too focused on the notion of migration, as opposed to mobility. Thus, he argues for a generalised global mobility regime. Global mobility refers to the movement of people across international borders for any
length of time or purpose. This includes travel, business and temporary migration as well as permanent migration. Using the notion of the global mobility regime, we are combining the existing refugee regime, the emerging travel regime and the currently minimal migration regime under this one regime title, as they often have similar security concerns. If all these areas are combined, more states are likely to cooperate as all states have a different stake in
refugees, migration receiving, migration sending and travel. For example, a state that may see no benefit in regulating labour migration may be more interested in travel mobility as tourism may constitute a significant portion of their economy. As border technology is used for all people entering Australia and Canada through an airport, and categorizes them as low risk and high risk travellers, it would be more appropriate to approach my research question from the perspective of mobility, as opposed to migration, whilst acknowledging that there is no international regime governing mobility. Not all people who pass through the border are migrating, but the technologies still apply to them. The border technology will sort individuals according to their status as refugee, tourist, and citizen, while also according to their nationality and "risk" profile. The notion of 'mobility' is one that is relevant to the research questions and will apply directly to media accounts. While media might decry problematic migration, the media is also concerned about the "other" entering the country for a variety of reasons, being a problematic tourist or problematic international student.
Actors
There are various types of actors who are involved in the airport technology process. The presence of these actors and the actions they take influence the construction and
implementation of these technologies. These actors are also consulted for media stories and others are consulted as experts. In the framework of implementing and controlling border security, the state is the key actor, and the state is represented through politicians. These politicians can frame the situation of mobility as a problem, and then solve or manage that problem. This therefore gives the impression of effectively being able to manage a problem, thus allowing them to legitimise their power and hopefully retain it (Bigo, 2002: 68).
Politicians representing the state will ask for more powers of monitoring to neutralise potential threats, and to increase their own power. The very notion of public "threat" tends to be ill-defined, and therefore leaves room for interpretation as the state sees fit. As such, fears about mobility can be generated in the public by broadcasting a vague "other" as threatening to the country (Bigo, 2002: P 78). From this perspective, it is evident why politicians make mobility such a predominant problem, as they are able to "fix" it with increased security at the border. In today's globalised world, the state is able to interact with other states to create intergovernmental networks with the purpose of monitoring and regulating migration (Huysmans, 2000: 755). States interact with each other to lessen the risk of security threats present in mobility and this extends state power by pushing security concerns beyond borders. There is a consensus between many developed nations that they need to push their borders out to address the flows of mobility (Mitsilegas, 2012: P 4). While states are a key player in the construction of security, and indeed draft the policy that deals with security and mobility, states are still constrained. For the government to have power, they must have the votes and general support of the public. As such, they need the public's support of its concept of security. However, especially for developed nations, this security conception involves the international community (McDonald, 2005: 300).
Politicians and governments must try and strike a balance between what the voters want and what the international community and NGO circuit wants. The politician actor and the state benefit from problematising mobility and then solving the issue and taking the credit; but they are still constrained by the expectations of the international communities and voters. Given this conundrum, we need to approach the politician actor and the government in media discourse and understand how they contribute to the problematising of mobility.
Another key actor in this thesis is that of the media. The media is the actor who selects what is deemed as "news" and reports it to whoever has access to the content. The news is a prime source of information for many people in liberal societies, and what interpretive frameworks and representations that the media applies to issues and problems is an
important aspect of understanding how social and political consensus is formed (Greenberg & Hier, 2001: 563). By selecting certain events and "expert" opinions on these events, the media creates an environment in which the news can be interpreted (Greenberg & Hier, 2001: 564). As the media is a key informer of events to the public, it is an important actor in the dissemination of information about new technologies.
Another main actor in this scenario of border technologies are the passengers who pass through the airports. They are the ones who are having these border technologies applied to them, and such inconveniences/conveniences need to be justified for them to accept the technology. The types of actors in this scenario are broad. The actor can be an Australian national or an individual from another country. The individual from another country can be a wealthy tourist, an individual seeking asylum, a person moving to Australia for
permanent migration or an international student. Indeed, the list is large and diverse. These individuals are categorized as low risk and high risk passengers by the technologies
available, and are either deemed to require further inspection or none at all.
All these actors are a vital part in the construction of the introduction of technology and the meaning that is applied to these technological advances. We expect that the media accounts would contain these actors who are essential to the mobility process. However, there is a spatial and imagined place where the actual performance of the border takes place. We
need to explore the different meanings and elements of this border, so we are able to fully interpret the meaning that the media is applying to this space.
The Border - Binaries created at the airport
The airport itself is for many, a representation of the border of a country. While flying into Canada, you may be in Canadian airspace, but you are not free to move around in the country until you have cleared customs. While this is not the physical border of Canada, it is the one that many people associate with the border. The border itself contains many concepts and is contested. According to Newman (2006), the study of borders has moved outside of political geography discourse, into disciplines including sociology, political sciences, history, international law and international relations, which all have conflicting definitions of the border. While traditionally borders were considered static and physical, recent work considers borders as more of a process and an institution. Borders are in place and have very real implications for the inhabitants of that space. Sociology addresses borders as creating separating distinctions, namely them/us and here/there. This is a part of the social ordering of who and what is included and excluded. However, history is another important factor when considering borders. How a border was created plays an important role in how that border is managed today. Borders are also created by political and social elites, and are a part of the process of social ordering and compartmentalization. These elites then determine how open or closed these borders are. In the case of airport borders, the elites are normally bureaucrats and politicians involved in the government. In addition, the borders permeability is dependent on discourse. Economic discourse is more suited to open borders, while security discourse relies heavily on closed borders. In this case I will
be focusing on the border created at the airport either allow or blocking individuals from permeating the border, and how the media approaches this.
A key notion relating to the border is that of territoriality. According to Anderson and O'Dowd (1999), territoriality is 'a spatial strategy to affect, influence or control resources and people, by controlling area'. Territoriality refers to the nonverbal communication of space as an area of possession or occupancy. It is a form of enforcement that uses areas to classify and assign and it works by controlling access into and out of specified areas. In order for borders to exist, they need to be maintained and socially reproduced using
practices and discourses that push the notion of the 'other'. The significance of the border is linked to this territoriality. Borders refers to the legal lines separating different jurisdictions, or a broad zone of transition between different societies and centres of power. These legal boundaries then interact with social boundaries, which dissect along national, ethnic, religious or linguistic lines. As such, the border itself is open to conflict and ambiguity. The arbitrary drawn borders give an implication of a community inside, and a simplification of the complex geopolitical and historical processes that drew them. Borders have varying levels of porosity, with border regions having complex meanings associated with defence of the centre, transition and infiltration. Borders may be porous for certain things including capital flow, and impermeable for other things like labour migration. However, the
emergence of globalisation changed the meaning of borders and how they function. On a global level, globalisation's affect on territorially is uneven, it affects different state
functions in different ways, so globalisation has different implications for the reproduction of the border. The notion of territoriality and how it is communicated and enforced by elite actors will be an important framework used while investigating media discourse. As the
border is a constantly fluctuating and changing thing, and is so more through globalisation, we can view technology as an embodiment of this change of the border, of its fluctuations. The airport border is an expression of territoriality, it is influencing and control people by controlling area and it pushes the notion of the other.
It is apparent that borders themselves are open to change, and are changing with
globalisation. The openness of borders is dependent on the locality and the history of the border (Anderson & O'Dowd, 1999). The border itself is controlled by political and social elites who can determine the level of permeability of the border. If we address the border from the sociological perspective, the border creates the notion of the 'other', of the state being a container for homogeneity and constructing the binary of them and us, the included and the excluded. These concepts of borders then intersect with the concepts of security and affect those who aim to cross the border while not being a part of the 'us'. I expect this to be reflected in the media accounts of border technologies.
Securitisation of Mobility
To consider how securitisation interacts with borders and the categorisation of people, we need to understand the framework of how securitisation is applied to society and to policy. Huysmans (2000) brings actors to the forefront. Actors include the state, the citizen, the suspect "other" and security professionals. These actors all influence policy and policy often works from the assumption that homogeneity is stabilising while heterogeneity can be destabilising and dangerous for a host country (Huysmans, 2000: 753). As stated previously, globalisation has changed the face of state sovereignty. The state controls the borders and decides who can enter, and how they enter, in an expression of state sovereignty.
demonstrations of the permeability of the state's borders (Mitsilegas 2012: P 4).The state maintains sovereignty by attempting to protect the citizens inside from alleged external threats, as such the state needs to organise and monitor the borders in order to prevent external threats from entering and destabilising from within (Bigo 2002: 67). However, it is impossible to completely monitor millions of individuals, and to effectively seal a border (Bigo 2002: 70). The state instead takes measures to be effective as possible in order to maintain its claim of authority of protecting the borders. As protecting borders from penetration by the 'other' is a method in which states establish control and sovereignty, the securitisation of mobility can be seen as a display of a state maintaining its power.
Bigo (2002) delves into how governments securitises mobility and migration. He claims that the increasing popularity of the securitisation is not an inevitable response to increases in global insecurity, crime and terrorism, but is due to actors construction of security. These actors expand on each other's construction of security, making society appear more
dangerous and as such legitimising their role as protector and overseers. The actors transfer their legitimate struggle against criminals, terrorists and smugglers onto other people crossing borders, especially vulnerable migrants. Bigo claims that the actual threats are more related to security professionals and related actors reproducing their own position of power and technologies that accompany that, than any real threat. The securitization of mobility comes from a combination of successful speech acts of political leaders and the mobilization they create from this. Bigo claims that the very construction of the state, defining those inside of the borders as citizens and those outside of the borders as different, attracts the 'us vs. them' mentality. Indeed, rejecting migrants based on criminality and culturally unsuitability is an key component of the securitisation of migration process
(Ibrahim, 2005: 180). The state's role is to protect its citizens from what is outside of the state. Politicians will use the state's construction as a homogeneity that is threatened by immigrants for their own political gain. As the state and politicians are key actors in the construction of the border and security, this conceptualisation will be applicable to the questions asked. The state establishing the suspect other and security professionals emphasising this is something that will be analysed in media accounts.
Huysmans (2000) addressed how securitisation of migration policy was achieved through the 'othering' that is so inherent in the construction of the border. He discusses that policy produced on the European level portrays migrants as a destabilising force to the apparently homogenised, stable European state. Policy is therefore designed to be restrictive and control-orientated. The state protects the individuals inside of the borders from those outside, protecting imagined homogeneity against the outside heterogeneity. The notion of the 'other' threatening the state and the imagined community inside is expected to be present in the media accounts of airport technologies in varying degrees. It is also expected that Bigo's concept of actors transferring the legitimate struggle against criminality onto vulnerable migrants will also be present in media accounts discussing the new technologies.
September 11 and its Impact on Mobility
After 9/11, the United State's border became more rigid and militarised as the government initiated more stringent border controls. The United States created a new department, Homeland Security (HLS), with the main task of intercepting terrorists at both airports and along the Mexican and Canadian border (Koslowski, 2005: 1-4). This increased interest on the border was due to the 9/11 commission report stating that 15 of the 19 hijackers could
After 9/11, mobility is often linked with international terrorism in the press, in policy and in the general public imagination. This association is also often inflated and overdramatized for political purposes (Koslowski, 2012). After the 9/11 attacks, the UN Security council instituted resolution 1371, which stated that 'all States shall: ... Prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups by effective border control and controls on issuance of identity papers and travel documents, and through measures for preventing counterfeiting forgery or fraudulent use of identity papers and travel documents" (United Nations, 2001). The UN passed a resolution conflating mobility with terrorism, thus the need of states to protect the inside from the outside. International organisations, states, academics and journalists have conflated migration with risk in the liberal world. This discourse has normalised views that migrants are a threat to the host country (Ibrahim, 2005: 163).
This conflation of security with migration is not a new phenomenon, with other examples present throughout history. During the Cold War, states started questioning how refugees and migrants might destabilise the political order, and how accepting refugees might be viewed by the refugee's home state. The narrative as migrant as a threat has reached a peak in the wake of September 11. With the threat of terrorism added to the existing threats that the migrant allegedly bought, the link between migrant and threat solidified in public discourse (Ibrahim, 2005: 168-73). As such, while securitisation and mobility have been linked in the past, September 11 is still a key point in which securitisation and mobility have been solidified, affecting individuals crossing borders. With the media often sensationalising stories, we can expect that protecting the state against terrorism will be present and used in media discourse surrounding the introduction of the new technologies.
We will now address the new technologies that have been introduced at the border since 9/11.
TECHNOLOGIES
SmartGate/Automated Gate Clearance - What is it?
The SmartGate(Australia) and the Automated Border Clearance (Canada) allows eligible passengers to bypass the immigration officer passport check. Through the use of a
biometric passport, a passenger can have their passport checked automatically. It is similar to crossing through a subway gate that you would use in London or New York, albeit a more high tech version. The SmartGate was originally only for holders of Australian passports, but now nationals of the United States, New Zealand, United Kingdom and Singapore can pass through. SmartGates are available at most major international Airports, including Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane, Cairns, Melbourne, Perth, Gold Coast and Darwin (Customs.gov.au, 2015). The Automated Border Clearance is currently only available to Canadian citizens and permanent residents and is available at Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto airports (Cbsa-asfc.gc.ca, 2013).
How does it work?
The process is broken down into two physical steps. Firstly, the passenger uses a
SmartGate kiosk to determine eligibility for use of SmartGate. The passenger will place their passport into the e-reader and answer standard declarations through a touch screen. The touch screen will then issue a ticket to be submitted at the SmartGate. In Step 2, passengers proceed to the SmartGate. They then insert the ticket into the SmartGate. The passenger is required to look into a camera while a photo is taken and compared to the biometric information embedded in the passport. If this matches, the gates will open and the passenger can proceed to luggage collection (Customs.gov.au, 2015).
For the Automated Border Clearance (ABC), the passenger must first complete a customs declaration card. The passenger must insert their passport or residence card into the document reader, and look into the camera. They will then be prompted to insert their declaration card. A receipt will be printed, and if cleared the passenger can proceed to pick up their luggage (Cbsa-asfc.gc.ca, 2013).
ePassports - What is it?
The Australian ePassport was introduced in 2005. These passports have a chip embedded in the middle page. This chip is encoded with all the information that is on the printed page of the passport, including the individuals photograph, name, gender, date of birth, nationality, passport number and the passport expiry date. Having such a passport as an Australian allows the holder to utilise SmartGates and to be eligible for the visa waiver program in the United States (Passports.gov.au, 2015). The Canadian ePassport was released seven years later than the Australian one, in 2013, and follows a similar biometric format
(Passportcanada.gc.ca, 2013).
Biometric visa - What is it?
Certain nationalities and visa applicants now need to provide a photo that captures their facial image and ten fingerprints when applying for a visa to Australia or Canada. The applicant is required to travel to a biometric collection centre to supply these details during the visa application process. For Australia, permanent family visas, visitor and temporary visas, student visas and asylum visas are required to provide biometrics, regardless of nationality (Immi.gov.au, 2015). Canada has a similar system of certain nationalities and visa classes providing biometrics as of 2013 (Cic.gc.ca, 2015).
By understanding how these new technologies work and what they involved, we can get a sense of how individuals may view these technologies if they were to rely on official government information. However, many members of the general public learn about these technologies through print media. As such, the media conceptualisation appear very different to the political conceptualisation of the technology and communicate a different message to the general public.
MEDIA DISCOURSE
As I will be investigating the media discussions of the new technologies, an understanding of how to approach the media content is required. I expect that politicians voices will be present in many media articles, so I will also need to address political media discourse. The very definition of political analysis is contested, with some claiming that all discourse is political. As the political is associated with issues like power, conflict, control and domination, it can be applicable to a wide range of situations outside of just politics, as many situations contain some element of these issues (Wilson, 2008: 398). Wilson (2008) claims that to avoid this wide reaching definition, we should narrow down our scope to include actors and institutions related directly to politics, including political institutions, political actors, political supporters, politicians, government, political media. As a key actor in my research are political actors and politicians, this type of political discourse will be the most relevant for this analysis.
Political language can be used to manipulate social reality, to underemphasise certain points and overemphasis others in order to achieve political goals. Which actor discusses the topic of discourse can affect the meaning, with certain terms having relatively different meanings when stated by the right-wing factions as opposed to the left-wing factions. As such, different words and phrases need to be reinterpreted according to the context (Wilson 2008: 400-2). Also, it would be beneficial to look at what and who is underemphasised and overemphasised in media reports.
discourse focuses on topics that cover the implications of speech, and the exercise of power, ideology and bias (Cotter 2008: 416-7). With media discourse, who the audience is the most important element. And as Ibrahim (2005: 174) stated "For news to make sense, you don't tell people what to think, but instead tell them what to think about and how to think about it". This statement is a key component of my research, as I examine the articles and the message that it communicates to the audience, and the way it encourages them to think about the technology. Through how these media messages are presented to audiences, we can determine how the public are shaped to view mobility of the "other".
METHODOLOGY
The media I will focus on is the media that targets the general public. It will not be specialised media for IT or for travel. I chose general media because my goal was to see how technology was introduced to individuals who did not have any specific form of specialised knowledge about the topic, the general public. As such, I focused on Australia's biggest media sites, including
ABC News The Australian The Daily Telegraph Sydney Morning Herald News.com.au
SBS news
I also focused on Canada's main news websites, which are - The Toronto Star
The Toronto Sun The Vancouver Sun The National Post
The Victoria Times-Colonist
These are news websites of different political leanings aiming towards the general public. I have focused on internet media as oppose to print newspaper media as most Australians and
As such, I can see how the media packages these stories to sell it to the public. In the Canadian case, there was not a lot of media coverage on the Automated Border Clearance, and I had to expand my media selection pool and accessed articles from specialised sites. This allowed me to compare against the Australian media sources, however the mere fact that there was a lack of articles hints at how important and newsworthy the media
considered this topic.
I accessed the websites of the above media sources and searched for the name of the technology in the search field, e.g. - "SmartGate" or "biometric passport". Some articles provided links to others which were relevant, so I followed these links. I analysed a total of 44 articles from the above-mentioned publications.
I began by examining the headline, which often included the most sensational elements of the article. I would determine whose voices were heard, and who was portrayed as an expert in the situation. I then determined which voices were neglected in the article. I made a point to unpack the language used in the article to determine if the language would persuade the audience towards a particular point of view. These statements were
subsequently deconstructed to discover the meaning applied to them. By examining this, we can get a better sense of how the media portrays the "other" and their role in new border technologies. Through these examinations, we can see the similarities and differences of Canadian and Australian media discourses and obtain a better understanding of how mobility is presented to the general public.
RESEARCH
Australian Biometric Passport Discourse
The Australian media discourse surrounding biometric passports heavily emphasised the security dimensions of the new biometric passports.
An article from SBS news titled "Comment: How serious is the global passport security loophole?" is guest written by academic David Beirman from the University of Technology at Sydney. Beirman is presented as an expert, as someone who has a thorough knowledge of the complexities of security and risk at the airport. He is, in fact, a tourism professor, and not a professor in a field that would have a particular specialised knowledge of technologies. Despite this fact, however, he is portrayed as a knowledgeable professional on the situation of biometric technology and border security. The very first few lines of the article contains loaded phrases and sets the tone for the rest of the article.
The search for Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, which disappeared close to a week ago, is yet to find any conclusive trace of the missing aircraft. But the revelation that two Iranian passengers on the flight were travelling on passports reported stolen from an Austrian and Italian has put a glaring lapse of airport security in the spotlight (Beirman, 2014).
Bierman focuses on the Iranian passengers travelling on Malaysia Airlines MH370, stating that these passengers access to the airline has put security challenges in the spotlight. At this stage, it was known that the two individuals were asylum seekers, heading to Europe, as can be seen in earlier articles (See The Guardian's 11th of March 2014 article "Iranians travelling on flight MH370 on forged passports not linked to terror"). Choosing to call these
individuals "passengers" instead of "asylum seekers", and stating they were carrying the passports that were "stolen from an Austrian and Italian" instead of carrying forged documents ascribes these individuals very specific roles. They are not individuals fleeing from an unsafe circumstance planning to join their relatives in Europe. They are individuals who may have influenced the theft of Westerners passports and may somehow be linked to the disappearance of the plane, despite their intention of going to Europe to join their families. The mentioning of the nationalities of these passports, which are Western nationalities, adds to the criminality of these suspect 'other'. Due to these 'suspect'
circumstances, airport security needs to be readdressed. Bierman chooses to overemphasis the passengers criminality, and underemphasise their actual personal circumstance. This neglects the fact though, that even if the Iranian refugees were not permitted onto the flight, it is still probable the flight would be missing. This is shown in the following statement.
Unless training and competency of these staff can be globally mandated by the ICAO – or by national governments – passport identity fraud involving international airline
passengers will be a challenge for years to come (Beirman, 2014).
How this passport identity fraud is a challenge to international airlines is not stated. This is something assumed from the implications Bierman previously directed at the asylum seekers.
The authority in this SBS News article are the United Nations and the International Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO), a specialised UN agency. Other voices, including those of the families of the asylum seekers, or NGOs against the use of biometric passports, are ignored. The main issue that this article addresses is that "There should be more international
unknown." Even though this was something that happened in Malaysia and the asylum seekers were not using Australian passports, this incident is portrayed as relevant to Australian passport holders, implying that they have done the right thing by introducing biometric passports, but that the rest of the world still needs to catch up.
In Johnson's 2006 article for the Sydney Morning Herald, he looks at the security of the biometric passport and how it can possibly be breached. It is a concern for the Australian citizen, who may be using a technology that can easily be hijacked. In this article, the authority on the matter is a consultant for a security company named Lukas Grunwald. However, his comments selected for this article on the issue were not that of a politically correct professional, but in a way that was to appeal to the reader of the article.
"The whole passport design is totally brain-damaged," Mr Grunwald told wired.com. "From my point of view, all of these [biometric] passports are a huge waste of money -they're not increasing security at all." (Johnson, 2006).
The quote selected uses language free of jargon or technical language, and it is easily relatable to the younger reader, with the use of the term "totally brain-damaged". The selection of the phrase "brain-damaged" and the publishing of it speaks volumes about the opinion of the article. Biometric passports do not contain brains. So whose brain is
damaged? The people who designed it? The governments who introduced it? As the Australian government is releasing this passport, the reader would infer that the consultant is referring to the Government. A common issue that the mass media reports on in liberal societies is the wasting of tax payer dollars. By stating that "biometric passports are a huge waste of money - they're not increasing security at all", and selecting this statement for use in this article, the journalist is portraying the issue of the biometric passport to be that it
does not actually increase security, and that it is wasting tax payer dollars. However, later in the article the following is stated.
But the findings do not mean that all biometric information could be faked or altered by criminals. Although the data held on a passport chip are not encrypted, it is not yet possible to change the cloned data without alerting the authorities (Johnson, 2006).
The issue that the passports are not secure and may be a waste of tax payer dollars is established, but later on in the article the actual threat is downplayed as it is not possible that "criminals" can alter the details on the passport, only copy them for some nefarious purpose that is not actually stated. But the author is also fortune-telling. He states it is "not yet possible", instead of just saying "it is not possible". By using "yet", he is giving the impression that in the future, this would be possible. The journalist cannot be certain that this is a future possibility, however states that it can be so as to fit in with the tone of the article. This relates to Bigo's concept of security professionals creating and fixing problems to maintain their own position and power. The security professional creates the problem of the passport being hacked, something that he as a security expert could offer a solution to.
Overall, this article strives to construct the problem of the biometric passport as one that can be "hacked" and data stolen from the Australian citizen, and that the government is wasting tax payers dollars in its hunt for security. The problem is that the details can be hacked and copied, but it does not state what will happen to these hacked and copied details, leaving the reader with the impression that something of theirs can be stolen. This was a sentiment that was presented in other articles. For example, an ABC News report in 2006 stated the following
-But a London computer expert has raised doubts about its operation and its vulnerability to identity fraud. Using a new Australian passport, he's easily cracked the security protection of the new computer chip and accessed information within it (Epstein, 2006).
The main concern portrayed is not the governments storing of the biometric data or the collection of the biometric data, but instead the fact that people can 'easily' access these details and have access to personal information. However, other articles argued that the technology is not perfect, but it is better than the alternative, the presumption being that the 'suspect other' was entering the country, threatening the national security. Take, for
example this ABC News in January 2004, which stated the following.
Dr Kemp says in these times of heightened security it's important to take advantage of new developments but biometrics is still an imperfect technology.
"Well I think we all recognise it's critical that we can protect national security, and border control of course is an important part of that process, so it is vital that we can identify who's entering or leaving the country. I think the Government is currently also under pressure from the US, who are demanding that certain biometric information is included in passports" (Limb, 2004).
This article contained the opinion of a forensic psychology professor, Dr Kemp, who stated that the positives of the new technology were more important than the failings of it. He then stated that the Government may be under pressure from the US who want particular
biometric information in the passports. This once again conflates the use of biometrics with 9/11, because it was actually in response to 9/11 that the International Civil Aviation
requirement and required countries to issue biometrics passports to allow citizens of other nationalities to be included in the USVISIT visa waiver program. However, the expert states that the United States is "demanding" this information, giving the appearance that biometrics is required for security purposes.
In the Australian media articles, there was a emphasis on how the biometric passports would prevent fraud and neutralise the threat of stolen passports. The notion of the "other" is still present in this account. Take for example this following quote from a News.com.au in 2014
-Since the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, Mr Morrison says there's increased public willingness to provide biometric data to prove identity. Two passengers on the missing plane were travelling on stolen passports and likely to be asylum seekers
(News.com.au, 2014).
This particular quote is interesting, as within a very short set of space it states that people are more interested in giving biometric data to prevent identity fraud, because two people on a plane were likely asylum seekers. This quote was made by a member of the current conservative government, Immigration Minister Scott Morrison. He is relating the need of biometric data with an airplane disappearance that was a media sensation. The use of biometric data would have prevented the asylum seekers from going on the plane and claiming asylum. It would not have prevented the plane from disappearing and these two individuals were not associated with the plane's disappearance. So it is apparent that Mr Morrison has deployed a "speech act" in order to create an issue, and resolve it, using the mass media. Many commentators were concerned with criminals hijacking passports and using data for criminal activities.
Four years after the release of biometric passports in Australia, passports were stolen and used for the nefarious purposes that the media was constantly alluding to. On January 19th, 2010, the Israeli secret service allegedly used stolen Australian passports in order to enter Dubai and kill a Hamas weapons procurer. The Australian published an article in 2010, written by Paul Maley, about this circumstance and the use of passports titled "Smith reassures holders of older style passports". The use of "reassures" in the title is one that gives the appearance of comforting in an attempt to ease panic. Stephen Smith was the Foreign Affairs Minister under the Rudd Government, and is considered the expert in this circumstance. The title did not state anything about the victims of the crime, the Australian citizens whose passports were stolen while living overseas who were for a period of time investigated for murder. Instead, the title is to reassure the remainder of the public. The article states the following:
Addressing parliament yesterday, Mr Smith said the three Australian passports identified as frauds by the Dubai police were issued in 2003, before biometric data was implanted as standard.
"People should understand very carefully that no one is suggesting that there is any need to replace old passports," Mr Smith said. "While passport fraud does occur in Australia, there is a low incidence of serious fraud when compared to other countries, but when we do find these instances of fraud they are very extensively pursued" (Maley. 2010).
Thus, while biometrics are toted as being able to prevent fraudulent use of passports and increase security, when a very serious case of fraud comes up, the Government says that people should not replace their passports before the expiry date, in case people want to
concern, the Government was relying on people replacing the passports close to their expiry date and have assigned staff and resources accordingly. A surge in replacement passports could lead to a budget blow out. So this is a contradictory piece of information, especially when compared against the selling of biometric data in passports with the disappearance of the Malaysian airlines flight. When a blatant account of stolen passports is presented, where the holders of the passports are being investigated by a foreign country for an assassination, citizens should not replace their passport in advance of the expiry date. However, the use of stolen passports in asylum seeking is exactly why we need biometric passports. The
construction of the dangerous "other", the asylum seeker, while an actual dangerous situation that potentially could have been prevented by biometrics is not shown as a reason to replace non-biometric passports. If considered in the context of Wilson's
conceptualisation of political discourse, with politicians over and underemphasising points to meet political goals, we can also understand how this apparent contradiction resulted.
The passports used were not biometric passports and were instead an older style passport. However, despite the use of the word 'fraud' throughout the article, the word "criminal" was not used. Considering the emphasis on newer technology preventing fraud by criminals, this article which refers to fraud does not contain the word "criminal" once. The Australian media often links biometric passports with preventing or enabling the "criminal", however the criminal is not a foreign government using the passports for assassination, instead it is a vague "other" threatening Australians by using their passports to enter Australian territory.
The articles in the Australian media surrounding biometric passports were varied and problematised certain issues. The problematised issues were surrounding the technology and where the technology was vulnerable. Several articles detailed the potential for fraud
by a vague "criminals", but didn't expand on what the criminals would do with the information. The use of fraudulent passports was treated differently when these passports were used by asylum seekers boarding the missing Malaysian Airlines flight and when they were used by the Israeli secret service for an assassination. The experts in these articles were normally government officials, security consultants, and in some circumstances, academics.
However, there were many voices that were absent in these reports. An independent European Advisory body on data protection and privacy was established and produced the report "Opinion on 3/2012 on developments in biometric technologies" (2012) and discusses genetic discrimination that occurs due to these technologies. Genetic
discrimination is something that is not reported on in the Australian media. Several NGOs, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, are critical of the technology and how it may impinge on human rights and the right to free movement, however, their opinions are not addressed. And arguably, the most important actor, those who use the passports, their individual opinion about the situation is not addressed, their stories using the passport are not told, the victims of the 'fraud' that the media is so worried about are never interviewed as an expert on the situation. There is no mention of how the new passports affects people whose employment is dependent on them, people who work for biometric data companies, or people who work at the Australian Passport Office who produce the passports. Whose story is included and whose story is not included shapes the media debate surrounding introduction of biometric technologies.
With Canadian discourse of the biometric passport, it is interesting to highlight that while Australia started issuing the passports in 2006, Canada had only just started releasing this type of passport in 2013. This fact is surprising considering the geographical proximity of the United States. However, this could have been a result of internal politics. The United States used the US-VISIT program as a bargaining chip to motivate other countries to use biometrics in their passports, and Canada and the United States has an agreement for the NEXUS card to establish the identities of 'trusted' travellers between the United States and Canada.
Due to the late release date, media discourse used in this section is from 2013. The media does acknowledge Canada not implementing the technology as quickly as other countries, as can be seen below.
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird unveiled the new chip technology passports last October, saying they would be more secure, even though, outwardly, they look the same as the current booklet.
Canada is the only G8 country that doesn’t currently issue ePassports to the general public, although it has been issuing chip-enhanced diplomatic and special passports since 2009
(Pedwell, 2013).
Terry Pedwell's article states immediately in the headline who is being affected by the new passport. The article is called "Passport Canada plans 25% staff cut as demand reduced by longer-term documents". The concern is for the staff who will be out of employment due to the new document. This article immediately shows a Canadian victim resulting from the new passports, the employee who will soon be out of a job.
Passport Canada expects to have the equivalent of 2,512 full time staff this year, says a Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade report.
But that number drops to 1,874 by fiscal year 2015-16 in the plans and priorities report.
(Pedwell, 2012).
Hence, the reduction is of 638 people, and this is a concern for the Canadian population worthy of a media report. The details of why this is an issue is expanded later on in the article.
Passport Canada is grappling with a $70-million shortfall this year, and plans to balance its books within the next three years, despite projections of lower revenues. (Pedwell, 2012).
The article is concerned with how Passport Canada is going to fix a budget deficit, while still maintaining a good range of services to the Canadian public. The cost of the new passport is also something that is emphasised for the Canadian citizen.
The agency is also hiking other fees, including a $45 charge on top of the regular passport fee to replace a document that’s lost, damaged or stolen. (Pedwell, 2012).
The cost that has been passed onto the Canadian citizen is also considered of importance in this article. The issues that have been covered with the introduction of the new biometric technology are the loss of jobs and potential client services, the budget blowout, and the costs that the Canadian citizen will pay.
The Canadian Government does state that the passport will be more secure, while not looking too different from the original passport.
Without the fee increases, Passport Canada would not be able to maintain current operations, let alone offer security-enhanced travel documents, the agency says.
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird announced in October that Canada would adopt new passports that include chip technology and watermark images designed to prevent fraud
(Pedwell, 2012).
A key theme that appeared in the articles was that the new passport is more expensive, and they also expressed concerns about how the new passport would affect employment at Passport Canada. Take the below quote from the Toronto Star.
Canadians do not have to go through the hassles of renewing their passports every five years, starting Tuesday, with the launch of the new ePassport.
The new, 10-year ePassport provides more convenience for Canadians, and facilitates safe, secure travel which, in turn, helps create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for
Canadians,” Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said in an announcement Tuesday
(Keung, 2013).
The reporting is not concerned with the security and the fraud protection unless the
Government is promoting it. The Canadian media discourse is about how the new passport affects the Canadian citizen, whether that citizen is someone paying a higher fee for the newer passport, or they are an employee at Passport Canada. In fact, I only discovered one reference outside of political discourse that discusses the enhanced security, which is as follows.
The changes are designed to deter counterfeiters and make the passport more secure. (The
National Post, 2012)
This reference was made in an article that had very little text. The Canadian Press article in the National Post introducing the new biometric passport by showing multiple pictures of "watermarks depicting iconic images from Canadian history" which are on the passport pages. The article stated:
-Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird says the new passports will have computer chips embedded in them — technology that’s already used in many other countries. (The National
Post, 2012)
The Foreign Minister called them computer chips, and mentions nothing about them containing biometric data. He stated that the technology is already used in other countries, giving the use of the computer chips an air of authenticity. In regards to the new security features, the use of the words "fraud" and "criminal" are absent in this account. Instead, "counterfeiters" is used, giving a very specific indication of the types of people the new passport will protect Canadian citizens against. From the very little text in this article, the main issue seems to be what pictures are included and showing these pictures to the Canadian public. It does not provide further information about the technology it contains and who the Canadians are being protected against.
A Toronto Sun Article from 2010 is titled 'Hi-Tech passports will be more secure', however the article contains little information about security. Interestingly, the article contains the following statement:
-The agency is asking Canadians for their input on changes to passports and has set up an online questionnaire at passportcanada.gc.ca/consultations (The Toronto Sun, 2010)
This article has some very specific information it wishes to inform the reader, to advise them to fill out the questionnaire. Even the description of the technology is exceedingly different from what would be expected.
They will feature an electronic chip embedded in the back cover that will contain a
digitized picture of the passport holder as well as their name, date of birth, location of birth and passport number (The Toronto Sun, 2010)
The description of the technology does not contain the jargon term of biometric, and states that the chip has the passenger's details and a photograph in very simple and easy to understand language. This article then consults an expert.
Richard Rosenberg of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Association has previously told QMI Agency he's concerned Canadians won't be able to check the accuracy of the information on the chip and risk being unfairly blacklisted like many travellers on the no-fly list (The Toronto Sun, 2010).
The expert in this circumstance is an employee of a NGO dedicated to privacy rights and freedom of information. The use of the technology can impinge on the individuals rights and the safeguards have not been put in place to deal with this possibility. The use of this expert shows an interest in the users of the passport and how they could be discriminated against. The actual user of the passport is a key actor in this article, as can be evidenced in this concluding remark.
The online survey asks what kind of improvements Canadians would like to see in obtaining a passport, how Passport Canada might be able to keep the cost of the new passports down and suggestions on how to make the ePassport more secure (The Toronto Sun, 2010).
This shows that the consumer of the technologies opinion is considered important to Passport Canada, and would like their feedback on how their experience may be improved. This hints at a client centred approach to the release of the new passports.
An article by Nicholas Keung in 2013 for the Toronto Star also introduces the passports. The subtitle under the headline states
Canadians do not have to go through the hassles of renewing their passports every five years, starting Tuesday, with the launch of the new ePassport (Keung, 2013).
This sets the scene for the article, that the main benefit of the new passport is not the
computer chip, but the extended time for which the passport can be renewed. This shows an emphasis on passenger convenience as opposed to the technology. This is reemphasised by the Immigration Minister's statement about the details of the new passport.
“The new, 10-year ePassport provides more convenience for Canadians, and facilitates safe, secure travel which, in turn, helps create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians,” Immigration Minister Jason Kenney said in an announcement Tuesday
(Keung, 2013).
This is packaged and sold in a way of how the new passport is convenient for the
passengers, while also needed for their security. It mentions the creation of jobs (despite a previous article stating jobs will be lost) and is very focused on the Canadian citizen. The
