International political geography : a future without borders?

The privatization of border control:

The use of anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric in the

development of surveillance technology

International Political Geography: A Future Without Borders?

Maike Awater – 10223142 – maike_awater@homail.com – Political Science – International Relations –

First reader: Darshan Vigneswaran – Second reader: Vidya Marapin – 30/06/2014

1

Content

Introduction 2.

Theory 4.

- State monopolization of legitimate means of movement 4.

- Criminalization of immigration 4.

- Privatization of border control 5.

- Technological development 6. Methods 8. - Companies 8. - Websites 8. - Discourse 9. - Codebook 10. Results - Anti- illegal immigrant rhetoric 11.

- Origin 11.

- Solutions in technological development 12.

- The driving force of the security Market 13.

Discussion 15.

Conclusion 17.

Bibliography 18.

2

Introduction

In a time where migration is considered to be a threat to security, modern day nation-states have become more and more occupied with controlling who belongs where. With an estimated 8 million illegal immigrants in Europe alone, states are not considered to be doing a very good job (Website European Union). However, new surveillance technologies have created an opportunity for states to closely monitor and control the movement of irregular and illegal migrants. The billion dollar industry involved in developing these technologies has led scholars to believe migration control is slowly moving away from the border and outside the state into the hands of private actors (Guiraudon and Lahav, 2000; Lahav, 2007; Broeders, 2007; Guittet and Jeandesboz, 2010). The growth in this sector has caused a lot of commotion regarding the continuing breakdown of privacy (Broeders, 2009). This has pressured states and private actors to come up with ways to justify further development of surveillance technology. Over the years, the role of the immigrant has changed remarkably in the justification of the development of surveillance technology. This role is no longer simply that of an immigrant, it is now that of an illegal immigrant or potential terrorist even (Guittet and Jeandesboz, 2010: p. 229). This rhetoric can also be seen in the promotion of new surveillance technologies by the private companies that develop them (Website Tegenlicht). In Europe, the companies that develop surveillance technology aimed at targeting illegal immigration claim to be responding to new threats. However, the actual threat to the social order of illegal immigrants is unknown and therefore a matter of speculation (Broeders, 2007: p. 72). Security technology has become an attractive business opportunity which might suggest that economic factors are a more important driving force behind the use of this sort of rhetoric (Guittet and Jeandesboz, 2010). In this study, 10 websites of European private companies occupied with developing surveillance technology for states will be analyzed to answer the following question:

To what extend is illegal immigrant rhetoric used for the promotion of the development of surveillance technologies by private companies in Europe?

The answer to this question holds an important implication for the legitimacy of further implementation of surveillance technology. In European politics, the implementation of new border surveillance technologies is already being justified by fear of the illegal immigrant. This might be partly the result of the influence private companies have who are trying to sell their products to the European Union. The justification of surveillance technology is then not so much based on research on the dangers states face due to illegal immigration but on the sales techniques of private companies. At the moment, xenophobia is a growing phenomenon in Europe and populist parties

3

are gaining more support (Website Demos). Therefore, it is important to stay critical towards the realistic threat illegal immigrants actually pose.

This research also challenges the belief that border control will remain more or less the same in the future. Authors such as Joppke (1998) for example have argued that due to the balance between powerful coalitions of businesses on one side and pro-migrant NGO´s on the other will eventually lead to a situation where liberal states continue to try to limit cross-border movement but that eventually, they will accept unwanted migration to a certain extent. According to them, this situation will endure and border control will remain substantially the same as it is now. However, the role of these businesses might be much more assertive than these scholars have suggested up until now. Research on the logic behind the promotion and development of surveillance technology and its effects has been underdeveloped. Therefore this study might shed some light on the influence private actors such as companies developing surveillance technology have on the demand side.

In order to answer the driving question to this study it is necessary to first explore the theoretical field of border control and the role of privatisation. The second section exists of an explanation on the methods that have been used in order to research the role of illegal immigrant rhetoric in the development of surveillance technologies by private actors. The third section contains the results of this study after which will follow a short discussion and a conclusion.

4

Theory

State monopolization of legitimate means of movement

Contrary to past times, identification is of growing importance. This change is fundamental to understand the state’s monopolization of the legitimate means of movement. Torpey (2002) explores this area when he claims that states have monopolized the authority to restrict movement and feel the need to distinguish between populations (Torpey, 2002: p. 240). In order to enforce this authority states need to establish people’s identities. Although states felt the need to control movement before the modern period, they lacked the extensive administrative infrastructure necessary to carry out such regulations in a pervasive systematic fashion (Torpey, 2002: p. 242). Only now, the monopolisation of the legitimate means of movement by the state is successful due to the creation of elaborate bureaucracies and technologies that came into existence (Torpey, 2002: p. 242). Torpey mentions that the creation of the modern day passport system and the use of similar systems in the interior of a variety of countries signals towards a new era in which individual states and the international state system as a whole successfully monopolized the authority to permit movement (Torpey, 2002: p. 243). Torpey makes a very important point when he states that it is not the case that there is no unauthorized migration but that such movement is now considered illegal. Because the member countries of the community are more than willing to deny access to their territory to non-nationals of its member states, the necessity of being able to establish one’s nationality remains in force. The systems of documentary control, biometric identification and other bureaucratic defences that states have erected against unwanted immigrants are therefore constantly being strengthened.

Criminalization of immigration

States started criminalizing immigration when they started seeing immigration as a threat. There are two possible explanations for this relatively new phenomenon which are described by William Walters (1993). The first explanation is that states are simply reacting to a new posed threat due to globalization (Walters, 1993: p. 218). Globalization has placed the state in a new environment where there is a growing case of movement and communication. But the global world can also be a dangerous world, with regional instabilities, zones of disorder, ethnic conflict, civil war and state implosion (Walters, 1993: p. 218). All this poses a new security challenge for western states. Security against migration is therefore nothing more than the state's response to a new situation (Walters, 1993: p. 218). However, he also mentions a second line of response to the migration-security question. This second position insists that we are not facing a new general phenomenon but a

5

particular political and social construction of migration. Walters describes a situation in which a whole series of dangers and fears come are going to be associated with the social figure of the immigrant (Walters, 1993: p. 218). All the measures that are now taken to control various spaces of expressions and flows of immigration such as biometric passports or citizen’s tests only appear legitimate once this prior construction of migration is accepted (Walters, 1993: p. 218). In the post-war period, new forms of racism appear due to new flows of migration from the new independent ex-colonies to the world’s metropolises. This was racism founded in the assumption that people of certain cultures don’t go well together with people from other cultures. A range of societal fears around immigration would follow. These fears are incorporated institutionally within a whole series of governmental programmes focussed on the cohesion and integration of the national community (Walters, 1993: p. 224). The fundamental premise, according to Walters, was that immigration was something risky that required careful management. The political rhetoric changed from immigrant to illegal immigrant, asylum seeker and terrorist up until the point that they are now always seen as suspicious (Walters, 1993: p. 224). Walters states that we are not simply dealing with transformations in the state but that we can also perceive the emergence of new territories of power that are not reducible to the old political maps of the international order (Walters, 1993: p. 227). States use instruments to enhance the legibility of their populations, a line that includes the passport for example. Biometric technology is an example of a solution for certain 'problems' such as surveillance, profiling and authenticating mobile populations. However, it is not just an instrument of the states; a new multi-billion dollar technology industry has emerged. The old boundaries between public goods and private commodities have become blurred and complicated.

Privatization

The role of the private actor has become of growing importance in the process of migration control. State’s motives to extend responsibilities in the field of border control to other actors are further explored by Guiraudon and Lahav (2000). Although they claim states remain the primary responsible actor for now, they do see a change in the near future. According to them, liberal democratic nation-states have enlisted the help of an extended playing field of local, transnational and private actors outside the central state to control migration (Guiraudon and Lahav, 2000: p. 55). States have sought a way to prevent migration at the source by externalising control so that the unwanted migrants or asylum seekers do not reach the territory of the receiving countries. This, according to them, has been achieved through the incorporations of various actors in order to create what they call “buffer zones”. These zones are created by the incorporation of visa systems for example, carrier sanctions and so on. This strategy is aimed at shifting the liabilities from the central state to private actors (Guiraudon and Lahav, 2000: p. 58). A core actor that Guiradon and Lahav mention is the transport

6

or carrier company (Guiraudon and Lahav, 2000: p. 63). To states they are cheap ways of applying sanctions, penalties and they provide the state with the means to effectively differentiate between the legal passages and the illegal. By virtue of owning airspace, airlines become subject to national restrictions and dependent on state actors for market operation. Guiraudon and Lahav mention the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation in which transport companies are forced to assume the role of immigration officers. In the ICAO it is established that the airlines carry the responsibility to ensure that passengers posses the right travel documents. In several countries this responsibility is already raised by obliging carriers to pay fines (Guiraudon and Lahav, 2000: p. 63). According to Guiraudon and Lahav private actors are thus helping states to direct monitoring of wrongdoing. The state benefits from a more effective migration control system while enlisting more technical support to defuse the political and economic costs of regulating the border (Guiraudon and Lahav, 2000: p. 64).

Technological development

Privatization of border control also means that security technology is no longer solely being developed by public actors. Private companies have started to take on the role of developing the technological means to control state borders. The technological innovations developed by private companies in controlling migration in the European Union have probably been discussed most intensively by Broeders (2007). According to Broeders, a gradual realisation has occurred that borders alone cannot stop irregular migration and this has led to a widening of the scope of immigration policy (Broeders, 2007: p. 72). Electronic surveillance systems and databases are being constructed by private actors to become important tools of surveillance on a European scale and to develop into the new digital borders of Europe (Broeders, 2007: p. 73). Broeders states that Europe is becoming more and more panoptic, meaning that the system of immigration databases is meant to gain knowledge on the actions and movements of non-citizens with the aim to exclude them from both the territorial as well as the membership association (Broeders, 2007: p. 74). He calls it a strategy of exclusion through the delegitimization and criminalization of all those who may be employing, housing or aiding irregular migrants. An interesting remark Broeders makes is that the perceived magnitude of the threat to the social order of irregular migrants is unknown and therefore to a large extent a matter of political opinion (Broeders, 2007: p. 72). This implies that the increase of policy attention towards irregular migrants is based on political rhetoric which is something to keep in mind when investigating the role of anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric. According to Broeders the combination of technological advances and the fear of terrorism have facilitated many new surveillance programmes and might facilitate many more in the future.

7

framing, developing and promotion of these technological systems (Guittet and Jeandesboz, 2010: p. 229). We need to learn more on the logic of competition between the companies and transfers of knowledge on technology related to the promotion of security. Once a given path is opened in technological change, other developments will inevitably follow in a linear fashion building from the initial invention. There is no going back in technological development. This is strongly connected to the notion that technological change represents progress (Guittet and Jeandesboz, 2010: p.233). It is autonomous, technological development lies outside of society. It is like an evolutionary force almost. One of the most characteristic features of these technologies is their commercial origin. To a large extent they have not been developed within defence ministries but by civilian commercial firms (Guittet and Jeandesboz, 2010: p. 237). The most innovative contributions are not from the traditional defence industry but from companies that are in telecommunication, electronics and aerospace. The main firms involved in this process have become larger because of the escalating costs of research and development. This excludes all companies except those that have excess to vast amounts of capital. Therefore there is a logic in promotion, bargaining and competition among technology suppliers that has effect on the demand side (Guittet and Jeandesboz, 2010: p. 237). The development of this business of security is the proliferation of international spaces of promotion of security technology where new high-tech tools are presented to fight uncertainty and to reduce risks. Security as a label for specific technological products has undoubtedly become a major business opportunity in the past two decades (Guittet and Jeandesboz, 2010: p. 237).

Anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric and fear of terrorism is used by states to continue investing in technological developments such as surveillance technology. Also, market logic has integrated the public domain in a time where private actors have taken over many of the tasks formerly assigned to public institutions. The security market has become a business opportunity and market logic has become an important part of being one of the big players in the field.

8

Methods

To find out what the role of illegal immigrant rhetoric is in the development of surveillance technology by private companies I will perform a critical discourse analysis of the websites of 10 privatised companies that develop surveillance technology. The companies are selected based on the fact that they are some of the largest corporations that are all part of the influential lobby organisation European Organization for Security. EOS represents the interests and expertise of 41 members involved in security providing technology solutions and services from 13 different countries (Website EOS 1). They often work together in research and production of surveillance technology. More importantly, the EOS represents more than 65% of the European Security Market (Website EOS 1). Members of this organisation are therefore companies which have applied successful marketing strategies. The choice to select 10 out of 41 members is based on the fact that discourse analysis is a relatively time-consuming and labour intensive form of research which makes it impossible to analyse more in the time available. Seeing as the companies are all part of the same lobby organization, they are all responding to the needs of the same clients; states in the European Union and the European Union itself. They tend to promote their products in a similar way.. Also, as Guittet and Jeandesboz mentioned as well there are only a few big players in the field of security technology due to the high costs of research and development in this field. Therefore, the results will apply to a broader population of companies that develop surveillance technology for states in the European Union. The choice not to include companies outside of Europe is based on the fact that anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric is a big issue in the European Union at the moment and this research is trying to come up with an answer to the question whether or not this rhetoric and its consequences in terms of the promotion of surveillance technology is justified. It suggests that the private actors might play a bigger role in this than scholars have suggested up until now. Therefore companies affiliated to the EOS are a logical choice because they are the most influential.

Websites

I have chosen to analyse the websites of the companies because by analyzing their websites it becomes clear what these companies see as a threat and what they see as a solution. Analyzing websites and web pages is a relatively new field and it has its advantages and disadvantages. An advantage is that websites are often used by companies as promotional material (Bryman, 2008: p. 629). Their website is like their business card. On their websites companies use a certain kind of

9

rhetoric to promote their expertise, skills and material. Therefore the websites can provide information on if and how illegal immigrant rhetoric is being used by these companies to sell their products to the European Union. However, a downside to the use of websites is that the internet is continually changing (Bryman, 2008: p. 629). The analysis may be based on information that has already been updated by the time the research is completed. However, this research is done in a relatively short period of time making it less likely that this is the case.

Discourse

I have chosen to perform a discourse analysis because it is an effective way to find out more on structures, strategies or other properties of text, talk, verbal interaction or communicative events that play a role in the reproduction of social power by elites, institution or groups that result in any form of inequality, such as the position of the illegal immigrant (van Dijk, 1993: p. 250). Discourse analysis is constructionist and therefore based on the idea that there are several versions of reality presented by members of a social setting (Bryman, 2008: p. 502). It is important to keep in mind that this also means that in this research a selection is made from the discourse that is used by these companies and that a particular depiction of reality is build up. The companies themselves have an entirely different view on the way they depict the illegal immigrant and the need to develop surveillance technology than a social scientist or an activist might have. However, analyzing their discourse can provide useful insight in which arguments are used to support or refute arguments, such as arguments in favour of the development of surveillance technologies. Although other scholars have shown that power structures are usually jointly produced, I have chosen to specifically focus on the discourse of the private actors (van Dijk, 1993: p. 250). In this case the private corporations are closely related to governments as their clients. Therefore it is safe to assume the discourse produced by both actors is the result of close interaction. However, seeing as I am trying to specifically find out more on the contribution of the private actors to the anti illegal immigrant discourse I will focus on their websites alone. This discourse analysis is critical due to the fact that it is aimed at change through critical understanding. The targets of the critique are the power elites that enact, sustain and legitimate social inequality. What is involved in social power are questionable conditions of legitimacy, especially possibly negative effects of the exercise of power such as social inequality (van Dijk, 1993: p. 250). Van Dijk argues that in order to relate discourse and society we need to examine in detail the role of social representations in the minds of social actors (van Dijk, 1993: p.251).

The reason to focus on exposing power relations is that power involves control by members of one group over those of another group (van Dijk, 1993: p. 254). Van Dijk describes this as control that may pertain to action and cognition, meaning it can be one powerful group limiting the freedom

10

of action of others but also one group influencing the minds of another. The point of critical discourse analysis is thus finding out how this sort of mind management is an important function of text and talk. This can be done in subtle routine forms of text that appear neutral and acceptable, therefore it is not bluntly manipulative (van Dijk 1993: p.254). The social, political and cultural organization of dominance also implies a power elite. Some members of dominant groups and organization have a special role in planning, decision-making and control over the relations of the enactment of power (van Dijk 1993: p. 255). Power and dominance are therefore institutionalized to enhance its effect. Discourse control is not just a form of social action and control; it is also the management of social representation.

The social representation of the illegal migrant reveals a social construction of migration which is actually quite complex. One sees negative and racial stereotypes which construe the 'other' as threats to hallowed institutions of national life, or a drain on scares space and welfare resources (Walters, 1993: p. 220). It is not only the identity and consequently the fate of the migrant that is at stake within these representational processes. It is also the very identity of the state and the political community which is being (re)made. For any controversy about the presence of migrants in a particular society, their impact upon the culture or about the challenge which migrant flows pose for the state is an occasion when the meaning and the boundaries of society, culture, sovereignty and much else besides come to be politically defined in a particular ways (Walters, 1993: p. 220). The 'us' is being manufactured at the same time as the ' them' (Walters, 1993: p, 220).

Codebook

To effectively analyze whether these companies are using anti illegal immigrant rhetoric to promote their material several questions will be asked when going through the websites. The answers to these questions will be marked down in a codebook and a clear overview will present itself. The questions can be divided into various categories. The questions in the first category all revolve around anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric. Answers to these questions will provide us with the information if companies are using the word illegal immigrant, in what context they talk about the illegal immigrant, whether or not it is negative and so on. The second category of questions is concerned with the original sector the company was operational in. This can provide us with information on the company’s area of expertise. The third category of questions should provide information on how the illegal immigrant rhetoric is used in relation to the importance of the development of security and surveillance technology. The last category revolves around if and how economic development and growth are a factor in the promotion of their material and how this relates to the anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric and the development of security and surveillance technology.

11

Results

In the category of anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric, the first thing that comes to mind when going through the websites of these companies is the rise of ‘new threats’ in the international community and the role of the illegal immigrant. In 9 out of 10 websites that have been analyzed, the rise of ‘new threats’ is mentioned as a motive to develop new technologies that can be used by states to effectively fight these threats. Not all of the websites mention the same phenomena as part of these new threats. However, these 9 websites all mention phenomena that occur on an international level as a result of globalization. One of the threats that is causing the need for surveillance technology according to the websites is the rise in the movement of people. The website of private corporation Thales for example mentions the free movement of people to be an important reason for states to keep track of who moves where and how (Website Thales). Remarkable is how the free movement of people is immediately portrayed as a security risk. The 9 websites that talk about ‘new threats’ all mention phenomena such as organised crime, human trafficking or other severe problems the international community is facing due to the movement of people. The criminalization of immigration has its roots in this kind of rhetoric seeing as fear for the potential risks of the movement of people is created by immediately mentioning the worst possible crimes in relation to the increasing mobility of people. 6 out of the 9 websites that talk about ‘new threats’ include illegal immigration on their list. These 6 websites therefore portray the illegal immigrant as a security risk that is in need for a solution that can only be found through careful management. 5 of these 6 websites go as far as to mention illegal immigration in the context of terrorism. That means 50% of all websites analyzed suggest a link between illegal immigrants and terrorists. Seeing as the actual threats caused by illegal immigration are unknown, this kind of rhetoric suggests a negative social construction of the illegal immigrant that is based on fear instead of factual knowledge.

Origin

In the second category, what comes to mind when going through the websites is that the kind of solutions these companies promote for problems such as illegal immigration depend on the original field of expertise of the company. Only 5 out of 10 companies actually originate from the security sector. Like Guittet and Jeandesboz suggested, the other 5 have their roots in either the information technology sector or the aerospace sector. It is important to keep this in mind because it means that the expertise of these companies does not originate in security technology. The products they offer and the way they choose to promote them is dependent on their original field. This comes to mind

12

when having a closer look at the companies that originate from the information technology sector. 3 out of 5 companies that come from a different sector originate in information technology. All of these companies explicitly mention the importance of identification by means of information technology in today’s world. Companies that originally come from the aerospace sector don’t particularly focus on the need for identification in promoting their surveillance technology. In fact, the surveillance technology they produce isn’t even prominently advertised on their website. It is merely mentioned as part of aerospace technology. The way these companies promote their products seems to be dependent on their original field and therefore results from the commercial background of the companies. This suggests that the level of importance for identification in today’s world as seen by these companies is dependent on the level of importance identification technology has within the company itself. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, except when you realise these companies are part of the biggest lobby organisation in the field of security technology in the European Union. The European Union depends on the expertise of companies such as these in the development of a program against a ‘new threat’ such as illegal immigration. It must be considered carefully what their experience is based on.

Solutions in technological development

In the third category, it appears that actual products as concrete solutions all include the newest technologies developed by the companies in the field of border security. As stated above, the key factor in the rhetoric these websites use in promoting their products is the company’s expertise in the development of a certain product. 9 out of 10 websites that have been analyzed mention the company’s experience by stating the amount of years they have been involved in developing this kind of technology. 6 out of 10 websites mention the amount of countries they are operational in. On more than one occasion during the analysis of the websites I came across the word “trend”. Companies don’t hesitate to promote their products by establishing the fact that it has been used by other states and should therefore be used by more in the future. By referring to it as a trend, companies are basically using an argumentation that is also used for any other random product that can be bought in the mall. By doing this it is forgotten that the kind of products that are being advertised are of highly controversial nature and have an enormous impact on society. In the international community however, it is that kind of rhetoric that is highly effective. It is what Guittet and Jeandesboz referred to when they mentioned the effects of technological developments. Like they said, there is no going back from technological development, it is a process that is autonomous and which lies outside of society (Guittet and Jeandesboz, 2010: p.233). If a majority of the states use a certain technology it is impossible to stay behind if you haven’t already purchased something of a similar kind. In the case of surveillance technology, it is almost impossible not to start using the

13

newest kind of biometric surveillance apparatus at your borders because illegal immigrants will look for the spot where it is most likely they will be able to enter. This is a phenomenon that can already be seen today. The European border that attracts the most illegal immigrants doesn’t disappear after installing new surveillance technology, it shifts. Frontex, a European agency installed in 2005 to manage the borders of Europe, is an agency that works closely together with companies from the EOS (Website EOS 2). Frontex has been working on a programme named EUROSUR; European External Border Surveillance System (Website Frontex). It is aimed at protecting the borders of Europe from illegal immigrants that try to make their way into Europe. One of the places immigrants used to go to when trying to cross the border was the crossing between the Greek Kastanies and the Turkish Edirne which is about 10 kilometres long (Website Groene Amsterdammer). Greece has been able to put a fence along this crossing supported with heavy surveillance technology thanks to the EUROSUR project. Whereas 6500 migrants have been registered to cross in 2012, it has come down to 0 last November (Website Groene Amsterdammer). However, in 2012 1329 people were arrested for crossing the Aegean sea. In the time after the installation of the fence on the border between Greece and Turkey that number has risen to 8052 (Website Groene Amsterdammer). This shift in migration means that European countries surrounding the Aegean sea now also have to look into new technologies to protect their borders.

The driving force of the security market

The websites have proven to be excellent tools to figure out what the economic interests of the companies are. The organisation EOS wants the European Union to invest in security products of its members and puts emphasis on the economic possibilities that can bring. On the website of the EOS there is a large section on the European security market and its challenges. It starts out by stating that terrorism and other illegal activities in Europe cost 650 billion euro per year or 5% of the EU’s GDP (Website EOS 3). It continues by stating the amount the security market is worth compared to the rest of the world which is an estimate of 15-25 billion euro compared to 60-100 billion euro. This is an introduction to the argument that economic growth remains weak in Europe compared to other parts of the world which according to EOS means that lowering investments in European security is dangerous in a time where the European security industry is facing rapidly growing competition from emerging markets. The section ends by stressing the importance of the continuing growth in the European security industry and its capability to continue delivering security products for the recovery of the European economy (Website EOS 3). This is a trend visible on the individual websites of the companies affiliated with the EOS. 8 out of 10 websites mention the security market in one way or the other. In 7 out of these 8 cases, the security market is mentioned in the context of their own position in it. By emphasizing their share in the security market they try to profile

14

themselves as one of the best companies to go to for certain products. This in itself is perfectly sensible thing to do when it comes down to the logic of the market. In fact, market logics are of great importance in the competitive security market. 4 out of 10 companies also mention how much better they are doing than the competition on their websites. 5 out of 10 websites even mention cost efficiency as part of their sales technique. However, it also portrays one of the dangers of having private companies concerned with developing highly sensitive surveillance technology. Market logic is about beating the competition, making as much profit as possible so you can invest in the development of more products that are of even better quality. Most importantly, it is about convincing potential clients to purchase your products. As Guittet and Jeandesboz mentioned, security has become an attractive business opportunity, also for businesses that originate from an entirely different sector. However, the promotion, bargaining and competition among technology suppliers in the EU do appear to effect the demand side. The European economy is fragile as it is and is now also dealing with competition from new upcoming economies. EOS suggests that investment in security technology is necessary to be able to continue producing high quality products that can withstand the competition. The companies themselves strive for as many clients as possible and compete amongst each other to get states to buy their products. In doing so, European states are hardly able to refuse investment in these technologies.

This analysis shows that anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric is used on in the websites of these companies to promote the development of surveillance technology. Illegal immigration is portrayed as a threat that needs to be dealt with. The companies advertise their products as solutions to this problem. The way the companies advertise their products depends on the original sector the companies come from. The companies that originate from the information technology sector put more emphasis on the level of importance of identification for example. Innovation and market logic seem to be the driving force in the technological development of surveillance technology. The European security market needs to compete with upcoming economies outside of their original circle of competitors. According to EOS and its members, investing in surveillance technology amongst other security technologies is necessary in order to revive Europe’s economy.

15

Discussion

One of the aims of this study has been to shed some light on the difficulties that might be faced when privatizing companies that are occupied with developing sensitive technologies that are being used for public functions. This study has shown that the market logic behind the development of surveillance technologies effects the demand side. Fear for illegal immigration is used by companies to promote the technologies they produce. Products such as new biometric surveillance technologies are advertised by these companies as a solution to problems such as illegal border crossing. States can’t stay behind in purchasing these products due to the fact that they otherwise have to deal with a shift in migration flows. The emphasis put on the economic possibilities of investing in border surveillance technologies makes it look like an offer states can’t refuse.

The results of this discourse analysis therefore agree with authors such as William Walters, Guittet and Jeandesboz and Guiraudon and Lahav. It provides more proof that border control slowly moves away from the border and into the hands of private actors. In a time where the functions of the state are decreasing, market forces are applied to what we used to know as the public domain. Supply and demand tend to influence each other as we can see with companies such as the ones in this study. Private actors might not be in control of border control entirely yet but their influence is growing. They are increasingly seen as experts in the field of border security technology. Considering the fact that some of these companies have been developing these technologies for years their growing influence is understandable. It is therefore highly unlikely that border control will remain more or less arranged the same way in the future. They are however technicians and have no real understanding of the actual dangers illegal immigrants might bring. The amount of influence they have on border control security should therefore be considered carefully.

When ready this study, it must be kept in mind that the results of this study only apply to Europe. Although market logics are more or less the same in companies all over the world it is still only based on the websites of 10 companies that are based in Europe and that are part of a European lobby organization. They therefore influence European immigration policy only. Furthermore, the fact that only 10 websites have been analyzed might seem marginal. It has not been possible to include every single one of the companies that are part of the European security market. However, even though 41 companies are affiliated with the EOS there are only several big players actually involved in developing surveillance technology for the European security market. 10 companies are more than enough to be able to analyze the rhetoric of companies that are actually able to make a difference in the European Union.

16

for anti-immigrant rhetoric in politics and society. Even though this study has not shed much light on the demand side in question, it doesn’t ignore the fact that many of the plans that are made to protect the borders from immigration flows are jointly produced by the European Union and lobby organizations such as EOS. Frontex is in fact an example of a European organization that is occupied with coming up with new ways to protect the border from immigration flows. The technologies that are used to protect the border are developed and sold by companies such as the ones in this study but it is the result of close cooperation between public and private actors. This is mainly a study to broaden the existing field of knowledge on the influence private actors such as the ones that have been included in this study can have on the decision making process of the European Union.

Also it must be kept in mind that in order to know exactly how much influence these companies have on the European Union it would be necessary to do further research in this field. Companies do see the security market as a business opportunity for a reason. The demand for surveillance technology is high due to political decision making. A next possible step in doing further research could be to do an ethnographic study on the fairs where companies such as the ones analyzed in this study go to in order to promote their material to the representatives of states and the European Union. This would provide information on the interaction between the buyer and the supplier. Also there are summits directed at solving migration control issues where politicians, representatives of companies and scientists come together to discuss future possibilities. This would also be an appropriate place to do an ethnographic study on the amount of influence the different actors have. Another possibility would be to conduct interviews with marketing strategy personnel employed at these companies or interviews with politicians in the European Union. This could be done to gather answers to specific questions one might still have.

17

Conclusion

The driving motive to this study has been to find out to what extend anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric is used for the promotion of the development of surveillance technologies by private companies to states in the European Union. By closely looking at the discourse private companies use on their websites it was possible to find out how the companies choose to portray the illegal immigrant. A high majority of the companies portrayed the phenomenon of illegal immigration as a threat. It was even linked to terrorism by 50% of the companies involved in this study. The analysis therefore showed that a negative construct of the illegal immigrant was indeed used in promoting the technologies they develop. The social construct of the illegal immigrant is therefore enforced by the drive of the companies to sell their products in a highly competitive security market. However, the way in which companies choose to promote their products is dependent on the sector they were operational in originally. The importance of identification would be emphasized more by companies that originate from the information technology sector. Therefore they would stress the need for biometric surveillance technology more than companies that specialize in aerospace. This means that when these companies lobby for biometric surveillance technology based on fear for the illegal immigrant this is not always based on expertise in the field of security technology. The process of technological innovation works in a way that makes it hard to stop this development. Companies would also emphasize the amount of countries their systems are operational in. In the international community it is hard to stay behind on the implementation of the newest surveillance technology due to the fact that immigration flows shift to the weakest border. Furthermore, the discourse of the companies is very much aimed at promoting the economic possibilities of investments in new technologies. In a time where Europe is facing competition of new and upcoming economies, investment is important in order to stay an important player in the security market. The results of this study suggest that anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric does seem to have become a tool in the logic of the market. This logic also appears to have some influence on the demand side. However it is not entirely possible to state exactly how much influence the companies have on the decision making process of the European Union. Further research would be required in order to do so.

18

Bibliography

Broeders, D. 2007. The new digital borders of Europe - EU databases and the surveillance of irregular migrants. International Sociology, 22, 71-92.AV, G.

Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods. Oxford University Press

Guiraudon, V. & Lahav, G. 2000. Comparative Perspectives on Border Control: Away from the Border and Outside the State. In: Andreas, P. & Snyder, T. (eds.) The wall around the West : state borders

and immigration controls in North America and Europe. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Guittet, E. P. & Jeandesboz, J. 2010. Security technologies. The Routledge Handbook of New Security

Studies, Routledge, New York, 229-239.

Joppke, C. 1998. Why Liberal States Accept Unwanted Migration, World Politics. 50(2), p. 266-93.

Lahav, G. 1998. Immigration and the State: The Devolution and Privatisation of Immigration Control in the EU. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 24, 675-694.

Mosley, L. 2013, Interviews in contemporary political science. Interview Research in Political Science.

Torpey, J. 2002. Coming and going: On the state monopolization of the legitimate "means of movement". Sociological Theory, 16, 239-259.

Van Dijk, T. 1993. Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse Society, 4: 249.

Walters, W. 2010. Migration and Security. The Handbook of New Security Studies. London.

Websites:

Website Demos: http://www.demos.co.uk/projects/thefarrightineurope Website EOS 1: http://www.eos-eu.com/?Page=whatiseos&tID=1

Website EOS 2: http://www.eos-eu.com/?page=border%20surveillance%20wg

Website EOS 3: http://www.eos-eu.com/Middle.aspx?page=eu%20security%20market Website European Union: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-08-85_nl.htm

Website Frontex: http://frontex.europa.eu/intelligence/eurosur

Website Groene Amsterdammer: http://www.groene.nl/artikel/streng-maar-rechtvaardig-laten-verdrinken

19

Website Thales: https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/security/what-we-do/states/identity-management-access-control

20

Appendix

Saphran Morpho http://www.morpho.com/

TNO https://www.tno.nl/ EADS http://www.airbus-group.com/airbusgroup/int/en.html CORTE http://www.corte.be/activities/road-security ATOS http://atos.net/en-us/home.html EDISOFT http://www.edisoft.pt/ IBM http://www-03.ibm.com/security/ G4S http://www.g4s.com/ FINMECCANICA http://www.finmeccanica.com/