Against Borders: The Case for Abolition - Gracie Mae Bradley and Luke de Noronha

Published in 2022 by Verso, London, UK and New York, NY

192 pages

ISBN: 9781839761959

Within American political discourse, there is perhaps no other topic that has come to define our contemporary moment than the issue of immigration. We have witnessed the rise, fall, and resurgence of Donald Trump to the executive office, largely fueled by the issue of illegal immigration. After descending the golden escalator to announce his candidacy in 2015, Trump sent shockwaves by immediately pivoting toward anti-immigrant rhetoric, stating “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. […] They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people” 

       During his 2024 campaign, Trump took his xenophobic rhetoric to new and absurd heights, repeating baseless claims that Venezuelan gangs had taken over apartment buildings in Aurora, Colorado, and that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio were “eating the dogs, the people that came in, they’re eating the cats, they’re eating…they’re eating the pets of the people that live there, and this is what’s happening in our country” (both claims have been proven false). In the first week of his second term, Trump signed an exorbitant number of executive orders, one of which unconstitutionally attempts to end birthright citizenship, which is a direct violation of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and will be undoubtedly challenged in court. 

       This issue is not contained to merely the hateful rhetoric and mass deportation campaigns of the Republicans. Democrats have fed into this hysteria, as evidenced by the bipartisan passing of the Laken Riley Act -- Trump’s first piece of legislation during his second term -- which essentially removes due process for immigrants suspected of committing a crime. Democrats have also utilized anti-immigration tactics to shore up support among the right-wing contingent of their party and reach across the aisle. For example, Joe Biden deported more immigrants during his singular term than Trump did in his first. At the same time, the Obama administration oversaw a historical record of deportations by removing more than 3 million immigrants, compared to Bush’s 2 million and Clinton’s 900,000 (earning Obama the nickname “Deporter-in-Chief” among immigration rights activists and the wider contingent of the Left). 

       Essentially, when it comes to the politics of immigration in the United States, two parties are vying to take the toughest, most hardline position on immigration, with Democrats constantly trying to outflank the Republicans and gain their support. This is just one more example of the rightward trajectory that the ratchet effect has had in American political discourse and policy, as Democrats bend the knee to conservative demands while lambasting and chastising the progressive wing of their own party. 

       In light of the miserable failure of Democrats to even put up a small fight against the Republicans, we are in desperate need of a Left alternative that actually fights for the rights of workers, both native and immigrant. Immigrants have become the primary scapegoat of American society, as they are blamed for every problem under the sun, including violent crime, inflation, drugs, unemployment, low wages, and even climate change. Most of these factors have little to do with immigrants, and more to do with America’s long-term economic and political decline on the world stage. In reaction to these multivalent crises within the liberal democratic order, fascist thought has crept back into the mainstream discourse, promising to fix all of these issues. One of the main calling cards of fascism is a strong sense of nativism, emphasizing strong national borders to protect the nation from foreign invasion. 

       Borders have become such an integral part of how we think about the world that it is difficult to imagine a world without them. Especially in the wake of 9/11 and the increased surveillance that followed, we are told that borders are our primary method of safety and security, preventing the wrong people from getting into our country. Strengthening our borders has become a top policy priority, often fueled more by fear-mongering than by actual data. 

       But despite all of the claims by both Democrats and Republicans alike, does strengthening our border security actually make Americans more safe? Instead of protecting citizens, draconian border policies do more harm than good. What if, by contrast, we lived in a world without borders? What might it look like to live in such a world, and how do we go about achieving it? In their 2022 book, Against Borders: The Case for Abolition, Gracie Mae Bradley and Luke de Noronha present their case for why we should live in such a world without nation-states or borders. By highlighting how borders have been used as tools of exclusion, oppression, and violence, particularly against marginalized groups such as migrants, refugees, and people of color, Bradley and Noronha illustrate how we need to not only reform our current border policies but abolish them altogether. 

Overview:

       Throughout this brief volume, Bradley and Noronha present a compelling argument in favor of abolishing borders and the systems of control that come with them. The book highlights how border enforcement policies, including detention centers and deportation practices, serve to maintain global inequalities, perpetuate the legacies of colonialism, and reinforce nationalistic, xenophobic, and racist ideologies. The authors call for a radical shift in how we think about belonging, community, and solidarity, proposing an alternative vision of the world that is not bound by restrictive national borders.

       Focusing primarily on UK immigration policy and events such as the Windrush scandal, Bradley and Noronha illustrate how borders cause more harm than good. Each chapter covers different concepts such as race (how borders are constructed along racialized lines), gender (how borders disproportionately affect different genders and drastically impact the role of social reproduction), capitalism (borders facilitate the exploitation of labor through undocumented individuals, who live in constant precarity), policing (the physical administration of force at border crossings), counter-terror (the utilization of racialized rhetoric to instill a fear of immigrants), as well as databases and algorithms  (the collection and processing of data in order to store and track the movements of populations). The authors also include a couple of fictional interludes toward the end, each detailing a possible future (one dystopian and another utopian). 

       Moving beyond the apparent violence that we see at the physical borders of nations, Bradley and Noronha emphasize how the logic of borders has been rendered increasingly invisible, affecting our day-to-day lives through the implementation of digital surveillance, algorithms, and databases that limit our mobility and provide the state with greater means to control its citizens. Additionally, the authors argue that borders are largely ineffective at their main purpose: controlling the movement of populations. They illustrate that despite the billions of dollars that are funneled into border patrols, surveillance systems, drones, and detainment facilities, these efforts have done little to stop people from crossing the border. Rather, it only serves to make their journey much more treacherous and their life once they arrive much more precarious. 

       Bradley and de Noronha, taking their theoretical approach from the work of prison abolitionists such as Ruth Wilson Gilmore, Mariame Kaba, and Angela Davis, argue that we should aim for the total abolition of borders rather than merely seeking reforms to the existing border system. Recognizing that the current application of immigration law inherently operates unequally, often targeting specific communities and creating distinctions between citizens and foreigners, the authors argue that abolitionism must be the long-term horizon to which we must look. 

       They advocate for a world where people can move freely, live without fear of surveillance or persecution, and have equal access to resources, safety, and opportunity. Ultimately, Bradley and Noronha stress the importance of solidarity across borders and encourage collective action to dismantle the structures of power that sustain borders and the inequalities they produce. Instead of advocating for policies to reform our border policies to make them either more humane or stronger, the authors posit a number of “non-reformist reforms” that ultimately work to weaken borders and gradually wither them away. 

Commendations:

       Against Borders possesses several notable strengths. First of all, this compact volume is written in an accessible manner while still maintaining scholarly depth. Bradley and Noronha break down complex concepts related to migration, nationalism, and global inequality, making these ideas understandable to a broad audience while still grounding their arguments in academic theory and political history. The authors also include numerous real-world examples, from migration crises and detention policies to high-profile headlines such as the 2018 Windrush Scandal. The examples illustrate how borders function as tools of exclusion and violence, grounding the book in the lived experiences of those most affected by border regimes. As such, this provides the reader with an imminently accessible and approachable introduction to the concept of border abolition. 

       Additionally, Bradley and Noronha convincingly take an intersectional approach to the issue of border abolition, illustrating how borders affect and are affected by social concepts such as race, class, and gender. The authors offer a critical, intersectional lens that makes their argument resonate on multiple levels—economic, racial, and humanitarian. They connect border control issues to broader social justice movements, including racial justice, decolonization, and economic equality, taking much of their inspiration from prison abolitionist thought. This intersectionality adds depth to the argument, highlighting how borders disproportionately impact marginalized communities, especially migrants of color, women, and the working class. They do a phenomenal job of explaining how borders are inherently tied to systems of power, oppression, and colonialism, pointing out how ingrained the logic of borders is within our common thinking as well as how to overcome this logic and image a better world. 

       To do so, Bradley and Noronha emphasize what they call “ non-reformist reforms.” By this, they point out how our many attempts to make our border policies more humane or “better” often capitulate to right-wing nationalist framing. Thus, our well-meaning reformist approach inadvertently makes our surveillance systems and deterrence policies more robust and engrained within our national policy. On the other hand, the authors stress that we need to frame our border abolitionist demands in ways that fundamentally challenge the logic of our current discourses around immigration. This distinction is one of the book’s most interesting and helpful aspects. Instead of conceding to a right-wing framing on border security and advocating for reforms, we need to challenge the underlying logic of our current discourse on immigration. By applying abolitionist thinking to the issue of borders and immigration, Bradley and Noronha dispel many of our common assumptions of linking national security with strong borders. As such, it serves as a phenomenal primer into both the basics of abolitionist thought as well as the various issues with our current border policies. 

Critique:

       On the other hand, Against Borders suffers from a few key weaknesses. First and foremost, while the book powerfully argues for the abolition of borders, it offers less concrete discussion of how this could be achieved in practice. While it advocates for a radical rethinking of global governance and provides a robust critique of borders, it doesn’t fully address the difficulty of implementing abolitionist policies, especially in our current global context that is deeply entrenched in nationalist ideologies. If we hope to effect long-term, large-scale border abolition, we need to develop an international and time-bound plan to do so and reckon with the inevitable difficulties that will inevitably arise from doing so. While the authors excel at illustrating the issues with our reliance on borders, there is little in the way of practical application, such as applying abolitionist politics unilaterally or coordinating international cooperation. As such, if you are looking for a nuanced exploration of the complex logistics involved in transitioning away from current systems of surveillance and border policies, then you will likely be disappointed.

       Additionally, while the authors attempt to be intersectional by bringing in a multitude of ways in which borders are connected to issues of race, class, gender, surveillance, and Big Data, this wide-ranging scope means that the authors do not go in-depth into any one of these topics. As such, many of the finer nuances of their arguments are sometimes overly simplified and generalized. The authors are much more interested in asking questions and challenging us to imagine radical alternatives to our current geopolitical landscape, rather than providing any kind of roadmap of how to get there. 

       While the writing is accessible to a general audience, it will most likely not satisfy those who are looking for a more in-depth argument or vision for border abolition. Bradley and Noronha’s work just skims the surface of the larger corpus of abolitionist thought, and while the two fictional chapters that juxtapose dystopian and utopian landscapes are an interesting addition, they do little to further the authors’ attempt to actually construct/avoid these futures. The complete abolition of the nation-state and the borders it imposes is highly unlikely, and while it is commendable that Bradley and Noronha attempt to break us out of our ingrained thinking about the natural state of borders (akin to Mark Fisher’s “capitalist realism”), they leave the reader with more questions than answers. 

Conclusion:

       Overall, Against Borders is a succinct, punchy, and powerful critique of the border system and an urgent call for its abolition. While it barely scratches the surface of abolitionist thought and is short on tangible solutions, Bradley and Noronha’s work still serves as a thought-provoking primer on the theory of border abolition. By highlighting real-world examples of inhumane border policies, the authors make a compelling case against the effectiveness of borders. They illustrate how borders are not just encountered at border security checks while traveling to another country, but rather impact our seemingly mundane, everyday lives. They show how borders inflict and expose people to violence and exploitation while doing little to keep them from moving. As such, this work serves as a great summary of the most common arguments for border abolition, which is useful for both seasoned abolitionists and new activists alike. 

       While some of their proposals might come across as too utopian and unrealistic, Bradley and Noronha offer an incredibly useful and challenging overview of borders and why they should be abolished if we hope to have a livable and dignified future. In the face of an impending and rapidly approaching climate crisis, their proposals for “non-reformist reforms” and utopian visions are a much-needed corrective amidst a political and cultural milieu that is obsessed with scapegoating immigrants and strengthening national borders. 

       Fascism is simply capitalism in crisis, and it will seek to expand its borders and blame minority groups for its systemic failures. When liberalism fails, fascists are always all too eager to step into the reigns of power, as long as they face no opposition. We are beyond the time to build a viable alternative, and following Bradley and Noronha, we need to "cultivate new ways of caring for one another, nurturing forms of collectivity more conducive to human flourishing than the nation-states we currently inhabit" (10). While the complete abolition of borders might seem like a fanciful wish (or nightmare, depending on your ideological commitments), it is one piece of the larger puzzle of large-scale systemic change if we hope to build a more just world.