| Summary/Abstract |
Through a detailed case study of immigration policies in Malaysia, this article examines processes of bordering in a country where physical borders do not seem to play a pivotal role. It describes how, in Malaysia, immigration policies neither focus on border control nor pose strict limits on immigrants’ entry but rather seek to curtail immigrants’ presence once in the country. The analysis of this “securitization from within” allows us to make three interconnected arguments. First, no border control does not mean no immigration control. Second, confines or internal borders play a decisive role in the construction and preservation of a cheap, flexible labor force. However, despite the disproportionate power of the Malaysian executive, these confines are systematically challenged by immigrants’ everyday practices either by resorting to illegality or by reentering the country after deportation. Thus, when the contours of legality are very narrow, illegality does not necessarily mean a more subordinated form of existence but rather a way to resist state control. Third, both foreigners and citizens can be deprived of their most basic rights. In this regard, the conventional wisdom that citizenship draws a clearly defined line of exclusion/inclusion proves to be wrong in the case of Malaysia.
|