Chapter 8 Experiences at the New Canadian-US Frontier “I Just Assume That No Laws Exist . . .”

Evan Light, Sarah Naumes, and Aliya Amarshi

National borders are in flux, with the United States government enforcing norms that include parsing social media accounts and imposing biometric documentation regimes. Our research represents the state of affairs preceding the COVID-19 pandemic, the fallout of which may include the imposition of biometric systems that enter the genetic realm.1 Human migration and travel systems are no longer simply the business of flesh, blood, and bureaucracy but have been integrated into the transnational digital infrastructure of big data and algorithmic governance.2 Borders consist of walls and fences, officers and vehicles, weapons and visions, roads and traffic control, and devices for digital registration, identification, tracking, and tracing, all relying on data centres, protocols, and microdecisions.3 Border control is an intervention magnifying the scale of all that passes before it, serving as a point of entry and exit, arrival and departure, or interminable stasis. Through the New Preclearance Act, which replaced Canada’s Air Transport Preclearance Agreement in 2019, the US border exists both virtually and physically through its manifestation in several airports in the country with plans to extend this system to rail, land, and marine travel.4 Similarly, the European Union’s borders have been extended as far as the Mediterranean and central Africa through migration control and management systems.5

When we cross an international border, whether virtual or physical, the experience is fundamentally communicational. We are asked questions and provide answers; we are prompted to complete forms and provide fingerprints, retina scans, and photographs, and we comply. We are compelled to surrender our computers or smartphones with little recourse. In 2017, over one hundred million border crossings between the United States and Canada were recorded.6 What is concerning is that “at the borders, CBSA officers have an even wider range of powers than police. They can stop travellers for questioning, take breath and blood samples, and search, detain, and arrest non-citizens without a warrant.”7 These processes occur in the absence of any independent civilian oversight or neutral reporting.8 The result is the creation of a legal space—“the border”—in which all who enter are subject to policies and laws governing their experience that are unclear and ever changing. In every instance of crossing the Canada-US border, we are processed and documented according to a set of laws and policies that are not self-evident. While laws and some policies are public information, it is fair to say that as border crossers, most of us are not experts on the legal apparatus to which we submit ourselves. Instead, we surrender ourselves to border authorities who have control over our bodies and belongings. Canadian border authorities have immense power, yet they lack public oversight.9 One of the most difficult issues to navigate when maneuvering in the terrain of border policy is its partially visible nature. This chapter presents a research plan and preliminary results for making visible—and at times divining—Canadian border policy.

Despite the vast scale of cross-border human circulation between Canada and the United States, only limited research has been conducted into the experiences of those crossing the border. Research has focused on small groups of people or certain geographic locations, on the working practices of border officers, or on the technology employed both at official border crossings and in continual border surveillance.10 Other work has examined border-crossing mechanisms and their roles in and effects on economic life.11 Authors such as Benjamin J. Muller have questioned the extent to which Canadian-American collaboration on border security has threatened Canadian sovereignty.12 Through these approaches, the border is understood to be a biopolitical manifestation of post-9/11 national security priorities. The border appears as the discrete mechanization of a system premised on marrying the flesh and blood of individuals crossing imaginary lines with immeasurable quantities of data, feeding opaque decision-making processes. The effects of this system on the individuals who are subject to it appear at times in focused narratives—for instance, the ways that young Muslim men experience security at the Canada-US border.13 However, given the scale of mobility at this border, it is important that we conduct research capable of capturing the broad diversity of individuals who cross this border and their experiences. This text lays out a plan to do so, analyses the results of a small pilot study, and identifies obstacles to the execution of this research.

The Larger Beast

Our collaborative project, Border Probes, consists of two independent but complementary research projects. Border Walk / Border Talk is a long-term project, the pilot of which is explored in this chapter. It aims to discern policies carried out by Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) officers through the experiences of individuals crossing the Canada-US border into Canada. By publicizing surveillance infrastructure and policy, we seek to render transparent the surveillance capabilities and concomitant legal frameworks at land crossings and airport preclearance facilities. The border exists in its physical form and has been extended through systems of surveillance and documentation as well as spatially through the creation of a network of preclearance areas in nine Canadian airports. This research examines experiences of border crossings, partly through the data that flow to and from the border and are used to make decisions. The first project documents border surveillance technologies at work through access-to-information requests, interviews with former and current border security personnel, and examination of public records. In the second project, we plan to use an open-source system for detecting cell phone surveillance to probe for surveillance infrastructure at land crossings and airports.14 These two projects will combine to construct maps of data collection and flow, on which we will model speculative policies in the absence of freely available ones. Based on our research, and in the absence of transparent official policy, we ask, What are the policies and practices at work at the Canada-US border, and what effects do they have on us?

Our Research Participants

The research outlined in this chapter is part of a larger study that aims to catalogue and make sense of people’s experiences at the increasingly precarious Canada-US border using different methodological means. For this study segment, the research team conducted eleven in-depth, semistructured interviews with members of the York University community who had crossed the Canada-US border (by car or air) between January 20, 2017, and February 2018. This first date, which marked the inauguration of US president Donald Trump, was chosen to explore whether border practices may have changed in stride with other shifts in policy enacted by the new president. We work within a one-year time frame for feasibility reasons. Our decision to focus on the experiences of York University community members was a way for us to limit recruitment to a manageable population in the project’s pilot stage. Participants were recruited through ads posted in university departmental email lists and newsletters, social media, and flyers posted in buildings on campus.

Our sample consisted of six women and five men. Of these participants, nine were white, and two self-identified as racialized. Both racialized participants were of South Asian descent, and one was Muslim. Regarding citizenship, nine informants were Canadian citizens, one carried dual Canadian and US citizenship, and one was an Indian citizen. Participants included a mix of undergraduate, master’s, and PhD students. As with many qualitative studies, while our sample is not representative, the data provide an entry point to understand how the largely opaque practices of border security forces impact those who journey between Canada and the United States. Thus, our study aimed not to offer conclusive results about the current status of the Canada-US border but rather to engage in an initial interrogation, or pilot study, of how the border is either changing or remaining the same. As such, we chose in-depth, semistructured interviews to obtain rich narrative accounts of how people experience and navigate the changing practices and procedures they encounter at the border. The limited context of our study and the small number of participants allowed us to participate in more thorough conversations in a manner that would not have been possible had we elected to use a method that did not involve such close engagement with research participants (e.g., an isolated survey). The informational similarities that we noted in the sentiments described by participants undoubtedly indicate a need for further study of the changing nature of the Canada-US border. Further research is particularly needed around the differences in experience between racialized border crossers and those who are white—something that our study was not able to satisfactorily explore.

Informed by feminist methodological insights, our own positionalities as researchers impacted the field site, and as such, we shared, when appropriate, how our own embodied experiences of gender, race, and citizenship have played out in our border-crossing experiences.15 Such an exercise in self-reflexive sharing can dismantle hierarchies between the researcher and participant. It can deepen the rapport between both parties—allowing for more enriching and illuminating knowledge sharing and production. Given that our sample was made up of undergraduate and graduate students in critical fields such as sociology, political science, and gender studies, we had the advantage of engaging with participants whose narratives carried a thoughtfulness and self-reflection that further enhanced our research.

Interviews took place between November 2017 and February 2018. Each interview differed in length—ranging from fifteen minutes to more than two hours. Participants were asked to recount their experiences at the Canada-US border, including how they would characterize their treatment by border authorities; what types of questions they were asked; whether explanations were provided for the legal processes and procedures to which they were subject; and what personal information was extracted from them. Specifically, they were asked if their personal electronic devices were examined and if any biometric data (e.g., retina scans, fingerprints) were collected. Informants were also asked to reflect on any differences they have encountered in their crossing experiences in the last several years—such as upon 9/11 and the inauguration of Donald Trump. Finally, we asked questions about the measures, if any, that participants were taking to ensure their digital privacy when crossing the border. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded thematically. Thematic coding identifies commonalities in participant narratives, integrating existing codes around a central theme.16

Three Discoveries

Our research yielded three significant findings that merit further interrogation from both scholars and activist groups:

1. Donald Trump’s election may have had a chilling effect on border crossings into the United States from Canada, exacerbating post-9/11 travel concerns.
2. While many border crossers have a heightened awareness of digital privacy and surveillance issues, there is a lack of knowledge surrounding cell phone encryption techniques.
3. Laws and protocols at the Canada-US border are opaque.

By exploring these three findings in detail, we illuminate an important dimension of Canada-US border crossings wherein that line is exposed as an expanding temporal and physical space.

When an individual crosses the Canada-US border, they reference their own previous experiences and broader social and cultural sentiments. This framing has resulted in a nuanced emotional space that is expanding—or has already expanded—beyond the confines of a physical crossing point.

The Impact of Donald Trump’s Election

For many of our informants, crossing the border is marked by anxiety and anticipation. While Trump’s election contributed to these sentiments, five of the eleven participants indicated that crossing the Canada-US border had a chilling effect prior to Trump’s inauguration. When these five participants referenced a temporal event, it tended to be 9/11—a point when Canada-US border crossings changed dramatically.17

Both participants who self-identified as racialized indicated that the Canada-US border has had a long-standing unsettling effect on them. This has led to significant considerations about whether and how to cross the border and how to physically present oneself. One participant who identified as Muslim described being encouraged by his father to shave his beard in advance of border crossings. He said,

If I remember when I had my visa interview, it’s a funny story because he was, like, adamant that I shave otherwise I’m not getting a visa if I look like an Islamic extremist according to him. And I told him, I don’t want to do it, but eventually just the idea that not being about to go to grad school because of something as stupid as this, I sort of caved, and I did shave. And when I came to my visa interview, the person interviewing me was wearing the hijab.

This statement is significant in that it reflects the fear of Islamophobia that permeates border spaces as well as the burden that is placed on racialized individuals to conform to Western standards of appearance as a means of easing their passage. Interestingly, it also highlights how racialized people can be recruited to carry out discriminatory practices and policies against people who share similar backgrounds.

Two participants who indicated that crossing the Canada-US border had a deleterious effect before Donald Trump’s election described how that sense has been exacerbated since January 20, 2017. Six interviewees, including these two participants, described a chilling effect post–January 20, 2017.

Only two participants expressed that crossing the Canada-US border has not been an uncomfortable or unpleasant experience for them. Both of these interviewees were white, and one described circumstances in which crossing the Canada-US border had unfortunate consequences for friends and family after the inauguration of Donald Trump.

The extent to which self-censorship and chilling were expressed in interviews varied. One participant stated, “I generally try not to go in and out of the country too much.” This statement illuminates how border crossers may self-select out of engaging with the Canada-US border to protect against potentially negative encounters or invasions of privacy. This participant also indicated that they perceived that Trump’s election emboldened xenophobic questioning by American authorities at the border.

One participant described deleting contents on their electronic devices before crossing the border. Again, this indicates a level of self-censorship at the Canada-US border—one that is not explicitly enforced by authorities but occurs nonetheless. Another participant, a white male, described dressing in a suit and shaving (to present a “cleaner” appearance), bringing mail as evidence of their address, avoiding explicit discussions of political motivations for travel—in this case, the Women’s March—and turning off their cell phone when crossing the border. This participant viewed the Canada-US border as a space with unclear authority and laws. In another, a different participant—a white woman—noted a chilling effect at the border and discussed avoiding being the driver when crossing the border because of concerns about looking too “paranoid” to border authorities. Again, this indicates a lack of clarity surrounding authority and laws, in addition to exemplifying the atmosphere of fear and anxiety that border spaces hold.

Specifically regarding the post–January 20, 2017, context, a white male participant stated, “After Trump, I feel like the rules have changed.” This was echoed by a white female interviewee who made a similar statement, but in reference to the experiences of visible minorities. A white male participant accounted for extra travel time because of stories circulating in the media about border-crossing experiences but did not notice a significant difference in protocol. Another white female interviewee explained that a family member who was born in Sudan but who is a Canadian citizen cancelled a trip to the United States after Trump issued Executive Order 13769, labeled the “Muslim ban.” In another case, a racialized female participant described “mapping” documents and justifications for travel ahead of crossing the border.

While Trump’s election may have had a potential chilling effect on the Canada-US border, it is clear from our interviews that border crossers have had concerns since at least 9/11 in many circumstances. This is not shocking, given how border security shifted after that date. Furthermore, although our research intended to capture the post–January 20, 2017, context, we noted that it was difficult for participants to contemplate the Canada-US border within a discrete temporality. Each previous encounter by participants themselves, in conjunction with stories from friends, family, and acquaintances, painted a picture of what to expect at the border. In many cases, while interviewing, even though we expressed clear parameters about our time frame for interviewees, we had to ask for clarification about when certain experiences began to arise. This indicates to us that the totality of border experiences and narratives frame what border crossers can expect. Further, border experiences have been marked by fear for an extended period.

Ignorance of Cell Phone Encryption Techniques

Of the eleven participants interviewed, eight indicated that they either had not encrypted their cellular telephone or were unaware of what constitutes encryption. Of the remaining three participants, one was not asked in their interview whether they encrypt their cell phone, one encrypts as part of workplace protocol, and one had an unclear answer. This is notable given that those who participated in the interview process often indicated the seemingly unchecked power of border authorities and concerns regarding privacy and surveillance. It is also remarkable because our participant pool was composed entirely of university students with elevated access to encryption techniques and information about the rationale for protecting personal data.

In 2018, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) published an Electronic Devices Privacy Handbook with the express intent of explaining what one’s rights are at the Canada-US border and how to manage one’s electronic devices at the border to safeguard one’s privacy.18 The handbook explains full-disk encryption, which is available on most smartphones and portable computers, as a method that “essentially scrambles the contents of your electronic device. The data is unlocked with a passphrase.”19 Smartphones running the Android operating system have had full-disk encryption enabled by default since 2015.20 Most Apple mobile devices have full-disk encryption enabled by default as well.21 Encryption is useless, though, if a logged-in smartphone or laptop is, for instance, given to border authorities.

In one case, when asked whether their phone was encrypted, one white male participant stated, “It is because I turned it on. It’s one of the options in the phone just to encrypt all the contents and everything like that.” Taking a different approach to privacy, one racialized male participant stated, “I’m not sure what encrypted means, but I make it a point to not store any important information on my phone.” A white female participant admitted, “I do not know. I mean, I know my email is, but I don’t know if the phone itself is. Do you mean just like passwords and stuff like that? . . . Or not passwords, but phone numbers and logs and details like that?” Another white female participant laughed and said, “Um, I don’t know what that means. I think that the BlackBerry was. The BlackBerry had some feature where if you put in the wrong password ten times, it will erase everything on your phone.” Another racialized female participant simply said, “I don’t think so.” Finally, a white male interviewee expressed that the phone was encrypted through biometrics. They stated, “The password on my phone uses my biometrics—it uses my fingerprint.”

While encryption can, in more extreme cases, be bypassed,22 it is a tool that border crossers can use to hinder unwanted invasions of privacy. Although this was before January 20, 2017, the cell phone of one of our interview participants—a white woman—had been examined twice by US authorities. When we asked whether they had ever refused to allow the authorities to examine their phone, the participant stated, “No, that would be a very bad move. I mean, now it’s a little different because I am a permanent resident, so maybe I have, like, a right to be in Canada, but especially when you’re on a visa, like, you can be refused entry at any time, right? So, if they ask you to do ten jumping jacks, you’re going to do eleven, right?”

While encryption might be an effective means by which border crossers may resist surveillance efforts, the question, however, remains as to how border authorities respond to encrypted devices. Might they see encryption as grounds for suspicion rather than the exercise of one’s right to privacy? Indeed, the instincts of these individuals are well founded. According to the BCCLA’s analysis of CBSA policies concerning digital devices at the border, the consequences of refusing to provide access to one’s digital device can be severe and unpredictable. They may include having one’s device seized for an unspecified amount of time (possibly months) for forensic analysis or being arrested for impeding the work of a border officer.23 In 2019, a grand total of 207,822,527 travellers were processed at the border. Of these, 27,405 had digital devices examined, and of these examined devices, 10,860 resulted in the discovery of customs or immigration-related offenses. CBSA only began tracking the frequency with which its officers searched digital devices in November 2017.24

Poorly communicated border policies shift the rights of individuals, making it increasingly difficult for border crossers to navigate and seek recourse. For example, the aforementioned participant is aware that if they were to refuse authorities access to their device, their ability to cross the border might also be refused without remedy. While the participant credits their lack of permanent resident status as a possible explanation for why they might be refused, recent developments in border policy under the Preclearance Act stipulate that even citizens of a country are no longer accorded the freedom to refuse searches and invasive procedures by claiming that they would like to change their mind and turn back.25 Rather, refusal to go through with security measures may result in border officials holding travellers for further detainment and interrogation at the hands of their own country’s border guards. For example, a Canadian border crosser who refuses a search by US authorities may now be detained and interrogated by Canadian border authorities who interpret such a refusal as grounds for suspicion. This troubling development further entrenches border crossers within a regime of questionable legality, in which one’s arrival at the border forfeits their right to make choices around the policies and procedures that are imposed on them—now not only in the case that they want to make their flight but even in cases in which they would prefer to turn back.

Invisible Laws and Arbitrary Protocols

In their experiences crossing the Canada-US border since January 20, 2017, all eleven research participants indicated that the legal processes and procedures that border agents followed were never explained. When we asked whether legal processes and procedures were clearly presented, we were frequently met with scoffs and laughter, as if to indicate the absurdity of the idea that a border agent would make clear the laws under which they are functioning. A few research participants described text on customs forms or posters hanging at the Canada-US border or in the airport indicating some laws, policies, or procedures. There were no verbal discussions about border laws or policies. In one instance, a white male research participant described being detained in secondary screening. Once he was allowed to leave, the participant asked why they were detained, and the border officer said, “I can’t divulge that.”

In perhaps the most illuminating statement of our interviews, when asked whether border officials had explained the legal authority under which they were operating, one white female participant stated, “I just assume that no laws exist at the border.” This answer frames a general sentiment that the border exists as an exceptional space wherein border crossers have little to no recourse for actions taken by authorities. The border operates in a permanent state of exception.26 The same participant stated at a different point in the interview, “I just assume, I don’t know, they could do whatever they want, right?”

These statements are particularly troubling considering the general sentiment we encountered that border practices disproportionately impact racialized individuals. The chilling effect that we noted in many interviews creates an uneven atmosphere for opacity at the border wherein certain individuals can pass through without drawing attention to themselves and others feel as though they are the subject of scrutiny and surveillance.

Expressing a sentiment of concern about how previous correspondence could be an issue at the border, one white female participant claimed, “You don’t know what they’re allowed to do and what they’re allowed to look at, and you worry, like, is some ancient text message gonna, like, be read a certain way and they’ll be like, ‘Oh, we gotta search your entire car now’? Um, I’d say I never used to worry about it, but definitely within the last like seven years. Yeah, I don’t know what they’re allowed to do or what they’re allowed to look at on my phone.”

Conclusion

. . . headed, I fear, toward a most useless place. The Waiting Place . . .

. . . for people just waiting.

Waiting for a train to go

or a bus to come, or the rain to go

or the phone to ring, or the snow to snow

or waiting around for a Yes or No

or waiting for their hair to grow.

Everyone is just waiting.27

Time is, as Dr. Seuss points out, a political instrument of a varied sort. It may regulate our lives in a most natural way or one that is contrived, confining, or seemingly arbitrary. In the discretely regulated border spaces we are concerned about, time is of the utmost political value, whereby our fundamental political identities are defined temporally.28 How long have you lived at this address? How long have you been a permanent resident? How long have you been abroad? The answers to such questions—not uncommon ones to experience while crossing the border—and other unidentified information lead to us being treated in certain ways. The deceptively simple questions at the heart of our research are “How?” and “Why?” The degree to which the state apparatus safeguards the answers to these questions calls for radically new ways of doing border research, capable of gathering, parsing, and analyzing the experiences of millions of border crossers. Without an arms-length oversight body that would engage in such work, we propose such oversight is possible in the academic realm in collaboration with civil society.

Although this study was conducted in a limiting setting, our findings identify important themes that warrant further exploration into how the Canada-US border is shifting both in a post-9/11 context and after the inauguration and tenure of Donald Trump. Special attention must be given to the racialized aspects of border crossing, something that this chapter was not able to fully explore due to our overwhelmingly white data set. Future studies will undoubtedly also have to account for how the border has and continues to shift in a world that is adapting to the real and constructed threats of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Additionally, as we look forward to how this research might unfold, we aim to incorporate the filing of access-to-information requests on the part of research participants, seeking access to CBSA’s documentation of each border-crossing experience. While our initial methodological model included this, our efforts to adopt this approach have proven, perhaps predictably, difficult. The access-to-information apparatus should, by design, insulate those who request information—or about whom information is requested—from the apparatus that is being queried.29 However, civil liberties experts with whom we consulted disagree. Key to the successful design and execution of the project we propose here is the ability to conduct this work without bringing harm to our subjects, ensuring that a willingness to partake in critical research on border policy through sharing one’s experiences does not lead to one being “flagged” at the border. This obstacle speaks to the need for government to ensure border spaces are no longer perceived as states of exception, a need for oversight and transparency around policies and expectations, and a rehumanization of a political space within which politics and practices of dehumanization have become embedded.30

Notes

1. Miranda Bryant, “‘Are You Immune?’: The New Class System That Could Shape the Covid-19 World.”
2. Matthew Longo, The Politics of Borders: Sovereignty, Security, and the Citizen After 9/11.
3. Corey Johnson et al., “Interventions on Rethinking ‘the Border’ in Border Studies,” 61–69, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2011.01.002; Élisabeth Vallet, Borders, Fences and Walls: State of Insecurity?
4. Legislative Services Branch, “Preclearance in Canada Regulations”; Parliament of Canada, “House Government Bill C-23 (42–1): An Act Respecting the Preclearance of Persons and Goods in Canada and the United States,” C-23 (2017); Harry J. Chang, “The Government of Canada Implements Its New Preclearance Act.”
5. Louise Amoore, “Biometric Borders: Governing Mobilities in the War on Terror,” 336–51; Dennis Broeders, “The New Digital Borders of Europe: EU Databases and the Surveillance of Irregular Migrants,” 71–92; Forschungsgruppe, “Transit Migration”; Sabine Hess et al., Der lange Sommer der Migration: Grenzregime III; Irma Van der Ploeg, “The Body as Data in the Age of Information.”
6. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Data Tables and Query Tool, Border Crossing Entry Data: Monthly Data, 2004, https://data.bts.gov/stories/s/Tables-Query-Tool/6rt4-smhh.
7. British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA), Oversight at the Border: A Model for Independent Accountability at the Canada Border Services Agency, 4.
8. Dale Smith, “Oversight at the Border.”
9. BCCLA, Oversight at the Border; Vicky Mochama, “Canadian Border Services Agency Lacks Oversight, but That’s Only Part of the Problem”; Josh Paterson and Lorne Waldman, “Paterson and Waldman: Canada Border Services Needs Proper Oversight”; Dale Smith, “Border Agency Oversight Bill Stalls in Parliament.”
10. Baljt Nagra and Paula Maurutto, “Crossing Borders and Managing Racialized Identities: Experiences of Security and Surveillance among Young Canadian Muslims,” 165–94; Jane Helleiner, “Canadian Border Resident Experience of the ‘Smartening’ Border at Niagara,” 87–103,; Reg Whitaker, “Securing the ‘Ontario-Vermont Border,’” 53–70; Vic Satzewich, Points of Entry: How Canada’s Immigration Officers Decide Who Gets In; Anna Pratt, “Between a Hunch and a Hard Place: Making Suspicion Reasonable at the Canadian Border,” 461–80; Karine Côté-Boucher, “Technologies, déqualification et luttes d’influence chez les professionnels de la sécurité frontalière,” 127–51, https://doi.org/10.7202/1026731ar; Özgün E. Topak et al., “From Smart Borders to Perimeter Security: The Expansion of Digital Surveillance at the Canadian Borders,” 880–99; Longo, Politics of Borders; Karine Cote-Boucher, “The Diffuse Border: Intelligence-Sharing, Control and Confinement along Canada’s Smart Border.”
11. Karine Côté-Boucher, “Risky Business? Border Preclearance and the Securing of Economic Life in North America,” 37–67; Geoffrey Hale, “Politics, People and Passports: Contesting Security, Travel and Trade on the US-Canadian Border,” 27–69; Christopher Sands, “Toward a New Frontier: Improving the U.S.-Canadian Border.”
12. Benjamin J. Muller, “The Day the Border Died? The Canadian Border as Checkpoint in an Age of Hemispheric Security and Surveillance,” 297–318.
13. Nagra and Maurutto, “Crossing Borders.”
14. Border Probes, “Stingray Stingers.”
15. Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber, “The Practice of Feminist In-Depth Interviewing,” 110–48.
16. Johnny Saldaña, The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers.
17. Mark B. Salter, “Passports, Mobility, and Security: How Smart Can the Border Be?” 71; Buster C. Ogbuagu, “Constructing America’s ‘New Blacks’: Post 9/11 Social Policies and Their Impacts on and Implications for the Lived Experiences of Muslims, Arabs, and Others,” 470; Mathew Coleman and Austin Kocher, “Detention, Deportation, Devolution and Immigrant Incapacitation in the US, Post 9/11,” 230.
18. British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and CIPPIC, “Electronic Devices Privacy Handbook: A Guide to Your Rights at the Border.”
19. British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and CIPPIC, 46.
20. Jerry Hildenbrand, “Enable Encryption on Your Android.”
21. Electronic Frontier Foundation, “How to: Encrypt Your iPhone.”
22. Danny Yadron, Spencer Ackerman, and Sam Thielman, “Inside the FBI’s Encryption Battle with Apple.”
23. British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and CIPPIC, “Electronic Devices Privacy Handbook,” 29–30.
24. Government of Canada, Canada Border Services Agency, “Examining Digital Devices at the Canadian Border.”
25. Chang, “Government of Canada.”
26. Giorgio Agamben, State of Exception.
27. Dr. Seuss, Oh, the Places You’ll Go!
28. Elizabeth F. Cohen, The Political Value of Time: Citizenship, Duration, and Democratic Justice, 97–108.
29. Kevin Walby and Mike Larsen, “Getting at the Live Archive: On Access to Information Research in Canada,” 623–33.
30. Nisha Kapoor, Deport Deprive Extradite: 21st Century State Extremism, 23–50.

Bibliography

Agamben, Giorgio. State of Exception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.
Amoore, Louise. “Biometric Borders: Governing Mobilities in the War on Terror.” Political Geography 25, no. 3 (March 1, 2006): 336–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2006.02.001.
Border Probes. “Stingray Stingers.” Border Probes (blog). Accessed February 21, 2020. https://borderprobes.glendon.yorku.ca/stingray-stingers/.
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA). Oversight at the Border: A Model for Independent Accountability at the Canada Border Services Agency. Vancouver: British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, June 2017. https://bccla.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FINAL-for-web-BCCLA-CBSA-Oversight.pdf.
British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and CIPPIC. “Electronic Devices Privacy Handbook: A Guide to Your Rights at the Border.” British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and CIPPIC, n.d. https://bccla.org/our_work/electronic-devices-privacy-handbook-a-guide-to-your-rights-at-the-border/.
Broeders, Dennis. “The New Digital Borders of Europe: EU Databases and the Surveillance of Irregular Migrants.” International Sociology 22, no. 1 (January 1, 2007): 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580907070126.
Bryant, Miranda. “‘Are You Immune?’: The New Class System That Could Shape the Covid-19 World.” Guardian, June 10, 2020. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/10/are-you-immune-the-new-class-system-that-could-shape-the-covid-19-world.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics. “Border Crossing/Entry Data.” January 10, 2019. https://www.bts.gov/content/border-crossingentry-data.
Chang, Harry J. “The Government of Canada Implements Its New Preclearance Act.” Dentons, September 3, 2019. https://www.dentons.com/en/insights/alerts/2019/september/3/the-government-of-canada-implements-its-new-preclearance-act.
Cohen, Elizabeth F. The Political Value of Time: Citizenship, Duration, and Democratic Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Coleman, Mathew, and Austin Kocher. “Detention, Deportation, Devolution and Immigrant Incapacitation in the US, Post 9/11.” Geographical Journal 177, no. 3 (September 1, 2011): 228–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2011.00424.x.
Côté-Boucher, Karine. “The Diffuse Border: Intelligence-Sharing, Control and Confinement along Canada’s Smart Border.” Surveillance & Society 5, no. 2 (2008). https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v5i2.3432.
Côté-Boucher, Karine. “Risky Business? Border Preclearance and the Securing of Economic Life in North America.” In Neoliberalism and Everyday Life, edited by Susan Braedley and Meg Luxton, 37–67. Montréal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2010.
Côté-Boucher, Karine. “Technologies, déqualification et luttes d’influence chez les professionnels de la sécurité frontalière.” Criminologie 47, no. 2 (2014): 127–51. https://doi.org/10.7202/1026731ar.
Electronic Frontier Foundation. “How to: Encrypt Your iPhone.” Surveillance Self-Defense, September 17, 2014. https://ssd.eff.org/en/module/how-encrypt-your-iphone.
Forschungsgruppe. “Transit Migration.” In Turbulente Ränder: Neue Perspektiven Auf Migration an Den Grenzen Europas, 87–106 Bielefeld: transcript, 2007.
Government of Canada, Canada Border Services Agency. “Examining Digital Devices at the Canadian Border.” December 3, 2019. https://cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel-voyage/edd-ean-eng.html#08.
Government of Canada, Transport Canada. “Transportation in Canada 2017.” Annual report. Ottawa: Transport Canada, June 21, 2018. https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/policy/transportation-canada-2017.html.
Hale, Geoffrey. “Politics, People and Passports: Contesting Security, Travel and Trade on the US-Canadian Border.” Geopolitics 16, no. 1 (January 31, 2011): 27–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2010.493768.
Helleiner, Jane. “Canadian Border Resident Experience of the ‘Smartening’ Border at Niagara.” Journal of Borderlands Studies 25, nos. 3–4 (September 1, 2010): 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/08865655.2010.9695773.
Hess, Sabine, Bernd Kasparek, Stefanie Kron, Mathias Rodatz, Maria Schwertl, and Simon Sontowski. Der lange Sommer der Migration: Grenzregime III. 1st ed. Berlin: Assoziation A, 2016.
Hesse-Biber, Sharlene Nagy. “The Practice of Feminist In-Depth Interviewing.” In Feminist Research Practice, edited by Sharlene Nagy Hesse-Biber and Patricia Lina Leavy, 110–48. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2007.
Hildenbrand, Jerry. “Enable Encryption on Your Android.” Android Central, February 26, 2016. https://www.androidcentral.com/how-enable-encryption-android.
Johnson, Corey, Reece Jones, Anssi Paasi, Louise Amoore, Alison Mountz, Mark Salter, and Chris Rumford. “Interventions on Rethinking ‘the Border’ in Border Studies.” Political Geography 30, no. 2 (February 1, 2011): 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2011.01.002.
Kapoor, Nisha. Deport Deprive Extradite: 21st Century State Extremism. London: Verso, 2018.
Law Times. “Border Agency Oversight Bill Stalls in Parliament.” Law Times, January 9, 2017. https://www.lawtimesnews.com/article/border-agency-oversight-bill-stalls-in-parliament-13075/.
Legislative Services Branch. “Preclearance in Canada Regulations.” August 15, 2019. https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-2019-183/index.html.
Longo, Matthew. The Politics of Borders: Sovereignty, Security, and the Citizen After 9/11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Mochama, Vicky. “Canadian Border Services Agency Lacks Oversight, but That’s Only Part of the Problem.” Toronto Star, June 28, 2018. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/2018/06/27/canadian-border-services-agency-lacks-oversight-but-thats-only-part-of-the-problem.html.
Muller, Benjamin J. “The Day the Border Died? The Canadian Border as Checkpoint in an Age of Hemispheric Security and Surveillance.” In National Security, Surveillance and Terror: Canada and Australia in Comparative Perspective, edited by Randy K. Lippert, Kevin Walby, Ian Warren, and Darren Palmer, 297–318. Crime Prevention and Security Management. Cham: Springer International, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43243-4_13.
Nagra, Baljt, and Paula Maurutto. “Crossing Borders and Managing Racialized Identities: Experiences of Security and Surveillance among Young Canadian Muslims.” Canadian Journal of Sociology 41, no. 2 (June 30, 2016): 165–94. https://doi.org/10.29173/cjs23031.
Ogbuagu, Buster C. “Constructing America’s ‘New Blacks’: Post 9/11 Social Policies and Their Impacts on and Implications for the Lived Experiences of Muslims, Arabs, and Others.” Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 4, no. 1 (2013): 469–80.
Parliament of Canada. House Government Bill C-23 (42–1): An Act Respecting the Preclearance of Persons and Goods in Canada and the United States, C-23 (2017). https://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?billId=8362244&Language=E&Mode=1.
Paterson, Josh, and Lorne Waldman. “Paterson and Waldman: Canada Border Services Needs Proper Oversight,” Ottawa Citizen, September 10, 2018. https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/paterson-and-waldman-latest-death-in-canada-border-services-custody-shows-independent-oversight-needed.
Pratt, Anna. “Between a Hunch and a Hard Place: Making Suspicion Reasonable at the Canadian Border.” Social & Legal Studies 19, no. 4 (December 1, 2010): 461–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663910378434.
Saldaña, Johnny. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2013.
Salter, Mark B. “Passports, Mobility, and Security: How Smart Can the Border Be?” International Studies Perspectives 5, no. 1 (February 1, 2004): 71–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3577.2004.00158.x.
Sands, Christopher. “Toward a New Frontier: Improving the U.S.-Canadian Border.” Brookings Institute, March 2009. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/20090325_sands.pdf.
Satzewich, Vic. Points of Entry: How Canada’s Immigration Officers Decide Who Gets In. Vancouver: UBC Press, 2015.
Seuss, Dr. [Theodor Seuss Geisel]. Oh, the Places You’ll Go! New York: Random House Books for Young Readers, 1990.
Smith, Dale. “Oversight at the Border.” CBA / ABC National, Canadian Bar Association, January 28, 2020. http://nationalmagazine.ca/en-ca/articles/law/hot-topics-in-law/2020/oversight-at-the-border.
Topak, Özgün E., Ciara Bracken-Roche, Alana Saulnier, and David Lyon. “From Smart Borders to Perimeter Security: The Expansion of Digital Surveillance at the Canadian Borders.” Geopolitics 20, no. 4 (October 2, 2015): 880–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2015.1085024.
Vallet, Élisabeth. Borders, Fences and Walls: State of Insecurity? Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2014.
Van der Ploeg, Irma. “The Body as Data in the Age of Information.” In Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies, edited by David Lyon and Kevin D. Haggerty, 176–83. London: Routledge, 2012.
Walby, Kevin, and Mike Larsen. “Getting at the Live Archive: On Access to Information Research in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Law and Society 26, no. 3 (December 2011): 623–33. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjls.26.3.623.
Whitaker, Reg. “Securing the ‘Ontario-Vermont Border.’” International Journal 60, no. 1 (March 1, 2005): 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/002070200506000105.
Yadron, Danny, Spencer Ackerman, and Sam Thielman. “Inside the FBI’s Encryption Battle with Apple.” Guardian, February 18, 2016, sec. Technology. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/17/inside-the-fbis-encryption-battle-with-apple.

Afterword: On Being Unsettled: Discomfort and Noninnocence in Border Studies