Abstract
ABSTRACTThe US and India have strengthened their borders against illegal immigration. However, the two states have striking differences with respect to their border control methods. The US strengthened its Mexican border through fences and militarization. In sharp contrast, even though India fenced some parts of its border, it has relied on shooting practices which have resulted in the deaths of thousands of Bangladeshi immigrants. Drawing upon Narrative Policy Analysis (NPA), this paper identifies patterns in justification strategies regarding border control against illegal immigration in the US and in India. The findings indicate that in the US, border control was justified by the restoration of law at the border. To the contrary, in India, border control was associated with arbitrariness. The majority of Indian policymakers encourage arbitrary border practices by adopting the view that ‘any method’ is legitimate to curb illegal immigration from Bangladesh.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
