Tag: #Immigration

Posted on

Liminal Visibility: Migration, Data, and the Politics of Boundaries

The first reading of Canada’s Bill C-2 signals a significant expansion of digital surveillance and data collection powers within immigration enforcement, including enhanced capabilities for electronic monitoring, biometric data use, and information sharing across agencies. These provisions illustrate how the state increasingly relies on computational systems to govern migration, embedding control within data infrastructures that produce visibility and legibility on its own terms. This legislative shift exemplifies the broader Data Turn—where algorithmic models and surveillance reshape who is recognized or excluded. Examining this through the lens of contemporary visual art reveals how artists expose and resist these mechanisms of control, offering critical counter-narratives that emphasize opacity, ambiguity, and the contested politics of representation in immigration regimes. This article stems from my reading of Canada’s Bill C-2 informed by Joy Rohde’s Armed with Expertise (that I just finished reading), connecting contemporary data-driven governance in immigration to its historical roots in Cold War expertise, and exploring how these dynamics shape the politics of visibility and liminality.

The Data Turn has reordered not just how states govern, but how they see. In systems of immigration control, policing, and security, governance now operates through data—through predictive models, biometric templates, and behavioral scores. These systems do not represent reality; they construct it, enacting a vision of the world in which subjects are rendered as variables and futures as risks. This logic, increasingly dominant across global institutions, marks a shift from rule by law to rule by model. And as it reconfigures power, it also reconfigures aesthetics.

This shift towards data-driven governance deeply affects how migratory subjects are categorized and controlled, often reducing complex human experiences to discrete data points subject to algorithmic prediction and intervention. The imposition of predictive models and biometric surveillance transforms migrants from individuals with agency into risks to be managed, their identities flattened into probabilistic profiles. This reordering not only reshapes bureaucratic practice but also redefines the conditions of visibility and invisibility, inclusion and exclusion. Those caught in liminal states—between legality and illegality, presence and absence—are particularly vulnerable to these regimes of measurement and control, which perpetuate uncertainty and precarity.

Visual artists have responded to this transformation not only by thematizing data regimes, but by dismantling the very mechanisms that render them invisible. They expose the apparatus behind the interface—the wires, scripts, ideologies—and stage counter-visions that assert opacity, indeterminacy, and refusal. In doing so, they challenge the way the Data Turn governs the liminal, especially those living in the suspended space of migration, statelessness, and bureaucratic indeterminacy.

This artistic intervention reframes vision itself—not as a neutral or purely descriptive act, but as a tool of power embedded within technological and bureaucratic systems. By peeling back layers of digital mediation, these artists reveal how contemporary surveillance and data infrastructures actively produce knowledge and enforce hierarchies. Their work highlights that visibility is not simply about being seen, but about how one is seen, categorized, and ultimately governed—a dynamic that is especially acute for those inhabiting the ambiguous spaces of migration and statelessness.

Artists like Trevor Paglen and Hito Steyerl foreground this shift from image to instrument. In their work, surveillance footage, facial recognition outputs, and satellite tracking systems are not just visual materials—they are operational weapons. Paglen’s images of classified military sites or undersea data cables reveal the landscape of surveillance that underpins contemporary geopolitics. Steyerl, in pieces like How Not to Be Seen: A Fucking Didactic Educational .MOV File, explores how machine vision abstracts, targets, and governs. In both cases, the act of seeing is no longer passive; it is a condition of being classified and controlled. The migrant, in such systems, is no longer a presence to be engaged but a deviation to be filtered—a datapoint, a heat signature, a probability.

Paglen and Steyerl’s work exposes the mechanisms through which visibility becomes a tool of control, transforming subjects into data points within vast systems of surveillance. Yet this logic of enforced legibility provokes a critical response: a turn toward opacity as a form of resistance. Where the state insists on clarity and categorization, artists embrace ambiguity and fragmentation, challenging the totalizing gaze and creating spaces where identity and presence refuse easy definition. This dialectic between exposure and concealment reflects the lived realities of migrants caught within regimes that demand transparency but offer exclusion.

If the state’s data infrastructures demand visibility and legibility, many artists respond with strategic opacity. Édouard Glissant’s philosophy of opacity—his insistence on the right not to be reduced—resonates powerfully here. In the works of Wangechi Mutu and Walid Raad, opacity takes material form: fragmentation, distortion, layering, and pseudofactuality unsettle any stable claim to truth or identity. These aesthetic strategies echo the experience of navigating migration regimes—systems that demand transparency from those who are systematically excluded from its protections. Opacity becomes a refusal of capture. It asserts a right to complexity in the face of an infrastructure that reduces lives to binary certainties.

I am guided here by the words of WG Sebald and the art of Gerhardt Richter and their use of things like dust and blur as integral to understanding of history and memory, in addition to the use of light and shadows in works of art immemorial and its relation to knowledge.

Building on this embrace of opacity, other artists turn their attention to archives—the sites where power not only records but also erases and shapes memory. By interrogating immigration documents, military footage, and bureaucratic data, these artists reveal how archives carry forward histories of violence and exclusion. Their work challenges the illusion of “raw” data, exposing it instead as deeply entangled with structures of power that continue to marginalize and render migrants invisible or precarious. In doing so, they create counter-archives that reclaim erased voices and insist on recognition beyond official narratives, mirroring the ongoing struggles of those living in legal and social liminality.

Other artists interrogate the archive: not just what is remembered, but how, by whom, and with what effects. The work of Forensic Architecture, Susan Schuppli, and Maria Thereza Alves reveals the afterlife of data—how immigration records, censuses, or military footage embed structural violence into bureaucratic memory. Their work testifies to how data is never “raw”: it is collected through regimes of power, and it carries that violence forward. These artists reanimate what official systems erase, constructing counter-archives that expose the silences, absences, and structural forgettings built into systems of documentation. This resonates deeply with the immigrant condition, in which legal presence is provisional and recognition is always deferred.

As archival artists uncover the hidden violences embedded in bureaucratic memory, another group of practitioners turns to the physical and infrastructural dimensions of data governance. By making visible the often-invisible hardware and networks that sustain digital control, these artists reveal how power operates not only through data but through material systems—servers, cables, and code—that shape everyday life. This exposure challenges the myth of a seamless digital realm, reminding us that governance is grounded in tangible, contested spaces where decisions about inclusion and exclusion are enacted.

Where the logic of governance is increasingly immaterial—hidden in code, servers, and proprietary systems—some artists work to make the infrastructure visible. James Bridle, in exploring what he terms the “New Aesthetic,” captures the eerie, semi-visible zone where machine perception intersects with urban life and planetary surveillance. Ingrid Burrington’s maps and guides to internet infrastructure render tangible the cables, server farms, and chokepoints that quietly govern digital existence. These works push back against the naturalization of the digital by showing it as a system of decisions, exclusions, and material constraints.

The “Data Turn” can be understood as a continuation of intellectual movements that critically examine the production and mediation of knowledge, much like the “Literary Turn” of the late twentieth century. The Literary Turn foregrounded language and narrative as active forces shaping historical meaning and subjectivity, challenging claims to objective or transparent truth. Similarly, the Data Turn interrogates the rise of data and computational systems as new epistemic tools that do not merely represent social realities but construct and govern them. This shift compels historians to reconsider the archives, sources, and methodologies that underpin their work, recognizing that data is embedded within power relations and ideological frameworks. Both turns reveal the contingency of knowledge and demand critical attention to the infrastructures through which it is produced and deployed.

By revealing the physical infrastructure behind digital governance, artists highlight how power operates through material systems that govern access and control. This focus on the tangible complements artistic engagements with the symbolic and bureaucratic forms that mediate migration. Together, these practices expose how both infrastructure and imagery function as aesthetic regimes—tools that shape and enforce legal and political inclusion, while also offering sites for creative rupture and alternative narratives.

Even the forms that mediate migration—passport photos, visa documents, biometric scans—are aesthetic regimes. They precede legal recognition; they shape it. Artists like Bouchra Khalili, in works like The Mapping Journey Project, appropriate these documentary forms not to affirm their authority, but to rupture them. Her work stages alternative cartographies of movement—ones based not on state control, but on narrative, memory, and resistance. In such works, the migrant is not a risk profile, but a storyteller.

By transforming state documentation into acts of storytelling and resistance, artists reclaim the migrant’s agency from reductive systems of classification. This reimagining challenges the prevailing logic of legibility, opening space for more nuanced understandings of identity and belonging beyond the constraints of bureaucratic control.

Across these practices, art offers not just critique but proposition. It creates space for reimagining how we understand legibility, personhood, and the infrastructures that shape both. In contrast to the Data Turn’s promise of seamless optimization, these works embrace what is incomplete, contradictory, and opaque. They remind us that data is not destiny, and that what cannot be captured might still be what matters most.

Together, these artistic interventions reveal that data regimes are not neutral frameworks but deeply embedded with values and power. By embracing ambiguity and incompleteness, they challenge dominant narratives of control and certainty, opening new possibilities for understanding identity and presence beyond bureaucratic constraints.

For scholars working at the intersection of immigration, data, and liminality, this aesthetic terrain is not peripheral—it is central. Art shows us that the Data Turn is not merely technical; it is philosophical. It carries assumptions about what kinds of life count, what futures are permissible, and how uncertainty should be managed. Visual practices, especially those rooted in the experience of liminality, offer a different grammar of visibility—one attuned not to classification, but to ambiguity; not to risk, but to relation.

photo of me, by me, from an art exhibition of the surveillance state in Montreal
this was from a room that tracked me taking photos of it taking photos of me

Posted on

“We talk about granting new citizenship but we talk about none of its meaning.”—Mavis Gallant

Mavis Gallant’s 1947 article “Are They Canadians?” appeared just as the first Canadian Citizenship Act came into force. This legislation marked a formal break from British subjecthood and a symbolic assertion of national identity. Yet Gallant was quick to observe a core contradiction: while legal citizenship was conferred, its meaning—socially, culturally, and emotionally—remained undefined. She cited the case of 1,500 naturalized Yugoslavs who, despite investing in Canadian society, ultimately returned to Europe. “They obviously did not feel they belonged here,” she wrote. “There has never been an organized program to teach immigrants the English language, let alone the rudiments of citizenship.”

More than seventy-five years later, her critique remains salient. Canada’s evolving identity continues to be shaped by shifting geopolitical dynamics—no longer by the British Empire, but increasingly in relation to the United States. In this context, questions about belonging, integration, and national cohesion are as urgent as ever.

Today’s policy frameworks emphasize inclusivity, multiculturalism, and respect for diversity. Yet public discourse often defaults to symbolic gestures rather than substantive engagement with the meaning of citizenship. This risks creating a gap between the formal acquisition of status and the lived experience of belonging—echoing Gallant’s concern.

Complicating the contemporary picture are Indigenous perspectives on identity, citizenship, and sovereignty. These views are foundational to Canada’s history and future but do not fit neatly into conventional narratives of integration. Policymaking in this area must avoid simplistic inclusion and instead recognize the distinctiveness and plurality of Indigenous nationhoods.

Unlike the assimilationist model historically favoured by the United States, Canada’s approach to citizenship remains more open-ended. This is a strength—but only if paired with deliberate policy supports. Citizenship cannot be treated as a one-time legal event. It must be understood as an ongoing, participatory process grounded in common principles: democratic values, linguistic and civic literacy, Indigenous rights, and the rule of law. These serve as flexible but firm guardrails for fostering a shared sense of purpose.

For policymakers, the challenge is clear: to invest in the infrastructures—educational, social, cultural—that make belonging possible. This means expanding access to civic education, supporting language acquisition, affirming Indigenous jurisdiction, and creating inclusive spaces for plural narratives. Citizenship, in this context, becomes not only a legal designation but a collective, continuous process—one that reflects a nation still defining itself.

AreTheyCanadianDownload
Posted on

From Da Nang to Canada: The Precursor to the Boat People Exodus

The Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series provides an essential window into the internal deliberations of American policymakers during moments of global crisis. Compiled by the U.S. State Department’s Office of the Historian, FRUS volumes contain declassified memos, transcripts, and cables that reveal in real time how U.S. officials assessed and responded to unfolding events. In the case of South Vietnam’s collapse in 1975, these documents offer an unfiltered look at the rapidly changing military situation, the breakdown of civil authority, and the early contours of a refugee crisis that would eventually reach Canadian shores. Drawing from these records, this article traces how the fall of Da Nang marked the beginning of the boat people migration—one of the most significant humanitarian movements of the late 20th century. These excerpts are from Collapse and Evacuation, February 26–July 22, 1975 - Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Volume X, Vietnam, January 1973–July 1975

By the spring of 1975, the Republic of Vietnam was in freefall. While the world would later fixate on the iconic images of helicopters lifting evacuees from rooftops in Saigon, the real beginning of the humanitarian crisis—and of the Vietnamese diaspora to countries like Canada—can be traced to earlier moments, particularly the collapse of Da Nang.

In March 1975, Da Nang, South Vietnam’s second-largest city and a key northern stronghold, descended into chaos. As one U.S. official noted in a high-level conversation, “the political situation now is radically different,” with Communist forces gaining ground and establishing what many viewed as a legitimate revolutionary government. Ambassador Martin tried to argue that Da Nang might still hold or link to the south, but his view was challenged by others who insisted that the South Vietnamese forces were stretched too thin and facing imminent collapse.

This was not an overstatement. By late March, military analysts predicted Da Nang could fall “within a few days” due to overwhelming North Vietnamese pressure, disorganized South Vietnamese defenses, and mass civilian panic. One internal memo noted, “the situation in DaNang is chaotic,” and that “its defences could simply collapse”. President Thieu, then still in power, was reportedly considering pulling forces from the city entirely—a strategic retreat that left the civilian population vulnerable.

Meanwhile, U.S. President Gerald Ford and his advisors were receiving dire updates. CIA Director William Colby predicted that Da Nang would fall even if elite Marine units remained in place. “It should fall within two weeks,” he said, “even if the Marine Division stays”. When asked about the evacuation of civilians, Colby described “terrible mob scenes” at both airports and ports, where thousands tried to flee. Soldiers were firing their way onto ships. Law and order had broken down entirely.

What emerged in Da Nang was not just a tactical withdrawal or a city lost—it was the collapse of an entire civic order under the weight of war. The distinction between military personnel and civilians dissolved as desperation overtook discipline. Refugees overwhelmed the last remaining points of escape, creating a humanitarian crisis that left even U.S. officials stunned by its speed and scale. These early signals from Da Nang, echoed in classified briefings and policy cables, began to shape how allied governments would later understand their responsibilities—not just in geopolitical terms, but as urgent moral imperatives. In Canada, although formal resettlement programs were still years away, these early images and reports laid the groundwork for a new kind of foreign policy conversation: one that placed refugee protection at the heart of international engagement. The seeds of Canada’s eventual leadership in refugee resettlement were sown here—in the failure to protect, and the dawning realization that the world would soon be asked to respond.

This was more than a military failure. It marked the first wave of what would become a global humanitarian emergency. The fall of Da Nang was the beginning of a refugee crisis that would swell into the exodus of the thuyền nhân—the boat people—fleeing Vietnam by sea. Canada’s eventual involvement in resettling these refugees has become one of its most important modern migration stories, but the roots of that response lie in the scenes of terror and flight that emerged in places like Da Nang weeks before Saigon itself fell.

What distinguished the collapse in Da Nang was not just the loss of territory, but the unraveling of social and institutional fabric in real time. Unlike the images of orderly withdrawal sometimes projected in official narratives, the reality on the ground—documented in these U.S. diplomatic cables—was of disintegrating command structures, mass panic, and a population abandoned by any sense of coordinated response. It was in these moments that survival became individualized. Families fractured at airfields, children were separated from parents, and decisions were made with no time, no plan, and no guarantee of safety. The trauma of that sudden collapse carried forward into the boats, camps, and eventual resettlement pathways that followed.

The stories of those who would later arrive on Canadian shores—traumatized, stateless, and often separated from loved ones—began in these early, chaotic weeks. While many Canadians remember the arrival of the boat people in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the seeds of that journey were planted in the final weeks of the Vietnam War, when the international community was still struggling to comprehend the scale of what was to come.

For Canada, the fall of Da Nang and the refugee flight that followed posed both a moral and logistical question: how would the country respond to a new, mobile, and vulnerable population created by geopolitical collapse? The answer, forged in policy rooms and across civil society, would help redefine Canada’s refugee policy and multicultural identity in the decades to follow.

The 65-person polyurethane sculpture “La Foule Illuminée” (“The Illuminated Crowd”). Sculpted by Franco-British artist Raymond Mason, this public art has stood in front of the BNP/Laurentian Bank Tower since the mid-1980s. In the words of the artist: “A crowd has gathered, facing a light, an illumination brought about by a fire, an event, an ideology—or an ideal. The strong light casts shadows, and as the light moves toward the back and diminishes, the mood degenerates; rowdiness, disorder and violence occur, showing the fragile nature of man. Illumination, hope, involvement, hilarity, irritation, fear, illness, violence, murder and death—the flow of man’s emotion through space.”
Posted on

Echoes of Forced Migration: 50 Years of the Tragedy of Indochina and Canada’s Promise of Refuge

I recently attended a poignant event at the McCord Stewart Museum in Montréal, which marked the 50th anniversary of the end of the U.S.–Vietnam War—an inflection point that remains significant not only in global geopolitics but also in the history of immigration and identity in Canada. The event brought together a multigenerational audience: members of Montréal’s Vietnamese community, refugees who arrived in the wake of the war, scholars, academics, students, local dignitaries, and members of the Canadian Immigration Historical Society (CIHS). Held within one of the city’s foremost institutions for cultural memory, the gathering underscored the enduring importance of remembrance as both a personal and collective act.

The evening unfolded with intention—not as a commemorative, nationalist exercise, nor as nostalgia, but as a reflective gathering that captured the layered experiences of individuals and communities shaped by war and displacement. The atmosphere was thoughtful, yet vibrant with the presence of those who shared histories of resilience and survival. As the evening drew to a close, a panel discussion offered rich, nuanced perspectives on the intersections of personal history, trauma, and the formation of diasporic identity in Canada. Particularly moving was the presence of those who had lived through the unfolding of these events, a reminder of the importance of documenting immigration stories with care—not merely as historical record, but as acts of recognition and understanding.

The evening began with a generous spread of food, rich in both flavour and significance, setting a tone of warmth and hospitality. Members of the Vietnamese community, alongside politicians and dignitaries, gathered in solidarity, creating a space where shared histories could be acknowledged and celebrated.

Live traditional Vietnamese music filled the space, weaving an elegiac thread through the evening that linked memory to continuity and grief to cultural expression. The music underscored the solemn yet celebratory tone of the event, honouring the community’s resilience and strength in the face of hardship.

A documentary, featuring archival CBC footage and interviews with Canadian immigration officials and survivors, provided crucial historical context. The film offered a sobering glimpse into the bureaucratic and public discourse surrounding Canada’s response to the refugee crisis, juxtaposed with the human stories of loss and dislocation. One particularly poignant segment included a photograph of a young Michael Molloy, taken during his work as an Immigration Officer on the ground fifty years ago, serving as a powerful emblem of Canada’s evolving humanitarian identity during this pivotal period in immigration history.

Equally resonant was a short animated film created by a young Canadian filmmaker—the grandchild of a migrant who fled Vietnam. Drawing from their family’s experience, the film used stark symbolism and visual metaphor to convey the dislocations, terrors, and silences that followed the fall of Saigon. Haunting in its honesty, the animation offered an unflinching portrayal of state violence, resilience, and the quiet determination to rebuild. The poetic nature of the film transformed the unspeakable into something both shareable and sacred, ensuring that the memory of the tragedy would be preserved and passed on to future generations.

As a Canadian historian that studies liminal and boundary spaces defined through data, the event reinforced something fundamental to our collective identity: the quiet yet profound efforts of public servants and community leaders who, often unseen, shape the arc of memory and history. In many ways, the evening was a living archive—a convergence of memory and the moral duty to bear witness. The presence of those who fled war, alongside those born into the legacy of exile, reminded all in attendance that history is not defined by treaties or agreements or data alone. It is carried forward in the everyday acts of preservation: through photographs, music, stories passed down, and gatherings like this one, where the past is not merely remembered but consciously reassembled into a shared Canadian narrative.