Understanding some of the earlier measures taken by the United States to prevent migration is quite eye opening. One facet, that the U.S. was one of the earlier countries practicing maritime interdiction in the 1980s as a preemptive strategy to stop Haitians from landing on shore, is interesting in that these actions are currently attributed to other European countries. But those countries clearly had inspiration elsewhere. The other facet, and even more angering part that came to light is the notion of using maritime interdiction to bypass some of the most basic human rights policies that are in place globally, due to the idea that this process relies on international water laws that are less stringent to say the least. I cannot begin to imagine what coast guards were and are still able to get away given the ambiguity with these laws, especially when the general public, like myself, are not aware of the specifics. And again there are reasons why these laws do not get as much publicity.

Going further with the idea of migration patrols, it is apparent that pushing them from land to sea no only changes tactics for migrants, but it is also representative of borders that are continuing to change and be redefined. In this case, it is a physical change that is making it harder for migrants to even set foot on the soil that they are wishing to see, which brings me to the point of our rights as human beings to move across borders. In practice, movement and accepted migration is more of a privilege, with the biggest factors being race and economic standing. Within populations that choose to move for better opportunities, either one of these factors can put someone at a stark disadvantage, often making the dream of migrating an impossibility. However, policies to push back borders and redefine what they are, along with blurring the lines of human rights at sea, act to seal the fate of migrants whose dreams of a better life were already dimmed by their current standing.