Globalization has expanded the travelling privileges of certain populations (namely for those in the West) while it has simultaneously resulted in restrictions on the movement of the more racialized and impoverished populations. The economically disadvantaged groups are subjected to strict border control policies such as stringent visa requirements (to stop them before they migrate), border infrastructure (to curb their mobility while they are travelling across international borders), and detention policies (after they arrive in the host country). The corresponding challenges are particularly taxing and traumatic for vulnerable populations, especially minors. Using qualitative methodology, this research explores the interview-based accounts of nine asylum-seeking children and young adults regarding their migration experiences with border control policies (during their migration) and administrative detention procedures in Canada. Drawing on Criminology of Mobility as a conceptual framework, the findings of this study demonstrate that border infrastructure endangers young asylum seekers’ lives as it compels them to pursue more precarious means, such as using the services of human smugglers or crossing international borders from isolated and dangerous crossing points. The findings of this research also suggest that juvenile asylum seekers may be experiencing border control policies and immigration detention more negatively because of their age-related vulnerabilities.

L’évolution des technologies de l’information et du transport a favorisé l’action transnationale du terrorisme, exigeant une réponse étatique qui prenne en considération le mouvement transfrontalier des terroristes. Cette réponse s’est traduite dans le cas les États‐Unis et de l’Espagne par l’introduction de dispositifs de lutte antiterroriste dans le droit migratoire et d’asile. Les dispositifs de lutte antiterroriste insérés aux États‐Unis sont cohérents avec la tradition migratoire interne tandis que ceux introduits par l’Espagne sont cohérents avec le droit international, par le biais de l’introduction des règles de l’UE. La doctrine internationale a aussi justifié l’adoption de ces dispositifs, invoquant les théories du contrat social et de l’exceptionnalisme souverain. Pourtant, l’introduction de ces dispositifs de lutte antiterroriste par les pays étudiés répond à un processus de confusion des buts et des moyens de lutte contre la criminalité et la migration illégale ou crimmigration. Ces dispositifs ne sont pas très efficaces pour lutter contre le terrorisme, malgré leur présence continue pendant le contrôle migratoire et le traitement des demandeurs d’asile, mais ils sont utiles pour lutter contre l’immigration illégale et préserver la «stabilité culturelle». De fait, ces dispositifs font partie d’un système sélectif de surveillance qui a impliqué la création d’un droit migratoire et d’asile «de l’ennemi», qui conçoit l’étranger comme une source de danger justifiant l’octroi d’un traitement qui le dépersonnalise, permettant à l’État d’atteindre symboliquement ses buts et, éventuellement, d’obtenir de la légitimité vis‐à‐vis de la population autochtone. / Advances in information and transportation technology support transnational terrorist action and require a state response which takes into account the transnational terrorist movement. This response resulted in, for the United States and Spain, immigration and asylum measures that are part of counter‐terrorism strategies. American migratory and asylum measures to combat terrorism are consistent with American migratory tradition and foreign policy, while Spanish measures are consistent with international law, though in conformity with European law. The international doctrine has also justified the adoption of these measures on the basis of social contract and sovereign exceptionalism theories. However, the adoption of migratory and asylum measures to combat terrorism is part of a process of criminalization of migratory law also known as crimmigration. The migratory and asylum measures undertaken to combat terrorism have not been effective in eradicating terrorism, despite their continuous presence during migration control and treatment of asylum‐seekers, though they are valuable instruments for action against illegal migration and preserving cultural "stability". In fact, they are part of a surveillance system of alien people. The construction of this system implies the creation of an "Enemy" migratory and asylum law that considers the alien as a risk to security and consequently gives the alien an exceptional treatment which results in the loss of its legal personality. This "Enemy" migratory and asylum law enables the State to symbolically achieve its goals and obtain a new source of legitimacy.