Managing the borders of Europe today entails contradictory imperatives. The border must be at once impervious to breach and open to traffic perceived as economically beneficial. Responding to the contemporary EU and national politics of migration, policymakers and border authorities must be surveillance-minded and technologically savvy, effective in deterrence and removals, but also fluent in the idiom of human rights and sensitive to the public perception of their actions. A paradox ensues: contemporary governance of borders embraces the idea that the exclusionary effects of European border policies can somehow be achieved without violating the human rights of migrants who attempt to enter Europe. The official EU discourse increasingly emphasizes the life-saving powers of technology and fundamental rights safeguards in border protection. Still, 2013 was the most lethal year at the external EU borders and the European Commission and Frontex face criticism for disregarding human rights principles and refugee protection. Taking these contradictions of border governance as a starting point, we will explore a selection of case studies focusing on actors, interests and struggles on the ground and at sea. The EC frequently claims that “technological solutions” (like the EUROSUR system of surveillance and control) can address the problem of lethal borders. Or is technology just displacing and concealing potential violations of fundamental rights? What are the possibilities and limitations of the human rights paradigm in approaching these contradictions? We ask how the interplay of conflicting border practices today constrains our ability to imagine a future of less contentious border politics.