Moral proximity and the territorial imperative

2021 ◽  
pp. 147488512110651
Author(s):  
Patti Tamara Lenard

In The Shifting Border, Ayelet Shachar offers us two concrete proposals for combatting the danger posed by the shifting border, especially to those crossing borders in search of safety. One proposal suggests that human rights travel with migrants, so that agents who control the border must take responsibility for protecting their human rights at the border. A second proposal, which forms the basis of my commentary below, asks that states consider alternative ways for migrants to seek protection safely. In responding to this second proposal, I make two proposals of my own that stem from Shachar's analysis: (1) her analysis offers us the resources we need in order to expand, not only the channels available to migrants for seeking protection, but also our sense of who should be involved in controlling admission, and (2) expanding the “who” that is involved in admission gives meaning to the concept of “moral proximity” which can help to overcome the territorial imperative that dominates the rules governing international migration, i.e., the imperative that protection travels with physical access to territory, only.

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 111-133
Author(s):  
Donald Kerwin

Executive Summary This research was conducted at the request of the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) as part of a two-year special initiative entitled “The Future of Work, Labour After Laudato Sì.” 1 This article explores the future of work, international migration, and the intersection of the two at a time of rapid change, uncertainty, and disruption for migrants, laborers, and their families and communities. It draws on human rights principles, international law, and religious values, particularly from the Catholic tradition, to chart an ethical approach to the governance of these timeless phenomena. What does the future hold? Under one dystopian scenario, the future of work will be characterized by massive job loss due to automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence. Politicians and business leaders will characterize the resulting human displacement as an unavoidable “disruption” and byproduct of change. Euphemisms, however, will poorly mask the loss of livelihood, self-esteem, and a central marker of identity for countless persons, particularly the poor and vulnerable. Technological advances will decimate families, communities, and entire ways of life. For many, stable work will become a thing of the past, and technology an instrument of marginalization and discrimination. Algorithms will be used to “perpetuate gender bias” ( ILO 2019a , 35), pit workers against each other, and squeeze the maximum productivity from them for the minimum compensation. The “inappropriate use” and “weak governance” of algorithms will lead to “biases, errors and malicious acts” ( Albinson, Krishna, and Chu 2018 ). Large swaths of the world’s citizens will become (at best) the unhappy dependents of states and global elites. The future of migration seems equally daunting. Current trends suggest that the number of international migrants will continue to rise due to job displacement, violence, natural disaster, and states that cannot or will not meet their fundamental responsibilities. If the past is prologue, unscrupulous politicians and media sources will also continue to blame migrants for the economic and cultural displacement of their constituents, xenophobia will increase, and migrants will encounter hostility in host communities. Natives will criticize their governments and institutions for failing to protect their interests and needs, and migrant laborers will be caught in the middle. This article does not minimize the urgency of the challenges presented by migration and work. It documents the unacceptable living, working, and migration conditions of immense numbers of the world’s citizens. It offers, however, a more optimistic vision of the future than the dystopian view, a vision characterized by international cooperation and solidarity. It recognizes the potential of technology “to render labour superfluous, ultimately alienating workers and stunting their development,” but also its potential to “free workers from arduous labour; from dirt, drudgery, danger and deprivation” and “to reduce work-related stress and potential injuries” ( ILO 2019 , 43). It recognizes the way in which fear of displacement can lead to exclusionary nationalism and xenophobia, but also the possibility of unity based on the shared values embedded in the cultures of diverse persons. It recognizes the costs of migration, but also its immense contributions to host communities. The article argues for person-centered systems and policies that promote the freedom, rights, and dignity of workers, migrants, and migrant workers, and that strengthen migrant host communities. It begins by examining the challenges facing low-income and vulnerable migrants who struggle for decent work, are the most likely to lose their jobs, and are “the least equipped to seize new job opportunities” ( ILO 2019 , 18). 2 It then presents an ethical, person-centered vision of migration and work, rooted in human rights principles, international law, and Catholic social teaching. The article also draws on principles articulated in the Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM); the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR); and the Holy See’s Twenty Action Points for the Global Compacts. It ends with a series of recommendations that seek to bring this vision to fruition.


2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 1158-1183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelsey P. Norman

This article examines the 2013 migration policy liberalizations in Morocco and Turkey in order to understand whether predominantly “human rights-centric” or “diplomatic” factors influenced domestic decisions to reform migration policies. It uses original interview data collected in 2015, as well as policy documents, to examine the two reform processes and their initial consequences for migrants and refugees residing in each host state. While the academic literature on migration has focused on human rights-centric factors to understand historic migration policy reforms, Turkey and Morocco’s geopolitical and geographic positions between powerful neighbors to the north and important sending countries to the south mean that diplomatic factors are also key to understanding the incentives behind reform. This article’s findings have important implications for scholars of international migration, demonstrating that while countries like Morocco and Turkey may implement liberal and inclusive policies if there are diplomatic and economic gains to be had from doing so, such policies may have little impact on the everyday lives of individual migrants and refugees residing in these states and may be subject to reversals if such states’ geopolitical calculations change.


2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 593-613 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Flynn

Global migration challenges are reinforcing long-standing trends that involve shifting immigration control measures beyond national borders and incorporating new actors into detention systems. Proposals to shape migration management policies — including discussions on developing a Global Compact for Migration — recognize the need to involve a range of actors to implement humane and effective strategies. However, when observed through the lens of immigration detention, some policy trends raise challenging questions, particularly those that lead to increasing roles for non-state actors in migration control. This article critically assesses a range of new actors who have become involved in the deprivation of liberty of migrants and asylum seekers, describes the various forces that appear to be driving their engagement, and makes a series of recommendations concerning the role of non-state actors and detention in global efforts to manage international migration. These recommendations include: • ending the use the detention in international migration management schemes; • limiting the involvement of private companies in immigration control measures; • insisting that the International Organization for Migration (IOM) actively endorse the centrality of human rights in the Global Compact for Migration and amend its constitution so that it makes a clear commitment to international human rights standards; and • encouraging nongovernmental organizations to carefully assess the services they provide when operating in detention situations to ensure that their work contributes to harm reduction.


Author(s):  
Luara Ferracioli

In this chapter, I bring non-ideal theory to bear on the ethics of immigration. In particular, I explore what the obligations of liberal states would be if they were to attempt to implement migration arrangements that conform to liberal-cosmopolitan principles. I argue that some of the obligations states have are feasibility-insensitive, while some are feasibility-sensitive. I show that such obligations can have as their content both the inclusion and exclusion of prospective immigrants, and that they can be grounded in the requirements of liberal justice, mere capacity to assist, as well as past or foreseeable contribution to harm. The chapter therefore explores the possibility of an international migration regime that takes human rights seriously whilst avoiding the twin pitfalls of strict immigration restrictions and the complete liberalization of immigration.


2020 ◽  
pp. 231150242091322
Author(s):  
Donald Kerwin

Executive Summary This research was conducted at the request of the International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) as part of a two-year special initiative entitled “The Future of Work, Labour After Laudato Sì.” 1 This article explores the future of work, international migration, and the intersection of the two at a time of rapid change, uncertainty, and disruption for migrants, laborers, and their families and communities. It draws on human rights principles, international law, and religious values, particularly from the Catholic tradition, to chart an ethical approach to the governance of these timeless phenomena. What does the future hold? Under one dystopian scenario, the future of work will be characterized by massive job loss due to automation, robotics, and artificial intelligence. Politicians and business leaders will characterize the resulting human displacement as an unavoidable “disruption” and byproduct of change. Euphemisms, however, will poorly mask the loss of livelihood, self-esteem, and a central marker of identity for countless persons, particularly the poor and vulnerable. Technological advances will decimate families, communities, and entire ways of life. For many, stable work will become a thing of the past, and technology an instrument of marginalization and discrimination. Algorithms will be used to “perpetuate gender bias” ( ILO 2019a , 35), pit workers against each other, and squeeze the maximum productivity from them for the minimum compensation. The “inappropriate use” and “weak governance” of algorithms will lead to “biases, errors and malicious acts” ( Albinson, Krishna, and Chu 2018 ). Large swaths of the world’s citizens will become (at best) the unhappy dependents of states and global elites. The future of migration seems equally daunting. Current trends suggest that the number of international migrants will continue to rise due to job displacement, violence, natural disaster, and states that cannot or will not meet their fundamental responsibilities. If the past is prologue, unscrupulous politicians and media sources will also continue to blame migrants for the economic and cultural displacement of their constituents, xenophobia will increase, and migrants will encounter hostility in host communities. Natives will criticize their governments and institutions for failing to protect their interests and needs, and migrant laborers will be caught in the middle. This article does not minimize the urgency of the challenges presented by migration and work. It documents the unacceptable living, working, and migration conditions of immense numbers of the world’s citizens. It offers, however, a more optimistic vision of the future than the dystopian view, a vision characterized by international cooperation and solidarity. It recognizes the potential of technology “to render labour superfluous, ultimately alienating workers and stunting their development,” but also its potential to “free workers from arduous labour; from dirt, drudgery, danger and deprivation” and “to reduce work-related stress and potential injuries” ( ILO 2019 , 43). It recognizes the way in which fear of displacement can lead to exclusionary nationalism and xenophobia, but also the possibility of unity based on the shared values embedded in the cultures of diverse persons. It recognizes the costs of migration, but also its immense contributions to host communities. The article argues for person-centered systems and policies that promote the freedom, rights, and dignity of workers, migrants, and migrant workers, and that strengthen migrant host communities. It begins by examining the challenges facing low-income and vulnerable migrants who struggle for decent work, are the most likely to lose their jobs, and are “the least equipped to seize new job opportunities” ( ILO 2019 , 18). 2 It then presents an ethical, person-centered vision of migration and work, rooted in human rights principles, international law, and Catholic social teaching. The article also draws on principles articulated in the Global Compact on Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM); the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR); and the Holy See’s Twenty Action Points for the Global Compacts. It ends with a series of recommendations that seek to bring this vision to fruition.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-155
Author(s):  
Allison Petrozziello

Statelessness has been described as the result of unintentional gaps between citizenship policies excluding individuals who move, form relationships and reproduce across international borders. But what if the rise in statelessness is not a technicality, but a strategy of slippery statecraft meant to design the citizenry a given state is willing to protect? This paper places statelessness within the context of neoliberal globalisation and international migration and provides a critical global governance view of contemporary causes of statelessness, key actors working on it and their framing of the issue within global governance frameworks. I argue that the dominant framing of statelessness as a technical issue obviates the politics behind statelessness as slippery statecraft, leading proposed solutions to fall short. Critical research may help advocates make the case for inclusion, appealing to broader state interests and networks, without abandoning attendant human rights obligations.


2009 ◽  
Vol 3 (4-5) ◽  
pp. 143-163
Author(s):  
Ana María Oyarce ◽  
Fabiana Del Popolo ◽  
Jorge Martínez Pizarro

Latin America is a multi-ethnic and multicultural region with over 650 indigenous peoples currently recognized by its States. These peoples are highly diverse, but their common denominator is the structural discrimination they suffer in the form of marginalization, exclusion and poverty. In this context, indigenous international migration is becoming more significant, not so much because of its quantitative impacts, but because of the particular traits of indigenous migrants and the policy implications for human rights. Migration is directly linked to land, natural resources, territories and territoriality, which have a dual dimension: as a cultural and ethnic “anchoring” factor; and as a factor in expulsion, owing to impoverishment and growing pressure on indigenous lands and resources. Since this is a multicultural and pluri-ethnic process, new concepts need to be developed in order to: a) distinguish indigenous international migration in the true sense from the indigenous people’s ancestral territorial mobility, and b) incorporate these issues in regional and national agendas about international migration under a human rights perspective.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (59) ◽  
pp. 423
Author(s):  
Ivette ESIS ◽  
Thiago PALUMA ◽  
Bianca Guimarães SILVA

RESUMO Objetivos: O presente artigo tem como objetivo principal atestar, sistematizar e analisar os parâmetros de proteção dos direitos humanos dos migrantes no âmbito do Sistema Interamericano de Direitos Humanos. Metodologia: Adotou-se uma abordagem de caráter histórico, teórico e bibliográfico, a partir de método qualitativo e de pesquisa bibliográfica e documental. Utilizou-se jurisprudências e pareceres consultivos da Corte Interamericana no lapso temporal de 1999 a 2018. Resultados: Os resultados afirmam a existência de dez parâmetros protetivos e apontam que o estabelecimento de critérios objetivos de aplicação dos parâmetros orienta a sua implementação de maneira adequada. A partir da análise realizada, constatou-se que a Corte fomenta a proteção integral e multidisciplinar do imigrante, visando protegê-lo em todos as fases migratórias, sobretudo em situações pertinentes ao continente americano como a detenção migratória, a irregularidade documental e a vulnerabilidade dos migrantes. Contribuições: A relevância deste estudo é demonstrada no contexto da multidisciplinaridade das migrações, em que a sua proteção seja integral e contemple todas as fases migratórias: desde a saída de um indivíduo do seu Estado de origem até a chegada no Estado receptor, bem como os possíveis casos de deportação, trânsito ou estadia permanente. Palavras-chave: Migração Internacional; parâmetros de proteção; Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos. ABSTRACT Objective: The main objective of this article is to attest, systematize and analyze the parameters for the protection of the human rights of migrants within the framework of the Inter-American Human Rights System. Methodology: A historical, theoretical and bibliographic approach was adopted using a qualitative method and bibliographic and documentary research. The jurisprudence and advisory opinions of the Inter-American Court were used in the period from 1999 to 2018. Results:The results affirm the existence of ten protective parameters and point out that the establishment of objective criteria for the application of the parameters guides its implementation in an appropriate manner. The Court promotes the full and multidisciplinary protection of immigrants, aiming to protect them in all migratory phases, especially in situations pertinent to the American continent, such as migratory detention, documentary irregularities and the vulnerability of immigrants. Contributions: The relevance of this study is demonstrated in the context of the multidisciplinary nature of migration, in which its protection is comprehensive and includes all migratory phases: from the departure of an individual from his country of origin to the arrival in the receiving country, as well as possible cases deportation, transit or permanent stay. Keywords: International migration; standard of protection; Inter-American Court of Human Rights.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document