Here, as promised, is the piece I have written for the Guardian Comment-is-Free website: Migration's real meaning - An obsessive focus on restricting migration bypasses global realities and prevents us from seeking a more positive approach to people's movement.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a0376/a0376cec0abc526305cd86ad5cdcdf025e00f781" alt=""
Second, the accusation is rapidly raised that my argument accepts the premise of unfettered capitalism. No. What I'm saying is that so long as capital can move unfettered, it is unfeasible and unjust (in a world of dissolving borders) to think of clamping down on people as a solution to the disequilibrium caused by massive inequality and other consequences of the 'rights of capital'. The point is that expecting migration policy to solve all the other problems you wish to ignore is palpably unrealistic - contrary to the bleatings of the 'get tough' lobby. The fact that there are no simple paths from where we are now to where we need to be heading for is no excuse for ignoring this. A paradigm shift is what I'm advocating, not a legitimation of the current patterns of globalisation. Or a simplistic belief that unqualified borders can resolve things.
2 comments:
I generally agree very much with your CiF piece, and with your rebuttals of the responses.
This is going to sound really superficial... but how come your portrait photo on the site is all corrupted and blurred. It looks like bad jpeg encoding. I know it sounds daft and shallow, but that kind of technical/aesthetic error probably effects the first-impression reception of your piece more than one might imagine!
Thanks, Bob. I'm also doing something on 'the numbers game', since this is a particular fixating point in this debate.
Dunno about the photo. The one I submitted was OK. I think they reduced the pixillation and squished it. Are some CIFers that superficial? You could be right ;)
Post a Comment