INTRODUCTION
On
March 27th 2015, during the weekly celebration of the Biennale Democrazia,[1]
the IUC organized an open activity at the International University College of
Turin (IUC).[2]
The aim of this activity was to think critically about one of the most
provocative claims of migration studies, as explicitly made by the political
theorist Joseph H. Carens: should borders
be free?[3]
In
order to involve all the participants[4] in
this very hard discussion, as part of the organizers, we built upon previous
methods used by Prof. Ulrich and Maurizio Veglio in their classes at the
clinical program of human rights and migration law at IUC. Fundamentally, these
teaching methods have the following characteristics: after explaining the topic
of the debate which was “No Borders”, they make the participant “choose sides”
of their likes either for or against the motion on the controversial issue and
they forge an active role on the debate about the political and moral dimension
of law.
In
this paper, I aim to bring together the main outcomes positive and negative
that came out of this event. I will also dwell on taking a meddle position here
in other to allow the reader to make a choice. It will be left to the reader of
this paper to support either sides. I will address in details how the activity
was designed and how the participants of the “no borders event” reacted to our
pedagogical experiment[5].
Why the
activity was designed?
The IUC as a university college believes in debating
on topical issues and attempting a solution to them. According to the director
of the whole programme and the university, the IUC partake in fair academic
exercises that will bring about a positive societal change. The whole programme
or event was in honour of the “Biennale Democrazia”-a
biennial festival of Torino. For this particular year, it was on many touching
topical matters among which migration stands challenging and thus was deliberately
chosen by the organizing committee.
The event was organised days before its actual
happening to allow many people an opportunity to witness and contribute their quotas to one of the
outstanding political, social and economic problem of our society.
The organizers believed that dividing participants
into groups was more effective and productive than the alternative. And so it
was. The two professors then gives the floor to the groups to make their discussions
and findings in one and half hour and bring forward their presentation.
Participants
that were divided into two groups came from all part of the world. They were
burdened to see economically, socially, politically to name but a few within a scientific
framework whether or not should we open borders. In short, whether borders
makes sense anymore?
Rafael Zanatta and Alagie Jinkang led these groups(36
all together and each group 18) to discussions at different locations. They
coach them and belongs to those respective groups thereof. They wrote the
findings and assisted by three other participants from the groups presented
their final outcomes.
The goals of the event were to discuss on migration as
a natural phenomenon and a normal thing that should be seen in that perspective
to be appropriately tackled. The organizers vehemently believed that until the
people are well educated on the realities of migration (positive and negative)
nothing successful will be achieved.
REASONING AND
ARGUMENTS FOR THE “NO BORDERS”
In
this debate, the supporters of the motion “Open Borders” who had sought to have
win the debate deliberated well. They claimed borders to be meaningless
especially when we look at the Mediterranean issue. They said these borders are
unfair and unrealistic especially in our world today. These debaters who came
from many cultures around the world claimed that borders are much of a
political conscience, artificial and uneconomical.
“Many
millions are invested in borders and proves not to have serve to decrease ‘illegal’
migration. In discussions of immigration and border security,
attention often focuses on the 1,954-mile land border between the United States
and Mexico. Yet the federal agencies involved in immigration enforcement have
personnel and operations at other U.S. borders and at ports of entry in all 50
states. Over the past two decades, increased federal funding for border
security has meant more facilities, equipment, and personnel devoted to this
mission. Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in
2003, funding for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the agency that manages
the nation’s borders, has risen from $6.6 billion to $12.4 billion in fiscal 2014—in
real terms, a 91 percent increase.[6] We should by now think
where these monies are going because there are no improvements towards
controlling ‘illegal’ migration in the Mediterranean sea, as well as in the
south American borders[7]”
they said.
“Thousands
of lives are lost already in this venture[8].
Are we out to help these people or to push them to commit suicide by closing
the borders before them? Border control methods as we have now are pushing migrants
to take more illegal ways of entries than ever before. This is calling many people
to their untimely graves mentioning the death toll of more than 3000 people
only in this year in the Mediterranean[9] ”
they lamented.
According
to this group of debaters, who depended on the arguments of Joseph H. Caren on
“OPEN BORDERS” claimed that not only are these border control methods
ineffective but also inhumane. They claimed that immigrants using the
Mediterranean are normal people with all rights as those constructing laws
against them. These are people leaving their homelands mostly because they are
compelled to do so. They have families, they have cultures and religions
running from wars, famine, diseases, poverty, natural disasters, and other
social conflicts caused by human dictators or other negative dictating factors that
are beyond their control or at least their individual levels. The majority of
those people will chose to leave home if there are possibilities. They held the
cosmopolitan believe that as human beings we should not give up solidarity by
closing borders and kill people.
The
debaters took a historical glass on this condition and concluded it is morally unfair
and unlawful to close our borders before these people.
“Many
European boats were duck on the Asian and the African coasts in the times of
slavery and colonialism for ‘exploitation’ but then it was never call illegal
migration. These were times when Europeans were going in their mass numbers to
exploit Africa and Asia, but boats are now “illegal” because it is Africans and
Asian people using them to save their lives. It is now ‘illegal migration’ and
was called ‘exploration’ when done by Europeans. Europe and America should be
merciful to these people now and should be ready to at least compensate them
what they have been robed off by accommodating them. They are poor because
Europe and America have gone rich by plundering them. If borders are
deliberately constructed before these people, it will further aggravate their
losses and leads to more unsuccessful inhuman borders control methods” said the
group for the motion defending themselves with the moral point of views given
by Joseph H. Caren.
When
they turn their focus to how we are culturally separated from each other, when
we still claimed to have live in a liberal world or in a global village, these
debaters said opening borders will closed this gap. People will be more
integrated culturally and religiously and that will facilitate and motivate
economic boom where there are no borders. And they further claim that the
movement of people through the opening of borders will encourage economic
development such as in creating employment opportunities since no one country
will like to lose her population and thus will be forced to provide services to
them. Closed borders will prevent social cohesion and encourage conflicts.
Opening our borders according to this group of debaters, will annihilate all
misconception about invasion since according to them multicultural societies
are more democratic and open than closed societies giving examples of Canada
and the U.S.
They
further denied the claimed pronounced by many politicians on intellectual,
religious and cultural conflicts that will be cause if borders are open, saying
that opening our borders will create more positive integration. This group had
it that open borders motivate language, religious, traditional, and educational
evolutions that closed borders failed to do and that as intellectuals we should
accept opening our borders and raise awareness on the issue in our societies.
Sensitisation and orientation according to them will serve to solve this
problem and save many lives since to them the root cause of the close border
issue is the lack of education.
“Growth
is worth it. Opening borders will replace the aging population and inspire
progress. Since we have different age groups, other countries or regions are
more fortunate than others, encouraging the movement of people will simply
solve that problem” they continued.
In
concluding their claims, these debaters said nothing will be more important
than reciprocating. They said the trans-Atlantic relations will promote both
south-north relationships and north-south relationships thereby denying a
‘south-north parasitism’ as argued by some authors. However, agreeing on
intellectual basis to what they call as ‘expensive expenses’ involve in the
Mediterranean affairs, these group recognised the lack of international support
towards aiding entering points of these ‘refugees’ and call for international
solidarity in burden sharing. They call on the EU member states to help Italy
and Greece which are the main entering points.
A
striking point among many was that, at the point of guns, floods, tsunamis,
poverty to mentioned but a few, how did the developed world expect to receive a
visa or a valid travelling document(s) from these people. Where is our sense of
morality defining subjects like refugee to control people from escaping losing
their lives? Why do we call it illegal when they have no other mode to saving
their lives? Are they more criminals than we are in creating bad laws to kill
those in need?
Open
border still continue to be a great discourse yet sensitisation is lacking on
it they concluded.
REASONING AND ARGUMENTS
IN FAVOUR OF THE “NO BORDERS
The group of participants against the “no borders
thesis” was formed by students with different backgrounds (e.g. law, economics and sociology) and from different countries (e.g. Russia, Italy, canada and China)..
As an outcome they presented five arguments against the idea of opening the
borders for all people all around the world.
They claimed that the “open borders” does not mean that
migrants will have rights. Therefore, migrants can suffer with human rights
protection, considering that countries will not necessarily harmonize their
legal protections.
They claimed that opening of borders might imply that
developing countries’ citizens will not have incentives to develop or improve
their national political and economic systems, because people will try to move
to Europe where “everything is ready” and oppression occur in a much lower
level.
They argued that the opening of borders might increase
intercultural conflict. The concrete examples mentioned by the group were the
Islamic banking system in Russia and the Muslim veil prohibition in France.
These defenders claimed that the opening of borders
generates a problem of public policy planning and allocation of resources in
the country that receives the migrants. This would happen because governments
would not have stable previsions and population data. This would create a
problem for the “rationalization of government” in the sense that it would
become difficult to anticipate public policy issues that are connected to the
characteristics and needs of a determinate population.
They concluded claiming that the opening of borders
creates a scenario for desperate use of natural resources (e.g. water) and stifle innovation and technological improvement in
countries with bad conditions. The argument is twofold. First, the group
claimed that, in a hypothetical scenario of really scarce water resources, people
would massively move to countries like Brazil, in which rivers have abundant
clean water. But this could also lead to an unsustainable use of resources that
could lead to its end (something like a “tragedy of the commons”). Second, the
group claimed that this enhanced mobility would make people less opened to
challenges and hard situations in their own environment. This could lead to
less social cohesion and very few incentives for technological solutions that
demand joint commitment and discipline.[10]
CONCLUSION
This important debate that sparks more light on the
matter that our society strives to provide a tangible solution to. The moderators of the event and professors of
the great event recapitulate the main points of the debaters and awarding
praises to both groups for their eloquent and research and effort in making the
event successful and memorial in the academic calendar of the IUC.
[2]
IUC is a college created in 2008 that offers a master’s course of comparative
law, economics and finance. It is focused on interdisciplinary and critical
analysis of law. The IUC also offers a clinical program on human rights and
migration law. For more info, see http://iuctorino.it/
[3]
Carens’ argument is best synthesized in his latest book, which inspired our
activity. Cf. Joseph H. Carens, The
Ethics of Migration. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013, p. 225-254
(chapter “the case for open borders”). Researchers can find different debates around
Carens’ work. See, e.g., Joseph H
Carens, Aliens and Citizens: the case for open borders, The Review of Politics, v. 49, n. 02, p. 251-273, 1987; Jürgen
Habermas, Straggles for Recognition in Constitutional States, European Journal
of Philosophy, v. 1, n. 2, p. 128-155, 1993; Matteo Gianni, Multiculturalisme
et Démocratie: quelques implications pour la théorie de la citoyenneté. Swiss
Political Science Review, v. 1, n. 4, p. 1-38, 1995; Myron Weiner, The Global
Migration Crisis: challenge to states and to human rights. MIT: Harper Collings
College Publishers, 1995, p. 171-182; Daniel Loewe, Immigración y El Derecho de
Gentes de John Rawls: argumentos a favor de un derecho a movimiento sin
fronteras, Revista de Ciencia política, v. 27, n. 2, p. 23-48, 2007; Lea Ypi,
Justice in Migration: A Closed Borders Utopia?, Journal of Political Philosophy,
v. 16, n. 4, p. 391-418, 2008; Ricard Zapata-Barrero, Utopian Political Theory
and Migration without Borders. International Journal of Social Science Studies,
v. 1, n. 1, p. p173-183, 2013.
[4]
Participants added to the students and professors of the IUC, include an
activist and a law student from Egypt, lawyers from Italy, two human right
lawyers from Sweden and one blogger and journalist from Germany, a politician
from England plus others natives from the city of Torino all graced the
ceremony and contributed to the debate.
[5]
I account here as the organizers was indispensable as it helped facilitate the
whole event successfully. The two professors of the migration clinic plus
Rafael Zanatta and the author of this paper all belongs to different schools of
taught. However, this great balance from the side of the facilitators ease and
enrich the whole discussion. The programme started at 10am in the morning at
the IUC third floor and ended at 1pm. It was a three hours of contested debate.
[6]
See The Pew Charitable Trusts Research & Analysis Immigration Enforcement Along U.S. Borders and at Ports of
Entry
[7] Ibib Border Patrol does
not operate at land ports of entry but does apprehend individuals who cross the
border without authorization between these ports. It maintains and monitors
border fencing, patrols land borders, operates land-based surveillance
equipment, and conducts search and rescue missions, among other duties. The
agency is organized into 20 sectors that cover all 50 states. (See Figure 2.)
The number of Border Patrol agents has grown from 10,717 in fiscal 2003 to
21,391 in fiscal 2013—a 99 percent increase.7 It has been especially notable along
the southwestern border. Still, the northern border also saw a gain in agents,
from 569 in fiscal 20038 to
2,212 in fiscal 2014.
[8] See http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/9/29/migrant-deaths-report.html Researchers collated
previously scattered data on migrant deaths since 2000 and settled on a
conservative tally of 40,000 victims worldwide — or about eight each day over
the past 14 years. As steep as that estimate is, the IOM said it likely
undershoots the actual number of irregular migrants who perish making arduous journeys across land and sea because so many governments make no
attempt to keep track of their deaths.
[9] The results of IOM’s
research found a concentration of migrant deaths in the Mediterranean Sea,
about 75 percent, or 3,072 of the estimated deaths this year, compared with 700
in all of 2013. The Italian government has already reported nearly three times
the number of undocumented migrants attempting to reach its soil than in 2013,
or 112,000 people. Those figures, the IOM noted, reflect a “dramatic increase
in the number of migrants trying to reach Europe.
[10]
The group mentioned South Korea as a concrete example of how natural barriers
(topography and few conditions for agriculture) created, along the past
centuries, cultural conditions for more cohesion and cooperation for
development.
No comments:
Post a Comment