AdvancedPractices/MediaMigrationGovernance
12
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Releases Wiki Activity

Update 'content/session/casascortes.md'

Browse source 
changed heading hierarchy
This commit is contained in:
inga 2022-06-13 05:44:59 -07:00
parent aa1cf8eb9d
commit 47f1b87509
1 changed files with 1 additions and 3 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

4
content/session/casascortes.md
View file

@ -2,8 +2,6 @@
title = "Politics of Disobedience – Ensuring Freedom of Movements in a B/Ordered World" title = "Politics of Disobedience – Ensuring Freedom of Movements in a B/Ordered World"
+++ +++
# Politics of Disobedience – Ensuring Freedom of Movements in a B/Ordered World
Acts of border crossing bring territory and body together in deeply contrasting ways. As such, the border constitutes the space where different visions of mobility clash on an everyday basis. This raises questions as to what kind and scale of politics might work in that contested territory. Current migration policies guarantee a system of privileges in which *a few* are allowed to freely move while *many* are under attack throughout their journey. Indeed, in order to sustain such a hierarchical system, a high-tech matrix of violent surveillance mechanisms and exclusionary bureaucracies has developed inside and outside borderlines. This unequal way of dealing with human mobility, is slowly being normalised and if contested, usually focuses on the humanitarian consequences affecting a concrete set of people. Outraged by the unnecessary and ongoing human suffering that is institutionally induced, certain pro-migration activist initiatives work on exposing and avoiding the structural logics and practices of arbitrary restriction enacted by this border matrix. Movements are able to do this by not taking two main axes of migration control ideology for granted: the space of the border and the condition of illegality. Acts of border crossing bring territory and body together in deeply contrasting ways. As such, the border constitutes the space where different visions of mobility clash on an everyday basis. This raises questions as to what kind and scale of politics might work in that contested territory. Current migration policies guarantee a system of privileges in which *a few* are allowed to freely move while *many* are under attack throughout their journey. Indeed, in order to sustain such a hierarchical system, a high-tech matrix of violent surveillance mechanisms and exclusionary bureaucracies has developed inside and outside borderlines. This unequal way of dealing with human mobility, is slowly being normalised and if contested, usually focuses on the humanitarian consequences affecting a concrete set of people. Outraged by the unnecessary and ongoing human suffering that is institutionally induced, certain pro-migration activist initiatives work on exposing and avoiding the structural logics and practices of arbitrary restriction enacted by this border matrix. Movements are able to do this by not taking two main axes of migration control ideology for granted: the space of the border and the condition of illegality.
Such questioning is an exception in conventional thinking about migration, which is based on a double assumption in both territorial and identity terms: First, borders are conventionally understood as clearly marked lines between countries, and second; the ingrained dichotomy of *citizen/illegal* is taken as a given, as two tattoos distinguishing who belongs to the assumed *us* and who, to the risky *them*. Even some scholarly literature on irregular migration and border management runs the risk of normalising those categories. On the one hand, studies focused on state-centered approaches to international relations ignore the growing policies of border externalisation by the EU, US and Australia. On the other hand, empirical studies trying to quantify and qualify types of human mobility as well as map irregular itineraries in terms of origin, transit and destination, contribute to normalising and legitimising the controversial exclusionary logic of migration control policies. Such questioning is an exception in conventional thinking about migration, which is based on a double assumption in both territorial and identity terms: First, borders are conventionally understood as clearly marked lines between countries, and second; the ingrained dichotomy of *citizen/illegal* is taken as a given, as two tattoos distinguishing who belongs to the assumed *us* and who, to the risky *them*. Even some scholarly literature on irregular migration and border management runs the risk of normalising those categories. On the one hand, studies focused on state-centered approaches to international relations ignore the growing policies of border externalisation by the EU, US and Australia. On the other hand, empirical studies trying to quantify and qualify types of human mobility as well as map irregular itineraries in terms of origin, transit and destination, contribute to normalising and legitimising the controversial exclusionary logic of migration control policies.
@ -34,7 +32,7 @@ Critical race studies and anti-racist organising have learned this lesson well,
As an immigrant under the Trump administration, I recall the productive grassroots organising in Spain right after the *15M* or *Indignados* movement during the Occupy wave: Increasingly precarious young people with “no job/no house/no future” about to migrate themselves, were linking arms with migrants from non-EU countries. While marked by racialised differences, a shared politics of disobedience might lead to an effective common struggle for access to b/ordered territories and their correspondent entitlements. When recognising how precarious conditions are spreading temporary arrangements and a continuous indeterminacy of life, the solidarity call of “we are all migrants” becomes even more real.[^casascortes_14] This is when a shared politics of disobedience makes sense in its assertiveness of contesting borders and ensuring freedom of movement for all. As an immigrant under the Trump administration, I recall the productive grassroots organising in Spain right after the *15M* or *Indignados* movement during the Occupy wave: Increasingly precarious young people with “no job/no house/no future” about to migrate themselves, were linking arms with migrants from non-EU countries. While marked by racialised differences, a shared politics of disobedience might lead to an effective common struggle for access to b/ordered territories and their correspondent entitlements. When recognising how precarious conditions are spreading temporary arrangements and a continuous indeterminacy of life, the solidarity call of “we are all migrants” becomes even more real.[^casascortes_14] This is when a shared politics of disobedience makes sense in its assertiveness of contesting borders and ensuring freedom of movement for all.
## References # References
[^casascortes_1] Noel Parker and Nick Vaughan-Williams, “Critical Border Studies: Broadening and Deepening the ‘Lines in the Sand’ Agenda”, *Geopolitics*, 17(4), 2012, pp. 727–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2012.706111 [accessed June 14, 2017]. [^casascortes_1] Noel Parker and Nick Vaughan-Williams, “Critical Border Studies: Broadening and Deepening the ‘Lines in the Sand’ Agenda”, *Geopolitics*, 17(4), 2012, pp. 727–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2012.706111 [accessed June 14, 2017].