photo
SHARE | PRINT | TEXT SIZE: ＋ － | RSS

When People Cross Borders

East Timorese refugees board a ferry in Wini, West Timor  [Christopher Lowenstein-Lom ©IOM 1999]

When people cross borders, they bring many things with them. They bring, of course, themselves. They also bring their ideas, their language and culture, their needs, talents and expectations. Some of the things brought by people on the move--money, talent, energy and creativity--are welcomed by the receiving country, and missed in their country of origin. In contrast, states make determined efforts to prevent such things as infectious disease, illicit drugs and contraband, links to crime and terror networks from being carried across their borders.

The meaning and impact of the transnational movement of people varies depending on a number of factors. Is the stay short-term, as in the case of tourists, or is it long-term or permanent--the start of a new life in a new land?

Most essentially, is the move voluntary--as in the case of people seeking new opportunities--or is it compelled--as in the case of people fleeing persecution, war, economic or environmental hardship in their native place?

The movement of people opens an important window on the relationship between people and states. It raises questions about the meaning of citizenship and identity, what it is to belong to or be excluded from a particular society (or to live with some intermediary status). It also brings into focus tensions between the humanitarian imperative and legal obligation to respond to people in distress and the perceived need of societies to maintain a sense of coherence. This is usually expressed as the right of the state to exercise control over how many, and which, "outsiders" are "let in," a right that is central to contemporary conceptions of state sovereignty. Indeed, control over migration remains one of the last bastions of the truly sovereign state.

For most of modern history, it was assumed that states had the right to control both emigration and immigration; that they had an equal right to prevent people with desirable talents from leaving as to prevent people deemed undesirable from entering their territory. The concept of the freedom of movement--the right to leave any country and the right to enter one's own country--is of relatively recent currency. It was first enunciated in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and further supported by a raft of international and regional multilateral treaties, including the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Asylum Issues

But of critical concern here are cases in which people who deserve protection are unable to find a safe place to go. That is, while people who feel threatened have the right to seek asylum, for their part states are obliged to consider, but not necessarily grant, asylum. Some states interpret their obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention generously while other states grant refugee status to very few asylum seekers. The right to leave one country is nowhere mirrored by the right to enter another.

A convoy returning internally displaced people in Tajikistan to the capital, Dushanbe [Cemil Alyanak ©IOM 1995]

Each state guards its prerogative to determine who it will choose to admit, for how long and under what conditions. In terms of moral logic, the right of people to leave a country, whether voluntarily or under duress, is meaningful only when there is another country willing to accept them. At the same time, however, the unqualified right to enter any country would mean the complete opening of borders. This is a prospect that most people would find unacceptably threatening, given the already damaging flow of "global bads" (drugs, weapons, etc.).

Framework of Rights

What, then, are the options? Immigration theorist Phillip Cole suggests "a framework of international rights dealing with immigration, setting out principles of justice which all states can be expected to apply in shaping their immigration policies."

Ultimately, the challenge posed by people crossing borders is one of rethinking our understanding of such core questions as what it means to be human, what it means to belong to a culture, and what we can learn and gain through contact with people whose experience and values differ from our own.

In this sense, perhaps it is important to remember that mobility is one of the defining characteristics of the human species. This, linked with our astonishing capacity to adapt to new environments, is what enabled our species to succeed in inhabiting virtually the entire globe in what was, by the standards of biological development, the twinkling of an eye. The movement of people has likewise been crucial in the generation of human culture. New cultural forms typically arise in response to the stimulus of contact with new cultures and the worldviews they embody. It is axiomatic that the periods of greatest cultural flourishing have been times of dynamic interaction among peoples.

It is easy to succumb to fear of that which is "other"--different and unfamiliar. There is always the impulse to withdraw and exclude. It is for this reason we should remain clearly aware of the deeply creative aspects of the transnational movement of people, even as we negotiate the difficult questions it provokes.

The SGI Quarterly would like to thank Johanna Stratton of Peace Boat for her assistance in the preparation of this article.

TOP