The limits of the law

I am looking forward to reading this book.

Garden Court Immigration Blog

Taimour Lay reviews Borderline Justice: The fight for refugee and migrant rights, a new book by former Garden Court barrister Frances Webber.

BorderlineJusticeImmigration has for so long been captured by the cynical myth-making of the right that any call for a world of ‘no borders’ faces summary dismissal as utopian and detached from public opinion. Even more cautious manifestos for a freer and more humane regime are today cast well outside the political mainstream.

View original post 861 more words

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The limits of the law

  1. johnvmarsch says:

    From the review:

    The ethical and economic arguments that underlie a challenge to our fortress-states have in fact never been more compelling; not the right-wing libertarian view that sees free movement of labour as the desirable concomitant to free movement of capital, but a socialist one which stresses each individual as more than a unit of labour, as a citizen protected by certain fundamental rights, as part of a community with whom free movement and association would not lead to the chaos and conflict of tabloid imagination, but rather to more prosperity, greater communication and interchange, more balanced demographics, and material expansion.

    Do you have any idea what the reviewer means by “more balanced demographics”?

    • David Neale says:

      I’m guessing “more racially and culturally diverse demographics”, but I could be mistaken.

      • johnvmarsch says:

        I can’t think what else he could mean.

        To equate “more diverse” with “more balanced” is quite a radical step when you think about it. He’s not saying: “Don’t be alarmed — diversity won’t upset the equilibrium of your non-diverse culture.” He’s saying: “Diversity corrects the inherent disequilibrium that your non-diverse culture suffers as a result of its lack of diversity.”

      • David Neale says:

        Well, of course “balanced” is a value judgment. But I for one find that living in a more diverse community makes life better.

        However, this is independent of the primary reason why I advocate the abolition of immigration controls. I advocate open immigration not primarily because immigration benefits our society – although it does – but because I don’t believe in principle that it is morally justified to discriminate against people or subject them to violence because of the circumstances of their birth or of their entry to this country. The existing immigration enforcement system inflicts violence, brutality and human suffering on a horrifying scale – directed against some of the most marginalized people in our society. I oppose this because I believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every person, regardless of nationality, and I believe in fighting back against oppression.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s