| Summary: | Both international law and the immigration laws of liberal states have developed to mimic and reinforce a dichotomy between voluntary (often economically motivated) migrants who can be legitimately excluded by potential host states, and forced (often politically motivated) refugees who should be let in. This migrant/refugee binary is ubiquitous, even as it is strained by contemporary border crossing crises. The nuanced patterns of global migration and the lived experiences of border crossers push against the binary, revealing it to be a constructed "legal fiction." In Crossing, Rebecca Hamlin explores the prevalence of this conceptual dichotomy, and its significant consequences. She outlines some of the major inconsistencies and faulty assumptions upon which the binary relies, and explains its endurance and appeal by tracing its origins to the birth of the modern state. The book re-examines core works of political theorists on the ethics of border control and the rights of migrants from Kant to Arendt. It engages in an institutional analysis of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and contributes a rich empirical study of multiple unfolding border crossing "crises" in Europe, North America, South America, and the Middle East. Hamlin argue that like many social constructs, the migrant/refugee binary endures because it serves a purpose, which is to make harsh border control measures more ethically palatable. However, failure to account for the assumptions of the binary has negative consequences for policymaking, human rights advocacy, and the academic study of migration"--
|
|---|