We are now standing at the edge of an abyss. We cannot predict the future, but what I do know is this: How those of us who believe in an equitable, inclusive, multiracial democracy respond now will shape the country’s path forward.
— Marielena Hincapié in “The Democrats and Immigration”
For the past ten years or more, I’ve had the sense that debates on migration policy keep looping back on themselves, like a political Groundhog Day–at least, on the surface. Amongst most of the political leadership in Europe and North America, the predominant themes, once the remit of far-right politicians, seem to stay the same: securitization, outsourcing, deportation. That, when not outright vitriol and cruelty. Meanwhile, public opinion is often treated as if it is always hostile, even though the evidence shows us that on migration, as on many other topics, public opinion can shift significantly.
But even if it feels like Groundhog Day, a closer look at how policy and governance are evolving—and at how migration policy fits within the larger context—reveals a definitive progression. This progression is entrenching shifts in the public imagination over what is feasible and acceptable, in turn driving changes not only in migration policy but also, through migration, in our constitutional order and the very nature of democracy itself. Under the auspices of migration governance, previously unacceptable policies are normalized, while the fundamental rights of all are made more vulnerable. Under the pretext of tackling migration, the way we coexist and govern is being redefined. Were these shifts to occur overnight, they would likely be experienced as tectonic.
--
Editor's note: The ideas expressed in this blog are not necessarily those of the Othering & Belonging Institute or UC Berkeley, but belong to the author.
