Moral proximity and the territorial imperative

Abstract

In The Shifting Border, Ayelet Shachar offers us two concrete proposals for combatting the danger posed by the shifting border, especially to those crossing borders in search of safety. One proposal suggests that human rights travel with migrants, so that agents who control the border must take responsibility for protecting their human rights at the border. A second proposal, which forms the basis of my commentary below, asks that states consider alternative ways for migrants to seek protection safely. In responding to this second proposal, I make two proposals of my own that stem from Shachar's analysis: (1) her analysis offers us the resources we need in order to expand, not only the channels available to migrants for seeking protection, but also our sense of who should be involved in controlling admission, and (2) expanding the “who” that is involved in admission gives meaning to the concept of “moral proximity” which can help to overcome the territorial imperative that dominates the rules governing international migration, i.e., the imperative that protection travels with physical access to territory, only.

Reply to my critics

“…Instead of abstractly reevaluating the state's right to exclude, Lenard follows The Shifting Border's methodology by working from the ground up. Drawing upon recent experimentation (in Canada and elsewhere) with community-based refugee sponsorship programs that allow complete strangers to directly engage in the resettlement of newly arrived refugees with whom they have had no prior relationship, Lenard urges us to expand "our sense of who should be involved in controlling admission" (Lenard, 2021). I fully endorse this suggestion, which illustrates how we may begin to "enlarge the 'pie' of actors and stakeholders" who are relied on to provide aid to those seeking mobility and access to protection (Shachar, 2020, 267).…”

“…I fully endorse this suggestion, which illustrates how we may begin to "enlarge the 'pie' of actors and stakeholders" who are relied on to provide aid to those seeking mobility and access to protection (Shachar, 2020, 267). Lenard speaks enthusiastically of the pro-migration actions taken by individuals in their capacity as "citizen humanitarians" (Lenard, 2021). 1 She also mentions the stance taken by sanctuary cities which provide identity cards and services to undocumented migrants, and as such, may act against national policies.…”

“…Lenard argues persuasively that such action should not be seen exclusively through the lens of civil disobedience. Rather, it is a way to engage in vibrant democratic politics that creates new spaces to "question the exclusive jurisdiction of states to control borders" (Lenard, 2021). Once we adopt this lens, it becomes clear that a wide range of actors and agents are already involved in facilitating mobility: family members sponsor the admission of their loved ones; universities play a key role in recruiting international talent; employers rely on expedited visa processing; religious organizations petition the government to issue special permits to religious leaders who can serve their communities.…”