Response to Andrew S. Rosenberg’s Review of Crossing: How We Label and React to People on the Move

Abstract

North. Crossing then describes how Global South states developed and signed regional refugee agreements—the Organization of African Unity Convention of 1969 and the 1984 Cartagena Declaration on Refugees—to address their concerns with the global regime (pp. 99-107). While these regional agreements represent key fixtures of Global South resistance and solidarity, case studies of treatment of Syrians in the Middle East and Venezuelans in Latin America reveal how the migrant/refugee binary continues to structure political responses and public opinion toward mass displacement. Hamlin also provides illustrative case studies of Europe and the United States to show how the labels affixed to people on the move structure political discourse in both the North and South. In both cases, the problem with maintaining the binary is that it obscures external causes of displacement and allows contemporary anti-migrant sentiment to fester. For example, recognizing that the United States’ interventions in Central America sowed the seeds of contemporary mass movements breaks down the necessity of the migrant/refugee distinction, and it raises important questions about the rights of those affected by such coercive interventions. Crossing’s exploration of the origin and effect of the migrant/refugee binary puts it at the center of modern migration debates. However, this centrality, scope, and ambition also raise several further questions. First, what is the role of race in perpetuating themigrant/refugee binary? Hamlin selectively touches on issues of race, most notably in its discussions of colonialism (pp. 30, 34-36) and European responses to Mediterranean arrivals (p. 123). Yet, while these discussions reveal that racial discrimination and white supremacy likely shaped the emergence of restrictive migration policies and unequal sovereignty in the postwar era, there is little discussion of the role race played in the construction of the migrant/refugee binary itself. Hamlin discusses how the terms “migrant” and “refugee” are politically constructed to minimize the suffering and exploitation of the non-white Global South. But racial perceptions seem to lurk in that minimization, and they go undiscussed. For instance, we learn that the migrant/refugee binary allowsGlobal North states to avoid acknowledging how colonialism caused mass migration and displacement. But how do racialized perceptions lead European publics to assume that migrants are undesirable economic actors? A second question is how we should think about solutions to the migrant/refugee binary. This problem is thorny because the binary has become received wisdom in the scholarly, lay, and policy-making communities. This ideology is difficult to subvert because, as several chapters in Crossing reveal, politicians and citizens use it to warrant restrictive migration policies. But what should be done? Hamlin implores us to “move beyond binary” thinking, which she associates with avoiding discussing the culpability of border crossers and referring to them as a singularity, as opposed to distinct types (p. 161). These calls are admirable, but they are expressed in the passive voice. I wondered who needs to change their behavior and the prospects for those changes to occur. For example, if this call refers to academics, then we must deal with the uncomfortable question of the role of academics in public life: how much does the scholarly voice matter? What is the best way to convince organizations like UNHCR to change their approach to refugee governance and activism, particularly given the role the binary plays in bolstering its organizational legitimacy? If the call refers to policymakers or the public, then it raises a final question. Given, 1) the electoral incentives that politicians face, 2) the issues of race and racism discussed earlier, and 3) that the public typically responds to elite cues, is moving beyond the binary even a possibility? As Hamlin reminds us, politicians continue to trade on anti-border crosser rhetoric, and they likely do so because it works. This seemingly dire question, particularly in the Global North, provides an important path forward for future research, and the conclusion of Undesirable Immigrants points in the same direction. Hamlin’s argument points out that breaking down the conditions that allow structural inequalities in international migration to fester requires deep engagement with how states make policy decisions, which in part depends on the migrant/ refugee binary. Destabilizing that binary emphasizes that scholars must work at the intersection of political communication and migration studies to investigate both the power that leaders have over their constituents, as well as ways to educate the public to overcome the power of the bully pulpit. To reiterate, Crossing is an important book that will generate significant debate. Unsurprisingly, the scope and importance of the book’s argument raises more questions than it answers, but the looming threat of climate migration continues to reveal the importance of treating all border crossers with equal moral worth, irrespective of their presumed culpability or motive. Hamlin provides further confirmation of this task’s difficulty as it intimates the very real extent that moral worth, deservingness, and race unfortunately will remain highly correlated.