Access

There is need to examine who gets what and why from freer trans-national mobility or the lack of it. A vast majority of migrants are denied access to social security, civic services and economic opportunities based on their race, religion, and nationality because they are migrants. Access, especially for the mobile economic migrants, should be based on residence and not nationality. If obligations are on the basis of residence, rights should be too. This holds true at several levels: from the ethical perspective, from the perspective of the migrant, of the state and of the various regional...

There is need to examine who gets what and why from freer trans-national mobility or the lack of it. A vast majority of migrants are denied access to social security, civic services and economic opportunities based on their race, religion, and nationality because they are migrants. Access, especially for the mobile economic migrants, should be based on residence and not nationality. If obligations are on the basis of residence, rights should be too. This holds true at several levels: from the ethical perspective, from the perspective of the migrant, of the state and of the various regional groupings that have facilitated easier movement of people. Access for migrants also implies costs of migration. Who stands to gain and lose? Migration cannot be discussed without situating it within the wider context of the politics of belonging and the racial shadow on the movement of people.