The free movement of people around the world would be Utopian: IUAES World Congress 2013: Evolving Humanity, Emerging Worlds, 5–10 August 2013

ABSTRACT

This article contains the text and discussion of a debate held at the IUAES World Congress in Anthropology at Manchester University in 2013. The motion was proposed by Bela Feldman-Bianco (State University of Campinas), seconded by Noel Salazar (University of Leuven) and was opposed by Shahram Khosravi (Stockholm University), seconded by Nicholas de Genova (then at Goldsmiths’ College). The debate was chaired by Simone Abram (Durham University).

KEYWORDS:

• Inequality
• mobility
• borders
• utopia
• freedom
• movement

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. A shorter version of this argument was published by the Silent University thesilentuniversity.org

2. This is trickier than it seems because the freedom of movement experienced by one person might be conceived by another as a threat of intrusion.

3. The main provision of the freedom of movement of persons is Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which prohibits restrictions on the basis of nationality.

4. These arguments have been recycled over and over again. Some of the most common arguments used to spoil attempts at broadening the migration discussion are: ‘concerns about the number of anticipated immigrants, the potential for brain drain, the Utopian nature of the proposal, and the effect of immigration on national culture and security’ (Moses 2006, 164).

5. This was partly due to the general context within which Utopian writing emerged: as an extension of travel writing, itself a product of the exploratory expansion of European commerce.

6. Early liberal thinkers considered the freedom of movement to be a natural right, giving it precedence over all prerogatives asserted by the state. Although many modern liberals have subsequently devalued the right of free movement, it is still defended by some contemporary observers, and this prerogative lies at the core of most open-border arguments.