Search results

The European Union's (EU) fundamental principles of free movement of persons and non-discrimination have long challenged the traditional closure of the welfare state. Whereas the relationship between the EU and the welfare state appeared largely reconciled before the grand enlargement of 2004, economic downturn and politicisation question the nexus anew. This collection explores the current dynamics, scope and limits of free movement and welfare equal treatment for EU citizens on the move. The different contributions bring together the normative, legal and political developments and about-turns which dynamically square the circle of pan-European social solidarity. The collection covers the new politics of EU cross-border welfare but also the structuring role of the European Court of Justice. It includes the political economy of free movement as well as its outputs and outcomes in selected member states. Finally, it analyses the mechanisms that activate attitudinal polarisation on intra-EU migration and welfare. ; The European Union's (EU) fundamental principles of free movement of persons and non-discrimination have long challenged the traditional closure of the welfare state. Whereas the relationship between the EU and the welfare state appeared largely reconciled before the grand enlargement of 2004, economic downturn and politicisation question the nexus anew. This collection explores the current dynamics, scope and limits of free movement and welfare equal treatment for EU citizens on the move. The different contributions bring together the normative, legal and political developments and about-turns which dynamically square the circle of pan-European social solidarity. The collection covers the new politics of EU cross-border welfare but also the structuring role of the European Court of Justice. It includes the political economy of free movement as well as its outputs and outcomes in selected member states. Finally, it analyses the mechanisms that activate attitudinal polarisation on intra-EU migration and welfare.

"Today we live in a world of walls and closed borders, but what should the world look like tomorrow? Open Borders counters the knee-jerk reaction to restrict migration by arguing that there is not a moral, legal, philosophical, or economic case for limiting the movement of human beings at borders. The book brings together influential theorists for open borders with activists working to make safe passage a reality on the ground to put forward a clear, concise, and convincing case for a world of open borders"--

AbstractEffective control of cross-border activities is nearly impossible in market-economy regimes which, in order to remain viable, have to keep their borders open to goods, capital and services. This article exposes the tensions between a legal system predicated on openness and a groundswell of security-driven rhetoric justifying coercive and ostracizing practices against foreigners.

This article argues that debate on Bill C-31 should, in fact, focus upon the fact that it is impossible to determine the veracity of refugee claims using current methods of adjudication, that Canadian refugee and immigration legislation is incompatible with the international conventions, declarations, and norms upon which it is said to be based, and the absurdity of restricting the free movement of peoples. Arguing that the immigration and refugee system already favours free movement for the rich and the well-connected, and that the proposed legislation will further punish those who already suffer greatly from current restrictions, the author suggests that Canada should work to assist those who desire to move by eliminating obstacles such as third-country clauses, visa restrictions, and prohibitively priced airline tickets, and that rather than penalize those who assist in people's natural desire to move around, Canadian officials should help find ways to encourage the movement of peoples on whatever grounds they themselves think appropriate. ; Cet article maintient que le débat autour du projet de loi C-31 devrait en fait être dirigé sur les questions suivantes : l'impossibilité de déterminer la véracité des demandes d'asile en utilisant les méthodes actuelles de détermination, l'incompatibilité qui existe entre, d'une part, la loi canadienne sur l'immigration et le droit d'asile et, de l'autre, les Conventions, Déclarations et normes internationales sur lesquelles elle est sensée être basée, et, par ailleurs, l'absurdité d'essayer de limiter la libre circulation des peuples. Arguant que le système de l'immigration et du droit d'asile favorise déjà la libre circulation des gens riches ayant de bonnes relations, et que la nouvelle législation va punir encore plus ceux qui souffrent déjà beaucoup sous les restrictions existantes, l'auteur suggère que le Canada devrait travailler à aider ceux qui désirent se déplacer en éliminant les obstacles tels que les clauses des pays tiers, les restrictions sur les visas et ...