Migrant politics often seems like a pivotal fulcrum for the left attracting more attention than a purely utilitarian calculus might imply it would. While a radical ‘option for the poor’ would imply other likelier issues to surface to the top, I think migration issues sweepingly encapsulate a number of more broadly reaching issues such that it becomes a logical congregating point for leftist activity. It highlights issues of acute global inequality and exploitation, colonial history, Western hegemony, racism, arbitrary deployment of state power (and its fiat perpetuation of national borders), flows of global capital, and state-sanctioned violence. Living in Canada, and visiting Singapore, one of the most salient things I began realizing growing up was that the people at the bottom of the pile, maybe not globally but certainly within the country I lived in, were migrant workers. They were the focus point of global development classes, OPIRG meetings, May Day rallies, Singaporean activist circles, among many other things of that sort — possibly because injustice unfolding within such proximity makes certain demands and claims on you that are difficult to ignore (an observation Rousseau is known for). Why should labour and detention protections fail to apply to migrant workers?
I think all the chapters in this book are worth reading, but I will mention just a few that were particularly memorable:
The introduction briefly made a fairly interesting case for why undocumented populations should be allowed to vote, pointing out cases where voting rights historically in America had less to do with having citizenship than happening to be a white male property owner (even one living overseas).
The chapter discussing the notion of immigrants driving down wages (Myth 2), is a really important one as well as the one detailing the racist history of certain mainstream American unions (Myth 3), because I have seen some segments of the left opportunistically pander to this sort of logic.
The chapter on following the ‘rules of immigration’ and not entering ‘illegally’ (Myth 7) did a really good job of explaining how throughout American history these rules were very consistently racist, and your ability to migrate to the US had a lot more to do with being white than anything else.
The chapter on political dimensions of refugee acceptance (Myth 9), where countries like the United States (and certainly Canada) accepted refugees from communist/socialist countries (Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam) at a much higher rate than other countries, even those that harboured more dire economic or politically oppressive circumstances. There is a very contemporary example of this occurring under Trudeau in the case of Venezuela (and even Syria to an extent, though that quickly fizzled out after western Islamophobia won out).
I think the most fascinating chapter for me was about assimilation (Myth 12), and how the longer migrants from other countries stay in the US, the poorer they often become, because over the generations they begin to assimilate to the social and racial hierarchies that exist in American/Western culture and accept their ‘place’ in these hierarchies. I think this was one of the best criticisms of the common focus on how assimilative migrants should be.
I’m fairly bad at summarizing things, so anyone might well be better off simply taking a look at the book itself. Writing this has likely been more a disservice to the book than anything else.