Guest Editor Introduction: Contesting and Undoing Discriminatory Borders

Abstract

When people ask if we select on the basis of skin colour, then we have to readily admit that. Somebody's skin colour is for us the first sign of possible illegality. But, because we select on the basis of skin colour does not automatically mean that we discriminate. 2 The reduction of unfettered state interests to skill-based or economic selection epitomizes the contraction of state sovereignty in immigration policy more generally: the state may consider the individual only for what she does, not for what she is. 3 Demarcating the field of inquiry: migration and discriminationPeople migrate for a range of reasons: to work, to join family members, to study, or to seek international protection. While goods, services and capital can move relatively freely between countries, the same cannot be said for the movement of people. A 'global mobility divide' separates the nationals of comparatively wealthy states in the 'global north', who enjoy a wide range of legal migration options, from those of poorer states in the 'global south'. 4 David Owen characterises this distribution of migration opportunities as a 'racialized pattern of transnational positional difference', one in which migration controls maintain income inequality between states. 5 E. Tendayi Achiume's forensic analysis of race and migration law reveals how such controls also produce, and reproduce, inequalities between people:….whiteness confers privileges of international mobility and migration. And proximity to whiteness calibrates these privileges. This racial privilege inheres in the facially race-neutral legal categories and regimes of territorial and political borders (sovereignty, citizenship, nationality, passports, and visas). It also inheres in rules and practices of national membership and international mobility. 6