成人论坛

It鈥檚 almost impossible to imagine why anyone would risk a perilous crossing over cold, dark waters in an inflatable dinghy. This is a story of humankind: the despair 鈥� or ambition 鈥� that drove them, the wickedness of the traffickers who exploited them, and the moral dilemma of those of us already living where they want to go. History is all about borders.

Two cross-party reports out this week have sought to inform the political and moral response to the 鈥業llegal Migration Bill鈥�, currently making its way through Parliament, which proposes that people who come to the UK 鈥渋llegally鈥� will be detained and permanently removed. The Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights concludes that the bill, 鈥渂reaches a number of the UK鈥檚 international human rights obligations鈥�. Meanwhile, a Home Affairs select committee report states there is "little evidence" Albanians are at risk in their country and need asylum in the UK.

Migration brings into focus the competing worldviews of universalism and localism. Universalists argue that the world is shrinking, and that pandemics and climate change reveal our interdependence as one global community. It is neither moral nor in the national interest, they argue, to erect bigger borders out of a sense of protectionism. Their opponents see borders as not just territorial or political, but intrinsically moral. Borders, in their view, create moral communities in which people feel rooted and valued.

How much should a country be willing to compromise the integrity of its boundaries out of compassion for non-citizens? Is it unjust to see people differently, based on where lines are drawn on a map? Would a world without borders be a better place?

Producer: Dan Tierney.