![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldPrompted by a post of Jonathan Edelstein's this June just past, I set forward a provisional six-point typology of apartheid. One of the more interesting followups was Mike Linksvayer's "Typing International Apartheid," in which he argued that my six founding principles of an apartheid system's group--the fear of impending minoritization, the belief in its own indigeneity, the need for immediate action, the necessity of separate development, the need to secure a monopoly of power, and the constant defense of the frontiers erected to protect the dominant group--match up tolerably well to the principles behind migration-control regimes.
Is this the case? I'm not altogether certain that my Canadian citizenship should automatically give me the right to move to Toronto. It does in fact, of course, and since Canada is a state with a highly developed system of social and political provisions reserved for its citizens, it makes no small economic sense to limit migration rights only to those people whose citizenship status ensures that they will contribute to the funding of these provisions. Is this sufficient reason to keep Peruvians from freely following the pathway of this Prince Edward Islander? My debased Rawlsian thinking encourages me to be skeptical of this.
Is this the case? I'm not altogether certain that my Canadian citizenship should automatically give me the right to move to Toronto. It does in fact, of course, and since Canada is a state with a highly developed system of social and political provisions reserved for its citizens, it makes no small economic sense to limit migration rights only to those people whose citizenship status ensures that they will contribute to the funding of these provisions. Is this sufficient reason to keep Peruvians from freely following the pathway of this Prince Edward Islander? My debased Rawlsian thinking encourages me to be skeptical of this.
