Should migrants have a right of passage

Subject: Should migrants have a right of passage.





When did migration become a right and not a gift. When did the notion that we owed each other the brotherhood or sisterhood usually reserved for family.
Borders used to indicate tribal or cultural boundaries and were there to differentiate between peoples but with the concept of globalisation we all became the embodiment of an enlarged consumerist market with business vying for its share of a profit. The consequences of tearing apart the often the delicate differences between people and their sense of reference rested on diplomacy weaving its magic by knitting together a complex patten to describe the variation in social demand and attendant their responsibilities.
At the start of the new millennium the boardrooms of Wall Street and the other financial centres hatched a plan whereby financial boarders were dismantled to allow goods and money to flow seamlessly into one big foreign exchange market for the benefit of the financial shareholder but often to the disadvantage of the local worker who was coopted to work long hours for little money and virtually no sense of job security.
It was a deal which flew counter to the Marxist concept of evaluating, "on a par",  labour with capital and in doing so distorted the world economic condition to the benefit of the western banking system and the disadvantage of much else. Trade and trade flows were the only things which mattered and counted whilst conditions and labour practices were shunted out of sight.
Whilst segments of the world benefited, larger segments became economically unstable and the communication miracle (the internet) which had prompted this ability to segment trade and the source of labour across the globe also meant that across the world populations became joined in a way not previously known.  Strangers became cousins and the thought of moving to the other side of world was made feasible.
Human rights, envisaged to protect individuals in armed conflict not from economic exploitation were sighted as were peoples right to migrate. What had started as a migrants trickle became a flood.  Countries who had spent little on public infrastructure, education or had any meaningful public economic activity became less and less attractive to their own citizens as they saw the more libertine conditions in the west compared to their own.
Colonies of disenfranchised people living in the West fostering a sort of collective colonial subjectivity in which, amongst other things, ‘reparations’ for supposed malpractice began to assert an attraction for  people still living in the homeland, (the old colony)  and the place which had been the  source of the  capital, used to develop the colony, Britain . It granted in the minds a sort of status which was akin to citizenship and led to demands for equal rights and citizenship in Britain. This reverse colonisation, in terms of the sheer numbers potentially involved, revealed a pressure on resources and also the basic planning to keep pace with the needs of ordinary people. Disinclined to factor in destabilising inequality which had been a growing trend since Margaret Thatcher, unwilling to take advantage of historically low interest rates to improve the infrastructure we are now bereft of the finance to build in advance of the massive relocation of people from the poorer parts of the world who claim some sort of tenancy.

Opportunities both lost and squandered by a lack of foresight have brought us to our knees.  I wonder if some sort of ‘overseas aid program’ we were so willing to offer will be offered to us. We had one in our link with Europe and the funding the EU provided the poorer parts of Britain but that was gleefully thrown away by the very people who most benefited, the so called ‘red wall’, ex Labour voting parts of the county who believed the bilge Boris Johnson fed them.