Walls Final Auto Flashcard

SO 347 The Wall: Borders, Violence and Separation in the Contemporary World Final Exam: Course Review Exam WHEN – April 29th from 9 to 11 am in 1C classroom (except accomodations). WHAT – 5 short essays with 250 up to 300 words for each answer (no strict limits: if you are concise and complete you can write less than 250 words, if you want to add consistent information and write more than 300 words it’s fine. Be sure to be in-topic, consistent and complete with regards with the requested information) 20 points maximum for each answer HOW - It will be a written exam, you will be asked to use IES paper sheets and your pen or pencil. No smartphones, no laptops, no tablets, no personal notes are allowed. No possibility to go outside the classroom during the 2 hours. You are asked to respect the IES Honor Code. Grading rubrics CONTENT REVIEW THE EU INTERNAL WALLS – TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE ONES SCHENGEN AREAPOLICING IN THE NAME OF FREEDOMWalls, Frontex and SAR zones, ENP and agreements with third countries But they are not enough to stop people and the ‘human tsunami’ THE ARAB SPRINGS CREATED A CASETunisia was the first: people escaping from government revolution suppression in 2010 ‘Human tsunami’ – ‘Humanitarian Regime’ in Fortress EUItaly (2011) – 6 months + other 6 m. humanitarian permit for international protection for human vulnerability Free circulation in the EU (‘please go!’ and ‘moving on’ approach)France – Schengen suspension for economic vulnerability (possible in case of hard times = economic/financial crisis, security crisis, threat to public order) = Schengen suspension in the name of Schengen code FRANCE ACTION PLAN Schengen Suspension 1. Border random controls 2. Extension of border control area: 20 km after the border line, within trains in French stations 3. Urbanization of borders, in distant cities (esp. Paris), with police controls in parks, tubes, buses, streets 4. Ad hoc banishment and push backs, targeting some people: Tunisian and suspected irregular migrants on the base of their appearance (men, lonely, without bags, casual dress, Roma, African or Middle East appearance) Exclusion on the base of not legal settlements and not economic sufficient settlements (62 € a day or 31 € with free accommodations) = monetized access, also in case of humanitarian permits MAIN CONSEQUENCESTensions between Italy and France (same problem, different attraction for migrants, different policies) Multiplication of Schengen area suspension and more controls over migrant mobility within EU (ex. Brennero), with a constant emergency and a sort of ‘Schengen regime’ (free only for a selection of people) Constant emergency and hot spots, with people stuck in a no-land zone, taking high risks, leaving in poor condition, with many local people concerns Facilitate ‘bona fide’ travellers and target crimmigrants with discriminatory practices (race criterion, police representation, ‘plausible story’) Brennero, border between Italy and Austria Ventimiglia, the Italian ‘Calais’ jungle TARGETING CRIMMIGRANTSQuick police judgement on a ‘plausible story’ based on: • Individual perceptible traits (ethnicity, nationality, gender, age, clothes, equipment) • Mode of transfer (trains, lorries, forged documents) • Personal itinerary (tickets and journeys, visa or transit permissions)• Police capability of deportation (agreement with countries of origin, push-backs to first EU countries of entry) Readmission in another EU countries is easier than repatriation to home countryWhen French police cannot deport migrants to their home countries, neither can the Italian policeWhen police come to detain migrants, often they release them a few km awayFinal aim: slowing down the unstoppable flow INVISIBLE BORDERS AND WALLS EVERYWHERESchengen area produced a de-linking of borders from territory (no more guarding a materialized line) decreasing materiality and territoriality of borders in the EU, but an increase of intangible borders with policing and surveillance deployment beyond borderlines, everywhere. Compensatory measures to freedom of movement = police and judicial cooperation to fill the ‘security deficit’Borders are applied on the basis of • Physical position • Nationality • Individual characteristicsAny location become a locus of identity check (buses, tubes, streets, hospitals, stations, parks, etc.) Eviction and borders cannot stop us. Ventimiglia is everywhere. ANOTHER INTANGIBLE BORDERS: THE SOCIAL RECOGNITION Irregular immigration brings to 2 issues: Formal authorization Social recognition SELECTIVE TOLERANCE Selected treatment of irregular immigrants: • some of them are actively rejected • some other are widely tolerated GENDER - Women attract less attention (except in sex works) ECONOMIC POSITION – People with a house and a job (even if in the black market) are more tolerated than unemployed or homeless people LABOUR MARKET - Caregivers or production workers or fruit & vegetable pickers are more accepted, even if irregulars (integration in the labour market) ATTITUDES - People quieter or more assimilated to the local habits are more tolerated than people with a stronger link to their culture of origin and more unquiet and critical towards the local society (deservingness for integration in social rules and relationships) Some transgressors are particularly targeted, caught up, punished, detained or deported, other irregulars are more tolerated. OTHER INVISIBLE WALLS Discriminations and distance (us vs they, micro-aggressions, ignorance)Media and political language (military / biblical / natural disaster styles)Citizenship law (to be granted, to deserve it, to be revoked) and permission of staying (complicated, long bureaucracy, income required)Policies (integration, bureaucracy, intercultural approach) Crimes reporting and profiling Social and economic disparities, ghettos of poverty = social bombs The US-Mexico Border It’s a relatively new border (1849-1853, Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo), followed by a long history of economic relations and mobility across the borders. For long time considered a remote border, unpopulated border territory. Initially used to limit private property and limit the cattle movements. Strong border culture in both sides. Strong local culture and transnational communities with a bi-national identity and a multi-centric sovereignty (sort of ‘parallel country’ or ‘pseudo-country’) Restriction of movement through the Caribbean routes opens new routes in Mexico Border Patrol, very rudimental fencing and more agent deployment around farms, ranches, urban areas inside the US territory to capture illegally crossed migrants, using motorized vehicle and horses, weapon and police radio Landscape remained mainly indisturbed, with low visibility of operations. Success measured in number of arrests of clandestine migrants and requisitioned drug HIDE AND SEEK GAME BALOON EFFECT IMPACT & SUCCESS 1924-1933 – First police border during Alcohol Prohibition, to restrict the illegal passage of alcohol and smugglers 1980’s – ‘War on drugs’, with border drug control, and a role for the armed forces FIRST TURNING POINT 1994 – NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) Like the Schengen Agreement, Nafta recentered the US attention on the border with Mexico and created 2 main effects OPEN BORDERS Reduction of barriers to trade (debordering) Freedom of movement of goods US companies in the Mexican territories for assembly of components (Maquilladoras) US oil and gas to Mexico Rapid urban growth of bordelands FORITIFIED BORDERS Reinforcement of border security (rebordering) Blockade based model (from the interior to the edge) with a new staticvisibile surveillance: observationoutposts and towers, vehicle fences, human sensors, use of helicopters, technologies Hold the line, Gatekeeper, SafeguardIMPACT & SUCCESS Transformation of landscape, with high visibility of operations. Success measured in the decrease in number of arrests (prevention through deterrence) = more deterred CTAs before reaching the vanishing points, where people can blend with local people (undetectable) SECOND TURNING POINT September 11th 2001 – War on Terror 2007 – Increased drug-related violence in Mexico2006 – Secure Fence Act, walling of the whole border, American security defence system at national scale BORDER = SPACE OF THREAT Zero risk approach Cost-consuming operations New security and defence market (private and public sector) Fortified border like in the Middle Age More creativity of CTAs looking for points of weaknesses and loopholes + increased business for smugglers = coyotes IMPACT & SUCCESS Transformation of borders in a ‘conflict zone’ (us vs they) and a menacing area. Success measured in effective smart borders with a good balance between security and economy = use of virtual fences (drones, radars, temperature sensors, biometric recognition, vehicle scanning), more preventive expulsions Strategies of resistance A FENCE IN THE MIDDLE OF ONE COMMUNITY “You try to force on us your way of thinking, when you don’t even live here… It’s not affecting you… If you are worried, why don’t you build fences around your State?” “What the American hearland know about the challenges and cooperation of borderlands and twin towns like El Paso/Juarez and Laredo/Nuevo Laredo?” The prevention through deterrence policies is seen as an imposition of central authority ignoring the local communities and strongly impacting on their daily life. It’s a sort of 21st century version of the Berlin Wall, cutting in 2 a common identity For many majors in borderlands nation security remains an imperative, but there is a better way to achieve it = not an offensive wall that ‘separate me from my neighbor’ but • a system of increased natural borders (ex. Rio Grande enlargement) to detect bad intentional people, respecting the local dual culture and the cultural, historical and economic ties• empower the communities ties as a sort of informal trust mechanism to avoid problems and increase cooperation among the 2 sides of the border LOCAL SPHERE VS FEDERAL/NATIONAL SPHERE The blockade approach produce a permanent adaptation of people, looking for loopholes of technologies and fencing, using more dangerous routes in unpopulated large areas, less surveilled for high costs. Migrant flows become less visible + the blockade reduce the multiple movements (seasonal migrants) and produce more permanent migrants Permanent migrants move, abandoning the borderland and reaching northern and inner areas (before migrant free)More identity conflicts as migrant exit their border communities, producing more concerns among people and politicians, and producing more border surveillance This ‘border game’ do not reduce numbers of immigrants, but redirect them THE VICIOUS CYCLE JOB / ECONOMY – workplace enforcement and legal migration in seasonal labor market, to guarantee circularity of movements DRUG – RELATED VIOLENCE – more cooperation among US and Mexico, with a coordinated response to the same problem DRUG CONSUMPTION – more prevention through educationLOCAL COMMUNITIES – more engagement of border people, who share same problems of heartland people and want a solution, but in a different way (they contrast the actions, not the idea) ZERO-RISK GOALS is unachievable, it’s better to adopt a realistic risk management approach ALTERNATIV E SOLUTIONS EXCLUSION AND RESISTANCE Migration as a new cosmopolitan approach Migration and cosmopolitanism are said to be complementary. Cosmopolitanism means to be a citizen of the world, and migration, without impediments, should be the natural starting point for a cosmopolitan view. However, the intensification of migration, through an increasing number of refugees and economic migrants, has generated anti-cosmopolitan stances. Differential inclusion Selective filtering of mobility is a form of exclusion or differential inclusion = created a waiting zone to better regulate the flows of migrants, to stop them or to allow to remain in other areas of the world, or to enter according to the labor market requests. Use of remote and forgotten locations (airports, ports, islands, deserts, urban peripheries, selective permeability, externalization of borders as we have seen in the EU policies and the engagement of 3rd countries). From the dream to the reality of migration and citizenship The border regime correspond to the dream of a ‘just-in-time’ and ‘to-thepoint’ migration, but it clashes to the reality of unpredictability and turbulence of contemporary migratory movements. Citizenship today is more complex too = from the traditional nation-state logic of political membership and identity to a more market-oriented and calculated rationale = calls for skilled migrants (ex. in Germany), talent-for-citizenship exchange, dual citizenship, naturalization of migrant residents. Border as a method WALL – Border making Exclusion, separation Device to identify, separate, obstruct if not block global flows. ‘Border regime’ that protect the insider and exclude the ‘outsider’ (or a part of them, through a selective permeability). Borders shape a stable map of the world, a status of invariance that resists the operation of transformations, deformations and modulations that human flows produce. RESISTANCE – Border contestationInclusion, crossingParameter that enables the channelling of flows, provides coordinates within which flows can be joined or segmented, connected or disconnected.Bodies in motion challenge ‘border regimes’.Borders can produce a constant recombination of spaces and times, a flexibility of the territories (and also of societies and cultures) they are meant to circumscribe. Migration as a form of Resistance It challenges the idea of ‘who belongs to’ and ‘who doesn’t’, working on a new concept of identity (flexible; based on a social/cultural citizenship more than nation-state one; transnational, dual or multiple culture) A form of cultural resistance that challenges the "othering" of migrants as a socially constructed identity. Migrants are a sort of ‘immanent outsiders’ at the border = a status of exclusion that produce a new status of inclusion over belonging. From exclusion to a different inclusionSolidarity among migrants in their ‘exclusion’ = irregular migrants, transnational actors with multiple identities, outsiders, not marginal and with common issues, legal status, vision of borders and identities. Solidarity can be also produced by citizens who do not belong (or not totally) to the preminent local culture, or to some cultural, social or political stance (like what they call ‘border regime’). Communities of resistanceA political challenge in resisting and forging connections across countries, together with migrants, refugees, outsiders, students, social movements and trade unions asking for a political and economic change, struggling for a social justice worldwide. Some movements Rasquachismo in the US – Mexico border Celebration of the sensibility for ‘los de abajo’, against the ‘gated globalism’ and the attempts to stop the entries in the US soil. Sans Papiers in France and EU Composed by migrants and Eu citizens, students, associations to ask for regularization and equal treatment for people who do not have a residence permit. Organized in France, Italy, Germany, Switxerland, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg No one is illegal in Germany, Canada, Belgium A campaign and network that supports migrants and refugees who are not in compliance with a country's immigration laws. The campaign's goal is to end the idea that people are "illegal" and to challenge policies that deny people their rights. It questions the idea of citizenship as a legal condition for access to and participation in the socio-political sphere. Black Italians or Afro-Italians Long-term residents (from 1970s) with a dual identity, with a specific country of origin culture, but a story of adaptation in Italy New-born black residents, not formally Italians, but culturally local, they perceive themselves as Italians New-comers, just arrived in Italy, with a strong identity from their country of origin or from Africa continent, with a shared identity of refugees or migrants Fragmentation, not leaving in same areas (like the French banlieue) Invisibles or too visiblesWaiting for a citizenship and a social recognitionResistance: activists, writers, artists, entrepreneurs, scientists they produce music, poetry, films, novels, movies, papers, campaigns, festivals, protests, web and social channels WALLS OR BRIDGES? HOW TO OPEN A DIALOGUE Formal negotiations between 2 or more parties in conflict Informal processes of communication (black-channel diplomacy) among opposite parties Peacebuilding processes, grassroots initiatives, bottom-up policy approaches to avoid escalation of conflicts or crisis Made by diplomats and governors, to reach a final agreement Made by diplomats and ‘sherpas’, to investigate if a negotiation is possibleMade by civil society (Un, Ngos, intellectuals, institutions, public figures), without an ambition to reach an agreementDIALOGUE Are they all active in the migration movements (CTA flows)? DISTRIBUTIVE APPROACH VS INTEGRATIVE APPROACHDistributive approach = zero-sum view, claiming one’s share of a ‘fixed amount of pie’ (low dialogue situation), usually a third actor act as a mediator and ‘impose’ a final result Integrative approach = ‘expanding the pie’ view, with more to share among the parties, creating value (high dialogue situation), usually with the help of a third actor that suggest a value for each partyThe use of one of the 2 approaches depends on the specific context and the 2 parties or more engaged. Is EU using a distributive or integrative approach in the management of its borders, in the agreements with neighbour countries and countries of origin? THE HARVARD MODEL According to the Harvard Negotiation Project there are 4 essential elements that can produce an efficient dialogue or not: Interests = they can be very different or similar, implicit or explicit, identify them clearly may show that there are win-win potentials; People = separate the people from the problem, creating personal relationships, trust and diplomacy among the parties; Options = identify the best alternative for each party and different options, promoting creative thinking and expanding problem-solving capabilities; Criteria = agree on mutually acceptable criteria of negotiation, with reciprocal respect for the commitments made. POSSIBLE LIMITS OF A DIALOGUE APPROACH Misunderstanding of messages for cultural barriers, low interest in listening and talking Lack of a shared framework on the causes of the dispute, exclusive narratives from both parts, deep emotions Uncertainty on the part of actors about the best result to achieve, with suspicions on the other actor intentions and interests Clashes values and interests Different power of the parts (more dialogue approach from the weakest part, less from hard power or economic power) THE POWER DYNAMICS Hard power = one party is stronger from a military or political point of view, and coerces or induces to obtain its solution, with threats and forceEconomic power = one party is economically stronger and use payments and sanctions to obtain its solution Soft power gets others to want the outcomes that they want, using policies, values, culture and institutions (education programs, cooperation and development plans, etc.) What kind of power is being used by countries that build a wall or strict Visa policies? THE PARADOX OF DIALOGUEFrom one side is a diplomacy feature, used to ease tensions and avoid conflicts, dialogue can be also seen as a sign of weakness, because it implies the willingness to change one’s position and be persuaded by the other party arguments. That is why in many times dialogue has to be conducted in secrecy, and then promote in public the final results as the ‘victory’ of its own position. Secrecy vs Openness Sometimes secrecy is the best way to find a compromise, speak more freely and consider different options and measures. Some other times public dialogues can facilitate compromises, through the ‘civilizing force of hyprocrisy’ (the ‘forum effect’ of talk). Domestic LegitimacyWhether democratically elected or authoritarian, any leader needs a certain degree of support from home population. In international affairs, national governments seek to maximize their own ability to satisfy domestic pressure, minimizing the adverse consequences of foreign developments. In any dialogue among parties, the 2 sides will consider their inner legitimacy. How much the domestic legitimacy is impactful in the immigration management? The importance of emotions Conflicts are fuelled by emotions, but also the diplomatic game can be guided by them, and many times they are not took in enough consideration. FEAR – Fear of ‘Other’ and of foreign cultures, with anxiety to maintain the local culture dominance (or a global dominance). HUMILIATION – Feelings of repeated humiliation from the other parts, disregarding their positions or culture, feeding into possible extremisms and hatred. HOPE – Optimistic vision on the capacity of building a better futureAre they all active in the migration movements (CTA flows)? WALLS OR BRIDGES FOR CTAs? SOME FIRST GUIDELINES Find opportunities for all as a common ground (for countries of origins, transit countries / neighboring countries, countries of final destination, but also for CTAs and local societies Engage all the parties (CTAs, borderlands, elites and people) in the discussion and dialogue, to find a common solution Look for common rules and criteria in the dialogue and cooperation, with a more balanced power dynamics and with a stronger role of third actors (UN, NGOs, social sector active in supporting and protecting human rights of CTAs)In terms of domestic legitimacy, invest in sensitivity programs on intercultural dialogues and cross-cultural communication among local society and newcomers THE LEBANON DIVIDED SOCIETY Religious groups Shi’a Muslims (under the Iran influence – Hezbollah, representing the majority) Sunni Muslims Christians Maronite Christians Civil war from 1975 to 1990 + Syrian and Israeli invasion (Syria in the north to reply to Christian requests of help; Israel to support the Maronite Christian force)Today the electoral system is based on a confessional distribution of seats. Political frozen situation from 2022 to 2025, without a President, for clashes among groups. Today the President Aoun is a Christian Maronite. THE IRAQ DIVIDED SOCIETY Religious/Linguistic/Ethnic groupsShi’a Muslims Sunni Muslims Kurds Transnational actors (the Islamic State)Gulf wars of 1990s + US intervention (2003) + IS invasion (2204-2006) + Kurds independence referendum (2017)Since 2022 the President is the Kurd Abdul Latif Rashid. the Prime Minister is the Shi’a Al Sudani. The Kurd area in the north has its local government. Oil and Energy resources are in Kurdish and Shia-controlled areas. BUILDING BRIDGES IN DIVIDED SOCIETIES Sustaining democratic coexistence of multiple groups through complex power-sharing modelsCONSOCIATIONALISM – Differences are preserved and respected in a democratic power-sharing, each group (ethnic, cultural or religious) is represented with a political representation of all (each group vote its representatives). Risks: the divisions are maintained; the conflict is frozen, not solved; coalitions may disregard the national interest for the interest of their groups (sectarian agenda); peace depends on external actors that guarantees it. INTEGRATIONALISM – Divisions are overcome by a national identity, eliminating conflicting identities through a reinforcement of the central State and the depoliticization of the groups for multi-ethnic or multi-religious parties. Risks: dominance of one force, some sectarian lines or groups may not identify with the national identity BUILDING BRIDGES IN DIVIDED SOCIETIES THE LEBANON AND IRAQ CASE STUDIES HYBRID MODEL: CENTRIPETALISM – Maintaining differences and groups, but directing competitions at the centre, not at the extremes, encouraging moderate and centrist political competition, rather than polarizing the extremes and increasing regionalisms and territorial autonomies. WALLS OR BRIDGES? POSSIBILE NEW APPROACHES BORDERS ARE COMPLEX ENTITIES Institutions – decided by humans to mark state, sovereignity, citizenship Powerful zones - in the State or between States, with transnationalisms, possible ethnic conflicts or their accomodation, possible international conflicts or their accomodationProcesses – markers of identity and nation culture, that can be fluid and in progress during the time Dinamic places – where people move, cross the borders, create ties and relations over the borders State = Nationality = Citizenship = Identity & BelongingIs still all working in this way? Are still borders only state-centric? In a globalized world and in a mobile century do borders have the same functions and values? Or do we have to change the idea of borders? Smart, flexible, fluid, adapting to people and goods movement? Culture is not a static notion, culture evolves African Diaspora in Paris (Chateau Rouge) creates something new and different. The Turkish district in Berlin is something different from Istanbul and Germany. The Mediterranean countries are culturally influenced. Cultural ‘blends’ Shall we still have cultures in the future? Or shall we become a global culture? When one society trades a new artwork (or product, food, habit, music, etc.) to another society, diversity within the society goes up (consumers have greater choice), but diversity across societies goes down (the two societies become more alike). Cross-cultural movements tends to favor diversity within society, but to disfavor diversity across societies/States. The result is that we become more like one another. We become something shared. In the next 50 years we couldimagine that through the process of handing down culture from generation to generation, a default dominance of a certain kind of global cultural normbecomesmore pronounced than other definitions of culture. Financial, economic, and commercial innovation centers of the world—New York, LA, London, Dubai, Singapore, Hong Kong, Nairobi —have in common a growing foreignborn population. They are evermorecosmopolitan & international hubs and melting pots. And that's part of what drives their dynamism and theirstatus in the world. Let’s imagine our future In the future will there still be Italians, Germans, Algerians or British? With migrations, diasporas, globalized markets, we could become a world culture or a multiple identity, influenced by and made up of all of us, where the cultures we belong will be more about the kind of life we want to live than where we are from. Identities, belongings and nationalities are not linear, neither fixed or stable, but fluid, transnational, in progress. And borderlands are the first places in which we can see it, as they are zones of transformative interaction and complex identity creation. Diasporas, globalization and more networked societies ask for a new global model for mobility and border management. What’s the future of borders? Time for crisis or for maturing them? IS IT TIME FOR A NEW APPROACH? Borders and undeniable and are necessary to better manage the world, organizing it in territories, managed by single actors (State), to guarantee good life, rights and security within their territories, also through exclusion. But what is ‘within’ today and what are the threats to protect people from?How is possible to decide in a fair and respectful way who can move, who can settle, where and under what conditions? Are the State-centric borders the only possible vision and process, or still valid today in a so networked world based on transnational interactions? WHAT MAKE BORDERS & WALLS IN DECLINE?1. MILITARY – PEACE: inter-state negotiations and diplomacy, international community mediation or peace keeping process, civil society peace processes 2. ECONOMIC – DEALS AND INTERESTS: globalization, coalitions and deals with other states and partners, inter-state political dialogues and negotiations, 3. POLITICAL – DIALOGUE: civil society activism and dialogue processes, political changes, inter-state negotiations and diplomacy, mediation form third countries or international communities 4. POLICE – ?? Fair dialogue, economic trades, unbounded inclusiveness, cross-border cooperation …. THE FUTURE OF BORDERS Most of our current borders are not fit for the world of the 21st Century with its soaring population, dramatic climate change and resource scarcity. The real borders could remain those defined by geography and climate. Making borders more flexible has the potential to improve humanity's resilience to the stresses and shocks of global climate change, conflicts, demographic shifts, labour market urgent needs. IOM Report: The Future of Migration to Europe BORDERS IN A POST-GLOBALIZATION ERACONSERVATIVE BORDERS ETHICS OF BORDERSControls and exclusions in the freedom of movement, to guarantee internal security and internal identity Insider and outsider have the same rights, human rights have same weight of citizen rights How to reach a good balance between the 2 borders? ETHICS OF BORDERS: UNBOUNDED INCLUSIVENESSExame the moral implications of state boundaries and their impact on individuals. This includes considering whether ethical duties extend across borders and whether duties to citizens or displaced persons should take priority. The ethics of borders also involves evaluating the fairness and justice of border policies and practices, including issues of discrimination and social injustice. A NEW CONCEPT OF BORDERS Smart borders adapting to the movement of people and their aspirations, allowing people to come when there are jobs and move on when the job disappears. Ethical borders, for a just world for all, within and beyond borders, with a balance between citizens and humans. Centripetal borders, that put humans at the centre in the possible clashes of values and interests, in a fair balance for all the engaged parts. Community borders, wanted by local communities to regulate their ties and expressing their identities, with a strong cross-border cooperation in regulating the movements and preventing threats. POSSIBLE FACILITATORS Digital security, given a higher role to technology not in stopping people, but in recognizing them, their needs and their movements. State and not smugglers has to know who is crossing borders. More temporary visas and protection recognition, giving people the freedom to choose their destinations and to change them according to job opportunities, values and model of life people would like to belong to. Country partnerships and cross-border cooperation not to stop people, but to regulate and rerouting or deflecting the flows in a legal way, regulating the demand and supply of labour, training people according to the global market. Cultural blends and dialogue, to decrease the perception of ‘us’ and ‘they’, or ‘others’ as a threat to the ‘own’ identity, using borderlands as a lab for new solutions, where the communities create a sort of informal trust mechanism to avoid problems and increase cooperation among the 2 sides of the border.