Abstract
Los debates sobre movilidad humana se han centrado en las migraciones como asentamiento, pasando por alto los viajes y las estancias de corta duración. El objetivo de este artículo es doble. El primero tiene que ver con la necesidad de distinguir ambos fenómenos. Para ello se planteará la necesidad de concebir los viajes conceptual y normativamente separados de las migraciones. A partir de esta distinción, se procederá con el segundo objetivo, a saber, la defensa del derecho a viajar, fundamentado en el valor instrumental e intrínseco de la libertad de circulación. Solo si entendemos la movilidad como la norma podremos comenzar a establecer excepciones que delimiten su ejercicio. A continuación, se examinan los argumentos más habituales a favor de los controles migratorios, y se concluye que no son aplicables al caso de los viajes. El artículo responde también a dos objeciones adicionales: el de la prolongación no autorizada de la estancia como forma de migración encubierta y el de la arbitrariedad de la distinción entre los viajes de corto y largo plazo. Por último, se plantean algunas situaciones que podrían dar lugar a una restricción legítima del derecho a viajar.
Debates on human mobility have focused on migration as settlement, ignoring trips and short-term stays. The objective of this article is double. The first has to do with the need to distinguish both phenomena. For this, the need to conceive trips conceptually and normatively separated from migrations will be considered. Based on this distinction, we will proceed with the second objective, namely, the defense of the right to travel, based on the instrumental and intrinsic value of freedom of movement. Only if we understand mobility as the norm can we begin to establish exceptions that delimit its exercise. The most common arguments in favor of immigration controls are examined below, and it is concluded that they are not applicable to the case of travel. The article also responds to two additional objections: that of the unauthorized prolongation of the stay as a form of covert migration and that of the arbitrariness of the distinction between short and long term trips. Finally, some situations are raised that could give rise to a legitimate restriction of the right to travel.
Debates on human mobility have focused on migration as settlement, ignoring trips and short-term stays. The objective of this article is double. The first has to do with the need to distinguish both phenomena. For this, the need to conceive trips conceptually and normatively separated from migrations will be considered. Based on this distinction, we will proceed with the second objective, namely, the defense of the right to travel, based on the instrumental and intrinsic value of freedom of movement. Only if we understand mobility as the norm can we begin to establish exceptions that delimit its exercise. The most common arguments in favor of immigration controls are examined below, and it is concluded that they are not applicable to the case of travel. The article also responds to two additional objections: that of the unauthorized prolongation of the stay as a form of covert migration and that of the arbitrariness of the distinction between short and long term trips. Finally, some situations are raised that could give rise to a legitimate restriction of the right to travel.
Translated title of the contribution | Freedom of movement, exclusion of immigrants and the right to travel |
---|---|
Original language | Spanish |
Pages (from-to) | 644-662 |
Number of pages | 18 |
Journal | Revista Internacional de Pensamiento Político |
Volume | 17 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 27 Dec 2022 |