During the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, (im)mobility policies affected individuals’ citizenship rights and movement within countries and across international borders. Prior to the pandemic, the... Show moreDuring the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, (im)mobility policies affected individuals’ citizenship rights and movement within countries and across international borders. Prior to the pandemic, the mobility regime in South America was relatively open for regional migrants, bolstered on free residence and equal rights. In this analysis, we focus on human mobility and citizenship rights in South America by examining local and national government responses to Covid-19 between March and August 2020. Using databases, newspaper columns, government websites, and legislation, we outline the region’s travel restrictions and exceptions, closures and militarization of borders, internal movement procedures, and economic subsidies to ease Covid-19’s impact. While the regional mobility regime had already been under stress since 2015, exceptions to border closures and internal mobility further stratified people based on legal and economic statuses. Deeply affecting individual-state relations, access to mobility and citizenship rights such as labor, housing, and healthcare varied between nationals and non-nationals and between regular and irregular migrants. Reactions may have longer term effects, especially for Venezuelans, since the crisis created new inequalities and contradictions within the regional mobility regime, originally aimed at reducing them. Show less
Eurasians were privileged groups of mixed ancestry in Asian colonial societies. They were the result of unions between European males and indigenous women. They neither belonged to the... Show moreEurasians were privileged groups of mixed ancestry in Asian colonial societies. They were the result of unions between European males and indigenous women. They neither belonged to the colonizers, nor to the colonized. When colonization came to an end, the Eurasians found themselves in a difficult position. The European rulers, on which their status was based, were gone. The new indigenous rulers usually perceived them suspiciously as colonial remnants and sometimes even as traitors. In this chaotic, sometimes violent situation, they had to decide where they belonged: in the country of their European fathers or the former colony, the country of their Asian mothers. This was a serious dilemma since they only knew the mother country from stories and lessons at school. In this project I have compared the position and options of the Indo-Europeans with those of similar groups from two other former Asian co lonies, the Anglo-Indians from British India and the Métis people from French Indochina. This study of Eurasians from three former colonies showed that an emancipation paradox of acquiring more rights while discriminated against more at the same time was instrumental in creating the framework in which Eurasians had to make their choices. Show less
