The methodology of the political theory of migration

Issues with global relevance, such as migration, require specific approaches to address them adequately. However, as I shall argue, the current framework of the political theory of migration is mistaken in this respect for two reasons. The paper puts forward a two-pronged criticism of the mainstream political theory of migration. On the epistemological level of the argument, it criticizes the most notable works for their implicit bias towards methodological nationalism, by which they treat the nation-state inadequately and, consequently, give preference to immobility, sedentariness, or stasis at the expense of notions such as mobility, motion, and change. On the normative level, the paper challenges what I call the host standpoint of the mainstream literature, manifested both in what I label as the language of benevolent superiority, embodied in the language of human rights, and alarmism which serves as one of the main motives in debates about (im)migration. The argument in this regard is that the normative discussion about migration is addressed from a perspective analogous to the viewpoint of host or destination states, and this partial approach leaves out several essential elements of migration from consideration. As I shall argue, these are the main reasons for mainstream normative arguments focusing on the problems of immigration while forgetting to address migration as a broader and more complex phenomenon that requires thorough analysis and urgent solutions as well.