Subscribe to Nonviolence Now Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and YouTube.
In this episode, Layal and Pablo examine migration as a structural reality rather than a recurring crisis. They challenge the tendency to frame mobility as an emergency and argue that movement is shaped by political systems, economic inequality, climate pressure, and historical rupture.
Pablo draws on his policy experience to show how institutions respond too slowly to fast-moving realities. Migration policy often prioritizes control over understanding. It reacts to symptoms instead of causes. Layal pushes the conversation toward narrative responsibility and questions how language strips migrants of agency. Labels like “refugee” and “economic migrant” reduce sensitive lives into manageable categories.
The discussion widens through a literary reference. Pablo recommends ‘Free: Coming of Age at the End of History’ by Lea Ypi. The book traces Albania’s transition from a closed communist state to sudden openness. It captures how political shifts reshape freedom, belonging, and choice long before people cross borders. The reference grounds migration in lived experience rather than abstraction.
The episode ends with a clear position. Migration policy must stop treating people as problems to manage, and must instead, recognize migrants as political actors shaped by history and structure. Mobility is a reality of our present and our future, and accessibility must be a granted right.
‘Free: Coming of Age at the End of History’ – Lea Ypi
Pablo recommends this autobiographical novel as essential reading for understanding migration through political transition. Ypi recounts her childhood in Albania during the collapse of communism and the shock of sudden openness. She shows how ideology, freedom, and identity shift unevenly during systemic change.
The book reinforces the episode’s core argument. People do not move in a vacuum. History moves first.
About The Guest
Pablo Pastor Vital is a PhD candidate at Lund University, where his research engages with finance migration, policy, and institutional response, and is the former president of the Mediterranean Youth Council. His work bridges academic analysis and real-world governance, with a focus on how political systems define mobility and belonging.
—
Layal Beyhum: Hello everyone and welcome to the Nonviolence Now podcast brought to you by Pace e Bene, where we explore the principles of nonviolence, where it all started, and how it shows up in today’s digital world. Hello everybody and welcome back.
It’s your host Layal Beyhum, and today I am joined by a great friend of mine and a former colleague Pablo Pastor Vidal. In today’s episode, we’re looking at migration from a very particular lens, and it’s that of an academic one. Pablo holds a Masters of Arts in European Interdisciplinary Studies from the College of Europe and a double degree in Law and Political Science from Universidad Carlos Tres de Madrid. He currently is a research affiliate of the Refugee Law Initiative at the University of Lund and co-president of the Mediterranean Youth Council. It’s so good to have you here with us, and I’m really looking forward to today’s conversation. How are you doing today?
Pablo Pastor: I’m doing great, Layal, thank you so much for the invitation and to be able to talk to you. It’s great honestly to be here.
Layal Beyhum: When we hear this phrase of the migration crisis, what picture flashes first and what do you think is wrong with that picture?
Pablo Pastor: The first picture that comes to our minds is a lot of migrants coming into a country. They come in boats. They come in very bad conditions and they just go into the streets. Let’s say it’s a health problem. It’s a public order problem. And, and of course, migration is so much more complex than this.
And this kind of migration is only a very small part. So, for example, I want to talk about a picture that they sell from my own country in Spain. So, in Spain, we had a very recent episode where there was a lot of Islamophobia against Muslims precisely because some groups in the far right were actually waiting for some small issues to happen. So, there was a case where there was a young person where there was some kind of violence episode. It’s very complex. What actually happened is not very clear, but there was some kind of violence–and that person wasn’t even from that town–but what happened later was that everything went viral. A lot of extremist groups came from other parts of Europe and this made it to the news, and actually showed how difficult it is to manage–[even] for a country like Spain, that we have so much history of cultural exchange of migration–to manage something like this.
Layal Beyhum: What are the different types of migration? Because we heard different terms, immigration, immigration, political asylum, expat. What are these different notions and why do they have so many different names?
Pablo Pastor: If we go strictly to the legal levels, or let’s say to the academic levels, that we normally talk about, we could be talking about economic migrants on the one hand, which are people that are just given the right to go to another country because they can just travel to work, for example. And then you also have people that they just travel because they got a visa, or because they are just, like, visiting someone else. But of course, this is something temporary.
Then you would have–in the case of forced migration–you would have internally displaced people which are not protected by international conventions. They just stay in their own country. So they cannot have any other protection. And then you would have asylum seekers and refugees, which would be, let’s say, the people that have gotten more protection because they have a fear of persecution and that is why they cross to another border. But of course, if you go to–and let’s say that’s what I work with–but of course, if you go to a societal level, as you were saying, then it can be taken in so many different ways. And of course, there is a level, and there is a point, where people don’t want to say they are refugees. or where they don’t want to say they are asylum seekers, because that makes them look like they are someone in need, that they are someone that cannot do things by themselves. And of course, this comes with a lot of societal problems. So, I completely understand why there are these issues and these problems. And of course, there’s so many layers to look at the problem, as I said.
Layal Beyhum: And where do you think migrants go? On what basis do they pick where they want to go?
Pablo Pastor: OK, wow, this is a big question because, of course, you have so many different profiles of migration, I would say most of them, for most migrants, most migrants, they just go the closest they can go from home. And it makes complete sense, like if you are from a specific place, you don’t want to go far from your home unless you want to discover new places and unless you want to discover something new. But that’s a very small percentage of the population. Most people, and especially forced migrants, would choose to go very close to where they live or, to where they originate from, because they have the expectation that they will be able to go back, and to review their lives in that place that they call home.
And, of course, this brings us, you know, to–we have this image again of migration as something that has happened worldwide. As a choice that everyone has. And the reality is that not all people have the chance to go everywhere. Some–most–of the people will be only able to stay very close to where they are. And only a very small and privileged percentage of the people of migrants, if we want to see migrants as, let’s say, this global category, will actually be able to travel to other places that are not close to where they are from or where they originate from.
Layal Beyhum: Let’s talk about that. Europe often feels like it hosts most refugees. But what does the current data actually show? And why does that perception gap persist?
Pablo Pastor: This is very interesting to know, Layal, because if you go to the last unit CR–so the unit CR is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees–the last report that they produced is that low and middle income countries (which is definitely not Europe, Europe is in the high income countries part), so low income, middle income countries host 73% of the world’s refugees, which means that there is a huge part of forced migration in general that goes to countries that are nearby. They don’t go to Europe, they don’t cross the Mediterranean Sea, because it’s actually very dangerous. It’s very difficult for them to cross. So, most of them, for example, if you’re a refugee from Syria, you would go to Jordan or to Lebanon. If you are a refugee, for example, from Venezuela, you would go to Colombia or you would stay in other places of Latin America. Because that’s where most of these people can actually reach.
Layal Beyhum: Looking at the U.S. and the sanctions and the bans that the Trump administration is putting in … I mean, let’s look at the H-1B visa which bans skilled workers from even joining corporations in the U.S… how is this going to reflect on the U.S. market?
Pablo Pastor: Well, this is like a common topic, not only, of course, for the U.S. It’s a common topic everywhere, right? As we were saying in the beginning, the problem of trying to accept people coming from other countries. It’s a tension that is there. But I feel like the policies that are coming now under this administration–and in other countries, too, that are taking this lead–it’s very problematic. It’s a problem of knowing that there is some evidence that migration is positive and still, like, choosing to curtail migration, to curb migration, to make it more difficult for our economies to grow and benefit from these migrations. So, definitely it’s something negative.
So, just to talk about how this happens in the U.S. and what are the main problems of the U.S.. For example, the U.S. not only did what you were saying now, there is also a problem that, in 2018, the U.S. signed the asylum cooperative agreements with Guatemala, with Honduras and El Salvador. So, agreements that basically work in a way that they–let’s say, that if there are some asylum seeking people that come to the U.S., they are sent to these safe countries. And this concept of safe countries is used more and more in a lot of global North countries, not only the U.S., but also Europe or the U.K. So, the idea of these agreements is basically that you get another third country, and you send asylum seekers–even if they’re from another nationality to this country–only on the basis that this country is a safe country, and then you can basically send the asylum seekers there until, for example, their case is resolved. But this course comes with many problems and there’s a lot of human rights organizations that say that this goes against asylum international laws.Not only that, you have other, for example, migration protection protocols, or what is also commonly known as remaining Mexico. So, basically, a policy implemented–also in 2019–that requires non-Mexican asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while they have a procedure in a court in the U.S. And this was not officially designated as Mexico. Mexico wasn’t officially designated as a safe third country. But effectively, this policy is used in Mexico as this kind of safe country. And if I go to my area of research in the combination between migration refugees, asylum seekers and finance, you can see how the U.S., for many times–not only in this administration, but before–was actually giving a lot of money to try to curb migration. The problem now is that this money, which made a lot of migrants and a lot of development programs reliant on this money of the USA, basically now doesn’t exist anymore. So, now we are seeing exactly the reverse process–how a lot of migrants, for example, Venezuelans, that were trying to go to the U.S. through Colombia, now they are coming back. And this is creating another problem for the countries that, let’s say, that they were like the pass route or the route towards the U.S.
Layal Beyhum: Speaking of Venezuelans and their migration flow, what was their status with regards to their migration flows into Europe or into other Latin speaking countries? Has there been any bias against them? Have there been any misconceptions around that?
Pablo Pastor: We can talk about many different things. One thing is the status. And I will start with the status because I think this is something that is very important to understand. First, we were saying before that most of the refugees stay in the countries near them. And the problem is that not everyone is recognized automatically as a refugee because they come from a specific country. So in the 1951 convention, the Geneva Convention, which basically establishes the basis of how someone is to be found refugee. (And actually, a very interesting, like, fun historical fact is that this first only applied to Europe after the Second World War. And then it was expanded by the 1967 protocol to the rest of the world. Sorry for this very legal, very legal parenthesis.) So, this means that not everyone can be considered a refugee, and not everyone that comes from a country where they have a fear of persecution, which is the main legal basis, can become a refugee.
And in the case of Venezuelans, this is a very interesting case, because according to the Cartagena Convention, which is a regional convention, Venezuelans should normally be considered refugees because they have a situation in their country where they can fear persecution. The reality on the ground is that when Venezuelans arrived to Colombia and to other parts of Latin America, they were not considered refugees, which means they don’t have a special status of protection. Instead, they’re only considered migrants. And a lot of countries–especially, for example, Turkey, also, or in the case of Colombia, of course–they are given a temporary protection status, which means that they have some rights, like, for example, access to education. They have access to health. But this means that these rights are only considered when there is a national law that takes them into account. And then we have other problems. We have, for example, the problem of Lebanon or Jordan, which are countries that are not signatories of the 1951 convention, which causes, let’s say, other kinds of problems. And in the case of Venezuelans, for example, when they come to Europe or when they come to the U.S., they are only considered economic migrants, which again is a problem. They come from a country which has a lot of problems. And instead, we only accept these migrants in case that they, let’s say, they apply for a job, or that they are able to actually come. So, that means that their rights are actually not protected.
Layal Beyhum: And when we say their rights are not protected, how does this reflect in the way that policies are being drafted, in the way that the world is viewing them, and what could be an alternative to that?
Pablo Pastor: Wow. Okay. Changing the system is kind of difficult, right? And talking about changing the system is, I would say, it’s very complex because this is something that has been crafted for many years in a lot of negotiations between global North countries, global South countries, and each one with different perspectives of how the problem should be tackled.
We first need to go, let’s say, a few years back, and more concretely 2016. And this is when there was like a New York declaration on refugees. And this declaration basically wanted to create a, let’s say, a new perspective on how the problems about refugees and migrants will be solved. This led, in 2019, to two compacts: the global compact on migration and the global compact on refugees. And so basically, the idea of these global compacts helping refugees, helping migration was a problem that had to be shared between all the countries in the world, which has two readings: the reading of ‘we’ as global, of ‘as global South countries, we need you global North countries to help us’. But the other reading is also, ‘we are like countries that are like rich countries. We cannot take all of the burden. And we also need you, the rest of the countries of the world, to also take part of the burden’. What has happened is that refugees and migrants are not seen as passive recipients of it, meaning they cannot just give money to refugees and migrants, and wait for the problem to be solved. But we need them to become self-reliant. We need them to start doing business. We need to understand that they also are participants and consumers in all these different countries that they participate in the markets. And this is, let’s say, at the core of what I study and what I researched. I researched how refugees and migrants, all these projects are financed. And how, in the current humanitarian context, there is a lot of lack of funding. And what is happening to solve this problem? And going back to your question, Layal, what is being done to solve this problem?
What we are seeing now is that we are seeing a lot of shifts from funding to financing projects. And it is that now migrants or refugees need to become more self-reliant. And we have evidence from this. So, for example, the World Bank, since some years ago, has been saying that, you know, migrants have a positive economic benefit in the countries where they arrive. They start businesses. They pay more taxes than a normal citizen. So, we have the evidence. But at the same time, we need to be careful when we see these kinds of sources. For example, the World Bank has given a lot of money to Lebanon, has given a lot of funding to Jordan, and has given a lot of funding to Colombia. But the World Bank, we cannot forget that this is also a bank. It’s a bank that gives money to, of course, countries, and it gives money, what we call concessional funding. So, it’s money, let’s say, in better terms, but still they are loans, which means that these loans, still … like, these countries need to pay them back. Which means if Lebanon gets money to help these refugees or these migrants, at some point they will have to give this money back.
Layal Beyhum: Well, what do you think is lacking or missing in terms of international consciousness on common issues that we are facing?
Pablo Pastor: I think it’s kind of difficult to transition from all these complex challenges and difficulties that we have–and all this money that is beginning to solve these big issues– but I think it’s kind of all related to what we were seeing, right?
Like, there is one thing that I think we did mention and [that] is the fact that not everyone has the opportunity to move. Like, I have, we have, this picture that everyone, like, today, now we can, everyone can take a plane, but I think it’s a very specific picture from a very specific part of the world, and a very privileged part of the world in order–not to create more divisions–in the sense that we have or the things that we are witnessing. We need to create an international conscience of the common issues that we are facing. And we cannot let our politicians do what they are doing at the moment, which is basically just skyrocketing defense, investment and not putting more money–or investing more money–on education or on health. We see that there is evidence that migration and migrants can actually become a very positive force in our societies, and instead we choose to invest more money in defense. For me, that seems very contradictory, right?
Layal Beyhum: Absolutely. We tend to assume that we’re in this bubble that anyone can just grab a ticket and fly anywhere.
If you could think of a movie that depicts the life of a refugee and how it unfolds, maybe we could recommend our listeners to watch. What are the challenges refugees face on a day-to-day basis in the host country?
Pablo Pastor: I would say one of my favorite movies that I think summarizes a little bit of what we were talking about is ‘Capenaum’. And it’s, of course, a live and dance movie that you know very well. Capernaum talks about the history of this little boy and that he’s just Lebanese, so he’s not a migrant.
But then, like, he has this scene where he encounters this Syrian girl, and it’s very interesting because they–it doesn’t appear explicitly in the movie–it’s just like a very small part of the movie but it shows like how the Syrian girl, she can go and have, like, UN aid. So, she can actually get the aid, but the little boy cannot get it because he doesn’t have papers in his own country. And it shows both the cruelty of Syrian refugees in Lebanon and the cruelty of poverty in a country like Lebanon, and of course, like, in the case of, like, this kind, this girl, was probably lucky because she was given papers by the UN. But we need to imagine that there are so many other episodes and so many other places where, like refugees and migrants, they don’t have papers, and then so how would you be able to give them aid? Let’s say one of the recommendations is that Capernaum is a very strong movie, but I like that part of that scene a lot because of that.
Layal Beyhum: But doesn’t that contradict, well, this supports the claim which says refugees can tend to have more rights than people living or coming from the country in itself. So, there’s this double-edged sword to the thing that yes, refugees could be benefiting off social benefits from a state, especially when it comes from third world countries, while the people themselves are facing severe poverty.
But at the same time, let’s also look at, and touch on, the other legal consequences, like, for instance, the fact that refugees don’t have the right to work. Or it’s impossible to obtain work permits. And what else?
Pablo Pastor: So, it’s not only work permits. It’s a lot of issues when it comes to accessing different rights that are supposed to be given according to the international conventions. So, for example, I’ve researched the case of Colombia, and this is a very exceptional case, but if you look, for example, into the Middle East, problems to obtain work permits, and this is, like, it gets into a very labyrinthic process for refugees to be able to get work permits, to acquire them, to try to pay for the fees, to acquire them.
And sometimes, for example, in places like Jordan, you see that some refugees only had the right to work, especially economic zones, which can be argued as that refugees are also exploitative in some cases. You can also see a significant barrier of access in fundamental financial services, and this is a completely big issue. So, for example, a refugee comes to a new country. If they don’t have documents, how are they supposed to start a bank account? Are they going to open that bank account? And if you cannot open a bank account, who is going to hire you? Who is going to pay you? And even if they pay you in cash, that’s actually not a very safe way to store your money.
And then, like, you have, of course, the big societal challenges that we were talking about from the beginning of refugee integration. And the thing is that, I remember I went to Cairo around one year ago, and I was in a course about refugee entrepreneurship in the American University of Cairo. The professor brought us a refugee entrepreneur, and he said something which actually was very interesting for me. He said, you know what? I prefer, even I’m aware of these challenges, I still prefer to stay in Egypt. And I was shocked. And I was like, okay, why would you stay in Egypt, knowing that these challenges are still here?
And he said, you know, even if I look at going to Europe, and if I talk to my friends that actually went to Europe, they are having even more regulatory barriers. It’s even more difficult for them to get a work permit, to wait for a proper visa, to be able to work. And I think this is something that not only applies to Europe, but also kind of … it’s kind of applying to the U.S.–like how things are becoming so difficult, so labyrinthic, in terms of actually being able to get a permit to get a job that some refugees just think, okay, if I stay in the Middle East, at least this is a way for me to, let’s say, to buy some permits, to do some things that will allow me to, little by little, get permits, even if it’s with corruption, with ‘wasta’ (Arabic term for a specific type of corruption), I still can do something that allows me to work and get money. Whereas in Europe, I cannot do this.
Layal Beyhum: Is there anything that is being done around this in the academic field to counter that narrative besides the weapons, besides the hate and the cancel culture that we’re seeing today?
Pablo Pastor: Yeah, of course. So, I mean, in the academic world or the perspective that I can give you from an academic point of view, it’s basically studying how there is a positive impact of migrants and refugees on the economic side of the equation in these countries. And of course, how can we create a different account or narrative to these kinds of speeches, like trying to have these connotations that my migrants have. So, one of the things that they were saying is that there is, like, all this research of the World Bank on how to try to research what we call refugee livelihoods. And refugee livelihoods is the idea that, you know, refugees can become their own businessmen, they can become their own like business owners, they can start an enterprise. And we are seeing that there’s a lot of evidence, like, like, leading to this. But I think this comes with some nuances in the sense that, yes, like, of course, refugees can start an enterprise, of course, migrants can, I mean, we see it everywhere. We see, for example, the history of so many Lebanese and Syrians that went to Colombia, and then–like them or to any other places in Latin America–and then they started a lot of enterprises. And they become very popular businessmen, and they run everything there.
But then like, we need to nuance in the sense that not all kinds of migrants and other kinds of refugees have the same level of possibilities. Not all of them are able to start a business. Imagine you’re a refugee from a war. Probably, you have some traumas. Probably, you have a lot of difficulties, like starting to learn a new language. And, and, and, of course, we in academia, we try to work a lot on trying to understand that these refugees can completely change, and can bring a lot of new things to the new societies where they come in. But at the same time, we need to understand that some of these people come because they didn’t have another choice. And that means that, in some cases, not all migrants can become business owners, not all migrants can burst out to participate so actively in their social life. Some of them just need international protection. And that’s part of the other arguments that we try to bring in academia, to understand the migration issue in general, if we can call it like that or the topic. It’s way more complex; it’s not only about, like, development programs trying to give more money and trying to push refugees or migrants to just, you know, be just the best version of themselves. But also to understand that they have some rights, in the case of refugees, is international protection. And, in the case of migrants, is also the right to try to find a new life, a new job, and any new opportunities. So that’s, let’s say, what we try to do, to break down these connotations. And, let’s say, to bring other kinds of narratives and alternatives of how policies should be seen or should be done in terms of migration.
Layal Beyhum: If we were to center nonviolence, what do you think becomes the real problem we’re trying to solve?
Pablo Pastor: Well, of course, here there is a big issue in terms of, let’s say, the expectations that people have in their countries. And, let’s say, how these expectations may be broken by migrants that come to these countries and also have other different expectations. I think it’s super evident that when a migrant comes to our countries, or to any kind of country, they come because they just want to make their lives better. They don’t come because they want to create violence or create a public outcry. They just come because they just want to improve their lives.
But this is a very huge problem because, like, how do you create a public policy that allows the migrants to have jobs and the nationals to make a place for these migrants?
Layal Beyhum: Can you tell me more about some local organizations and movements that have actually cradled and welcomed forced migrants? And what is their importance today?
Pablo Pastor: I would say that in every country or in every place, there are some kinds of organizations that actually create grassroots initiatives and try to, let’s say, create these ways of welcoming migrants. For example, in the case of Colombia, there was a lot of effort, not only from part of the civil society, but also part of even the ministries and the government to actually welcome migrants.
And I think we need to understand this because in the sense that this was a huge effort that other countries didn’t do. So, for example, in Spain, of course, we have a lot of, you know, like a lot of organizations like UNHCR, like refugee organizations, and welcome migrants. But the amount of effort given by a country, for example, such as Colombia, or such as Lebanon, were actually part of their own budgets when trying to welcome these migrants. I think this is something that we are not aware of in other countries, like how much, not only maybe because of reasons, because there was no other choice, but how much these organizations and social organizations pushed their governments to try to be able to create policies that were inclusive for these people that were coming, for these migrants that were coming to Lebanon or to Jordan or to the case of Colombia.
Layal Beyhum: If you were to give us a 15 to 20 second response to each of these claims that I’m going to give you now
The first claim being: they take our jobs.
Pablo Pastor: They don’t take your jobs. They create more jobs and they give you more taxes. And maybe you can create jobs with them also.
Layal Beyhum: Crime rises with migration.
Pablo Pastor: Crime doesn’t rise with migration. Crime rises as a tension, as societal tensions. Migration is just another side or another part of our society.
Layal Beyhum: The system is full.
Pablo Pastor: Well, you can look at Colombia–they had almost 2.5 million migrants and still they were able to welcome them. And other countries where there are not, like Spain or the U.S., where there is not even one million of migrants, and that are supposed to be rich countries, and they are not able to welcome all these migrants.
Layal Beyhum: Help them there, not here.
Pablo Pastor: Yeah, that’s the point of some of the policies at a global level, but the ones that come, come because they have the chance to create opportunities to work, as we were saying before. So, if they’re a positive force, why cannot we welcome them instead of pushing them back?
Layal Beyhum: Pablo, you stand at very controversial cross lines of being a Spaniard yourself and coming from the Mediterranean. From one end, you’re European. From the other end, you’re very Mediterranean in the way you live, the way you think, the way you speak. What keeps you grounded doing all of this work?
Pablo Pastor: Wow. What I’ve seen in all the different exchanges and all the different places I’ve traveled in the Mediterranean, in Europe and outside of Europe, I’ve encountered people that were so nice and I felt so close to them.
And of course, you are one of these people and the experience that we live together, for example, with the rest of your representatives. And I ask myself, if I feel so close to all these people and I feel we have so much in common, and we have such important challenges together in common, why do I have to put boundaries between us? You know, I’m trying to build a better world with them. For me, that’s what, let’s say, gives me a passion to keep on working, and to feel Mediterranean, and to feel that we have a completely different future than the borders and boundaries that they tell us that we have.
Layal Beyhum:What is something that you aim to achieve?
Pablo Pastor: This feeling of feeling helpless for migrants doesn’t exist. I mean, it’s a huge thing because it’s very political, but I feel that if we have rights, it’s for something. And then going into a more, like, personal level, if you go to a country, if you have created roots in that country, if you have done things for that country, or if you have studied a major life and contributed and worked, why then, like, you suddenly just have to go? And this is a reality that we are facing more and more.
And, talking now from a perspective of the youth, it doesn’t make sense for us because we live–we have been educated–in a very global world. And we see–I see my friends that then suddenly they’ve, that they’ve met, and then suddenly they just have to leave because of a visa. I don’t understand it. And I think this is the kind of thing that–I, of course, love the academic evidence and I love the academic part, but if I have to go to a more, let’s say, global goal and aim of what I’m doing … it is to try to raise evidence that these things can be changed. And this can be basically changed as showing the evidence to the policymakers and to the rest of our societies, hopefully.
Layal Beyhum: Is there one last thing you’d like to leave the listeners with?
Pablo Pastor: We should ask ourselves more: so what happens if these migrants become part of the active population? What happens if we also become migrants and we need to move to other countries? And when we take the same decision, how can we build, let’s say, some alliances on a global level that some diasporas–like, I think, like the Lebanese one–do very well and there is, like, this attempt to, let’s say, build this transnational level of, like, alliances and cooperation. And I think the other point of this is that we cannot reduce migration only to those that are useful and benefit the system because then it would be only like taking those that are beneficial and useful for that system. And we live in a very stressful, let’s say, the lead capitalist system, an economic system that takes, let’s say, a big part of what we are able to do based on the way that we can produce things, and even for this … if for, like, a normal person, this is already very stressful, then for a migrant, it’s like double stressful. So, I think that narrative needs to change.
It’s very difficult, but we, let’s say, I think it’s something that we can work on and we can build alternatives. We can, let’s say, as I was saying, build a transnational collective conscience of how things can change. And this I have, because I have now another recommendation that came to my mind which was very interesting that talks about how change can be so important. So, I recently read this book by an Albanian author (called Free: Coming of Age at the End of History) who is actually also a professor of the London School of Economics. She’s called Lea Ypi and she talks–I think it’s her most, the only novel that she has that talks about is an autobiographical novel–and she talks about how there was this change of Albania from being a very reduced communist country to a very open country where everything was, like, changing. What her parents were telling her about the party was completely different. And I think it’s more important for us to–in order to build this conscience that we were talking about–to read about these books and to become aware of how much all these different changes can affect us. And in the case of Lea Ypi, it’s amazing because she connects migration with how her world changed and at the same time how we can create class consciousness and a way of seeing the economic system in a completely different way. So, if I can end with that, I think it’s a book recommendation which I love and a call to act and, let’s say, to try to build a different way of seeing alternatives to migration in the world today.
Layal Beyhum: Pablo, thank you for sharing your wonderful reflections. And I truly agree with you: it is a matter of perspective, how we choose to see things, and the necessity for change to take place. But while you were speaking, I could feel the compassion behind your voice. I could see the leave-no-one-behind concept through your actions, through your research studies, and with every engagement that you make on a day-to-day basis. And I’d like to pass this idea forward to our community. We want to see change around us. Change really needs to start from within, through the actions that we take, and to choose to take the tougher road that supports people while equally considering ways to move forward. Because without sustainability, there is no progression. Thank you so much, Pablo, for today.
I will be sharing the book recommendation in the description summary, and I wish you all a wonderful rest of the day. We’ll see you soon.
Thank you for joining us on the Nonviolence Now podcast. We hope today’s episode left you feeling inspired. If it did, don’t keep it to yourself. Share it with your friends and community. Together, let’s spread the word about the power of nonviolent action.