摘要
Migration is contentious. Regardless if the migrants are Rohingya refugees fleeing horrific persecution, or if themigrants are household and construction workers filling labor gaps, we are at a moment in time when countriesview migration as undesirable and in need of regulation and limits. Southeast Asia has seen significant flows ofmigrants before. In some instances, it has been a peaceful process, but currently, it is a source of considerabletension and conflict. During colonial rule, workers from China and India were embedded into the political economyof subjected territories. During the VietnamWar, refugees from Vietnam and Cambodia were (reluctantly) acceptedby neighboring countries and later immigrated to the US. Why do we see variation in responses to migration? Thispaper looks at two possible answers: First, the politicization of race, ethnicity, religion, and identity has madeimmigration more problematic for both receiving and sending countries. Second, we see dramatic shifts in attitudesand interests about immigration from great powers. In the 1970s, Southeast Asian countries accepted refugees fromVietnam and Cambodia because the US promised that these refugees would be resettled outside Southeast Asia inthe US and her allies. As Rohingya flee ethnic cleansing in Myanmar, no such promise of resettlement has beenforthcoming from wealthy countries. So, neighboring countries have little willingness to help the Rohingya on theirown. Hegemonic stability theory posits that a hegemon can foster and promote cooperation on a wide variety ofinternational problems, when a hegemon refuses to behave in this way;we are less likely to see cooperation onproblems like migration. This paper will explore both the domestic politicization of immigration and at globaldemonization of migration, which affects conditions in Southeast Asia.
