Reading “Where ethics and politics meet: The Violence of Humanitarianism in France,” I not only see what humanitarianism guidelines can lead to in terms of categorization, but I also understand what some are willing to do to get documentation. The first example that the author introduces, or the reports of people attempting to infect themselves with HIV to stay in France, is eye opening. It first illustrates the difficulties people face, to the point that they will do just about anything to stay in a place that offers refuge and opportunity. Looking in to the reasoning behind the restrictions into France, the author elaborates that their “illness clause” on the most basic level, finds illness allowable across borders but not poverty.

This leads me to ask the question, yet again, what counts as a permissible reason to even be considered for documentation in a country like France? Given the example of sick versus poor, either case would require resources. Evidently, being classified as sick for this country is held to a higher degree of need for resources as well as compassion. Still what does that mean for the individual? Using the initial example once again, Ticktin’s evaluation leads to the conclusion that the individual entering the country is either one of the other. They either embody the humanitarian cause or they are politically recognized as a citizens, but never both at the same time. Additionally, each categorizations proves to have different requirements and are therefore treat drastically different. Personally, I know that hearing the term “humanitarian” brings to mind positivity and hope, but reading this short ethnography illustrates many of the costs, with the example of biological integrity being compromised in some cases as the main backing for documentation.