Much of what how we discuss migration is if and how much a migrant deserves resettlement into a new country. In our class discussions, we have consistently mentioned vulnerability as a determinant of migrant acceptance, be it by the UNHCR, hotspot cities, or the global public. In Miriam Ticktin’s “What’s Wrong With Innocence,” innocence is explored as a rather un-innocent, hurtful concept. While innocence can be used to entail a fairly solid image of vulnerability to validate one’s humanity, it not only strips a migrant of protection against judgement but also depicts the migrant as terribly dependent. Economic migrants try their best to maintain some level of independence.

Firstly, it is ironic that we expect the most vulnerable and dependent to contribute much to the cities they are resettled in. If they are so dependent but are often in not well structured resettlement programs, at least in the United States, it is quite unlikely that such refugees can provide a return on resources like money quickly. These “most vulnerable” migrants need much more support than to be able to sustain themselves. A second ironic aspect is that economic migrants who are able to prove their functionality through the labor market are criticized as non-deserving of resettlement. This apparent contradiction in what governments and citizens of more developed and popular countries of resettlement highlights a conflict between what we ask from migrants and their vulnerability. Just as Étienne Balibar emphasizes in the hegemonic structure of Europe, projecting images of vulnerability and innocence on migrant identities will involve deconstruction of Europe’s history of colonization and tensions.