Rokhaya Diallo: Liberté Circulation Critique Exposes Migration Bias

• Journalist Rokhaya Diallo's Mediapart chronicle critiques the double standard in freedom of movement for migrants from the Global South versus "expatriates" from the North.
• Diallo challenges the interpretation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, advocating for an extended right to settle, despite acknowledging current legal nuances.
• She argues that numerous legal reforms have failed to prevent migration driven by structural causes, and closing legal routes only increases danger for migrants.
• Diallo criticizes both right-wing anti-immigrant sentiment and left-wing views that reduce migrants to economic utility, linking this to historical extractivism.
• Her analysis concludes that freedom of movement primarily benefits capital, exemplified by European corporate presence in former colonies contrasting with strict immigration policies for their citizens.

She argues that the current application of freedom of movement disproportionately benefits capital over individuals, particularly those from formerly colonized nations.

In a chronicle published on Mediapart on March 22, 2026, journalist and researcher Rokhaya Diallo launched a sharp critique of what she terms a "two weights, two measures" approach to freedom of movement. Her analysis specifically targets the public discourse that differentiates between migrants originating from the Global South and "expatriates" from the Global North, suggesting a neocolonial logic underpins prevalent narratives surrounding immigration.

Diallo's piece directly addresses the controversy sparked by her previous assertions that the principle of freedom of movement, enshrined within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), should logically extend to encompass an individual's right to settle wherever they choose. She recounted receiving a "community note" on social media, which served as a reminder that the UDHR, in its current interpretation, guarantees only the right to depart and re-enter one's own country, not an automatic right of installation elsewhere. While acknowledging this legal nuance, Diallo firmly maintains her position that the foundational principle of mobility ought to be broadened in its application.

To contextualize her arguments, Diallo references an Ipsos BVA survey conducted for Le Monde, released prior to municipal elections, which indicated a significant shift in French public concerns. The survey revealed that immigration had surpassed environmental issues as a primary worry for the French populace, with ecology dropping to eighth place from its third-place ranking in 2020. This shift underscores the heightened public attention on migration, forming a backdrop for her critical commentary.

Further supporting her perspective, Diallo cites research from two academics, highlighted by Alternatives économiques, which found a counterintuitive correlation: regions where far-right political parties achieve their strongest electoral results are frequently those with the lowest immigrant populations. This finding, in her view, directly challenges the notion that public rejection of immigration is primarily driven by direct, lived experiences of coexistence.

Diallo contends that despite approximately twenty reforms to laws governing foreign nationals since 1980, no legislative measure has effectively halted migration when its root causes are structural, such as armed conflicts, political instability, or economic collapse. She argues that the closure of legal migration pathways inadvertently compels individuals to undertake longer and more perilous journeys, thereby increasing their reliance on human smugglers and exacerbating their vulnerability, all without diminishing the overall migratory flows.

Her critique extends to what she identifies as problematic discourse even within left-leaning political circles. She specifically targets narratives that frame immigration primarily as a solution to demographic challenges like declining birth rates or the funding of pension systems. For Diallo, reducing migrants to their economic utility represents a form of dehumanization, drawing parallels between this perspective and the extractivist logic that historically underpinned Western dominance over other parts of the world.

A central point of Diallo's critique involves the stark contrast in treatment between migrants from less affluent nations and Western "expatriates." She highlights that the latter group often enjoys a virtually unrestricted freedom of movement globally, while citizens from poorer countries face stringent restrictions. This disparity, she asserts, underscores a fundamental inequality in how mobility is perceived and regulated.

Diallo further points out that the majority of international migration actually occurs between countries within the Global South, a fact that, in her opinion, contradicts the widespread perception of a significant migratory threat to wealthier nations. She concludes by drawing attention to a profound contradiction: the enduring presence of European, particularly French, corporations—such as the Bolloré group—in former African colonies, juxtaposed with the severe immigration policies imposed on citizens from those very same countries. This, she argues, is a clear indication that the principle of freedom of movement predominantly serves the interests of capital rather than the rights and needs of individuals.

Source: Original reporting via SenePlus