I'm wary of using border controls as an instrument to advance human rights. Giving bureaucrats or a minister powers to deny entry on human rights grounds can legitimise the use of discretionary power to restrict entry more generally, and might backfire on progressives.
https://twitter.com/SBSNews/status/1261114751741902848
The parochialism surrounding Magnitsky also makes me skeptical. Those promoting it make no effort to sound impartial - it's about joining a "club" of Western allies. The idea that there might be people responsible for human rights abuses in Western countries just isn't discussed.
This is what you find, for example, in Geoffrey Robertson's writings - it's all about closing off the West (or "advanced democracies") to bad folks from the non-West. But what about the "cruel and corrupt" who are from the "advanced democracies"? newsroom.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/… 
I know this rhetorical framing doesn't in theory preclude the laws being used more impartially, but it's so ubiquitous, I really wonder how likely that is. Here's HRW talking about the laws in terms of Australia "falling into line" and working "in lock step" with the Five Eyes.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
