Wikimedia Commons<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\nDystopian outlook: Fortress Europe<\/h2>\n
Fortress Europe, or the Mediterranean graveyard, as an increasingly realistic vision and outcome of Europe\u2019s migration policy, comes as a direct expression of this capitalism-inherent contradiction. Between \u201cmore market\u201d and \u201cmore border protection\u201d, the EU opts for both.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nThe EU\u2019s \u201chistoric\u201d migration deal announced in June 2023 intends to strike a balance between the two. On the one hand, it introduces a new two-track filtering system, separating prospective and non-prospective immigrants right at the border: those deemed unlikely to be accepted are subjected to stricter procedures, more easily rejected, and shipped away to basically anywhere the country deems appropriate (including places with documented human rights abuses). On the other hand, the EU prescribes \u201cmandatory solidarity\u201d: the obligation to relocate some 30,000 successful applicants per year across the continent. Each country has the possibility to either take in migrants or pay 20,000 euros for each person they reject. The money collected would go into a common fund to be used to finance undefined projects abroad.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nThough undefined, one may easily surmise what those projects are. During her visit to Tunisia with Italian far-right Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni in July, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen promised to \u201csupport Tunisia with border management\u201d, for which the EU will provide 100 million euros. Similar funding schemes and agreements to outsource migration management and detention facilities abound. A report from 2021 found that the EU and its member states fund the construction of detention centres, conduct other detention-related activities (like the training of guards), and advocate for detention in 22 countries in the Balkans, Africa, Eastern Europe, and West Asia, thus emulating the heavily criticized Australian model, with the intention to eventually establish offshore processing facilities. The privatization of migrant detention is already in progress.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nThe same goes for border protection. The EU funnels significant funds into bolstering personnel and installing sophisticated technologies at borders, including thermal cameras, motion sensors, drones, and sound cannons for surveillance and deterrence. Member states have so far built close to 1800 kilometres of walls on their borders, and the EU is under increasing pressure to start financing these endeavours.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nInside Fortress Europe, however, movement is encouraged and in some instances even idealized, praised as one of the EU\u2019s success stories (as in the case of Erasmus+). Whereas immigration from outside of Europe is set to destroy the \u201cEuropean way of life\u201d, intra-EU migration is seen as advancing it. Nevertheless, it is framed in similarly functional terms, to be conducted only when there\u2019s a need (i.e. when national workers are hard to come by).\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nAgainst this backdrop, calls for reform such as those proposing a drastic increase and expansion of circular migration schemes to encompass third-country nationals beyond those with visa-free travel (and intra-EU migrants) appear short-sighted, if not utilitarian and discriminatory. In this manner, liberal thinkers such as Branko Milanovi\u0107 propose schemes that could range from those presently existing in Gulf countries \u2013 where foreign workers have no rights whatsoever \u2013 to those that offer migrants a wider set of rights but only for limited periods of time.<\/span> Aware that his solution is bound to produce an underclass, he nevertheless prefers it to Fortress Europe.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nHowever, the morally dubious perspective that discusses migration only in terms of what Europe \u201cneeds\u201d is equally dystopian, not to mention that it fails to take into account the cost of all that \u201ccirculation\u201d for those doing it or propose ways to approach the upcoming mass climate migration.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nProgressive utopias<\/h2>\n
Fortress Europe certainly isn\u2019t the only dystopia out there. In light of the climate crisis, new concepts of communal life are cropping up everywhere. From Saudi Arabia\u2019s plan for smart city The Line to billionaire Peter Thiel\u2019s autonomous city \u201csomewhere in the Mediterranean\u201d, the future looks grim. So what if we turn the tables? What if, instead of marching towards dystopia, we put on utopian lenses?\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nThe supposed \u201cend of history\u201d \u2013 the idea that humanity has evolved to its final political and economic system in capitalist liberal democracy, as \u201cthere is no alternative\u201d \u2013 also meant the \u201cend of future\u201d in philosopher Franco Berardi\u2019s terms,<\/span> or the \u201cend of utopia\u201d in sociologist Rastko Mo\u010dnik\u2019s.<\/span> It heralded the rejection of utopias, seeing them as dangerous projects, irrational and escapist, or even potentially totalitarian.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nUnderpinning this idea of the end of history is the modernist pairing of utopia and progress,<\/span> the marriage of utopian impulses with the view of history as a linear succession of stages, each better than the last. At the pinnacle of progress, no higher stages are to be found; there is nowhere further to go.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nWe now know that history never ended. In fact, we are living through its turbulent \u201creturn\u201d. We also know that utopias didn\u2019t end either. They simply got a sort of dystopian overhaul. We didn\u2019t stop imagining other worlds (there are plenty of worse worlds we can think of); we stopped imagining better ones.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nCountering the modernist framing of utopia, the work of philosopher Ernst Bloch decouples utopias from the idea of progress. After all, the notion of progress is inseparable from various kinds of subjugation: patriarchy, colonialism, imperialism, and exploitation, to name just a few. Bloch sees utopia as a critical analysis of conventional constructions (or imaginaries) of reality, time, and the possible \u2013 a critical negation of that which merely <\/span>is <\/span><\/i>and a challenge to assumptions about what is possible and impossible in the present. In Blochian philosophy, the future is open; it is presented not as a blueprint but rather as a direction, a horizon.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nNew horizons<\/h2>\n
Following Bloch in his search for non-progressive utopias, his insistence on the possibility of change and the role of subjects within it (as opposed to current trends of leaving human subjects out and counting on objects, nature, or technology), and his emphasis on processes \u2013 on the becoming, rather than on being \u2013 we could try sketching out other migration policy directions.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nA place to start is turning away from utilitarian approaches that permit migration on the basis of need \u2013 like labour shortages or ageing populations \u2013 and, instead, taking a proactive, subject-centred view on migration futures.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nA radical examination of what the EU is and should be about is indispensable to avoid the apartheid-shaped ditch we are headed to if Europe becomes home to a two-tier system of citizenship. What exactly are those \u201cEuropean values\u201d so tirelessly vaunted? At the moment, it seems to be an arbitrary selection of characteristics Europe wants to be known for \u2013 like democracy, the rule of law, and economic prosperity \u2013 which omits inconvenient ones like domination, exploitation, colonialism, fascism, and the ongoing brutal treatment of migrants. Another trope, the need to preserve a European \u201cway of life\u201d, a post-modern fascist favourite phrase and an official EU narrative, now acts as a suitable replacement for the overly problematic \u201cblood and soil\u201d justification. Identitarian reasoning is thus central to the EU\u2019s thinking on migration, which is therefore bound to fail.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nMoving away from a focus on ethno-nationalistic or even cultural bonds and instead building communities united around common goals \u2013 such as ecological sustainability, quality health care, and social protections \u2013 would shift the EU from a dystopian outlook to the realm of utopia. This scenario would also imply reconsidering citizenship laws \u2013 a step European elites seem unwilling to take.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nCuriously, however, the Serbian government might.<\/span>Serbia recently adopted amendments to its citizenship law that would, if passed, allow immigrants and asylum seekers to receive Serbian citizenship after just 12 months of temporary residence. Responding to the move, EU officials warned that harmonizing Serbia\u2019s migration policy with the EU\u2019s is essential for the functioning of the visa-free regime currently in place.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nIn their book <\/span>The Dawn of Everything<\/span><\/i>, David Graeber and David Wengrow offer a convincing rebuttal of the common wisdom that human societies advance from one stage to another in a linear \u201cprogressive\u201d fashion.<\/span>In fact, humans have shifted between hierarchical and egalitarian forms of organization for millennia, consciously building and destroying social orders. Graeber and Wengrow identify three basic social freedoms: freedom to disobey; freedom to move away; and freedom to create and transform social orders. These are found across cultures and centuries, facilitating the ability of pre-modern peoples to leave behind \u2013 by transforming, destroying, or simply abandoning \u2013 social setups that have become inappropriate or unwanted.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nIn contrast to the modern (Western) concept of individual freedom, where to be free means to be self-sufficient and as such is inseparable from private property, for the indigenous societies of America, individual freedom was embedded within structures of care; it implied that people permitted each other to live without fear of falling through the cracks. So why not re-examine the very foundations of our social environments?\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nWhat if, instead of investing in detention centres, we invest in elaborate social infrastructures that facilitate immigration by providing appropriate shelter, subsistence, and guidance? What if we use existing infrastructures not for profit-making but for humanity-saving purposes? What if we allow the creation of autonomous communities that develop their own avenues for migration among themselves? Dystopian avenues are already here, so why not try for utopian ones as well? What if we are no longer compelled to own but rather to take care of, to look after, to become custodians of our shared social and natural wealth? This future has no script. There\u2019s no certainty about how it goes. It\u2019s entirely open-ended.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nPerhaps, then, the most crucial step to be taken lies in the realm of imagination, in an effort to radically challenge the notions of what is possible, to break away from collective, socially engineered, and subsequently naturalized ideas about what can and cannot be achieved. What happens next is in our hands.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n[ad_2]
\n
Source link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"[ad_1] Migration is one of today\u2019s most powerful, and most entrenched, imaginaries. The word conjures up images of walls, borders, police, uncertainty, destitution, misery, and<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":219351,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[154],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219350"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=219350"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219350\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":331973,"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219350\/revisions\/331973"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/219351"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219350"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219350"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219350"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"A_line_of_Syrian_refugees_crossing_the_border_of_Hungary_and_Austria_on_their_way_to_Germany._Hungary_Central_Europe_6_September_2015\"](\"https:\/\/www.eurozine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/2048px-A_line_of_Syrian_refugees_crossing_the_border_of_Hungary_and_Austria_on_their_way_to_Germany._Hungary_Central_Europe_6_September_2015.jpg\")
<\/p>\n![Wikimedia Commons<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\nDystopian outlook: Fortress Europe<\/h2>\nFortress Europe, or the Mediterranean graveyard, as an increasingly realistic vision and outcome of Europe\u2019s migration policy, comes as a direct expression of this capitalism-inherent contradiction. Between \u201cmore market\u201d and \u201cmore border protection\u201d, the EU opts for both.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nThe EU\u2019s \u201chistoric\u201d migration deal announced in June 2023 intends to strike a balance between the two. On the one hand, it introduces a new two-track filtering system, separating prospective and non-prospective immigrants right at the border: those deemed unlikely to be accepted are subjected to stricter procedures, more easily rejected, and shipped away to basically anywhere the country deems appropriate (including places with documented human rights abuses). On the other hand, the EU prescribes \u201cmandatory solidarity\u201d: the obligation to relocate some 30,000 successful applicants per year across the continent. Each country has the possibility to either take in migrants or pay 20,000 euros for each person they reject. The money collected would go into a common fund to be used to finance undefined projects abroad.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nThough undefined, one may easily surmise what those projects are. During her visit to Tunisia with Italian far-right Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni in July, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen promised to \u201csupport Tunisia with border management\u201d, for which the EU will provide 100 million euros. Similar funding schemes and agreements to outsource migration management and detention facilities abound. A report from 2021 found that the EU and its member states fund the construction of detention centres, conduct other detention-related activities (like the training of guards), and advocate for detention in 22 countries in the Balkans, Africa, Eastern Europe, and West Asia, thus emulating the heavily criticized Australian model, with the intention to eventually establish offshore processing facilities. The privatization of migrant detention is already in progress.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nThe same goes for border protection. The EU funnels significant funds into bolstering personnel and installing sophisticated technologies at borders, including thermal cameras, motion sensors, drones, and sound cannons for surveillance and deterrence. Member states have so far built close to 1800 kilometres of walls on their borders, and the EU is under increasing pressure to start financing these endeavours.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nInside Fortress Europe, however, movement is encouraged and in some instances even idealized, praised as one of the EU\u2019s success stories (as in the case of Erasmus+). Whereas immigration from outside of Europe is set to destroy the \u201cEuropean way of life\u201d, intra-EU migration is seen as advancing it. Nevertheless, it is framed in similarly functional terms, to be conducted only when there\u2019s a need (i.e. when national workers are hard to come by).\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nAgainst this backdrop, calls for reform such as those proposing a drastic increase and expansion of circular migration schemes to encompass third-country nationals beyond those with visa-free travel (and intra-EU migrants) appear short-sighted, if not utilitarian and discriminatory. In this manner, liberal thinkers such as Branko Milanovi\u0107 propose schemes that could range from those presently existing in Gulf countries \u2013 where foreign workers have no rights whatsoever \u2013 to those that offer migrants a wider set of rights but only for limited periods of time.<\/span> Aware that his solution is bound to produce an underclass, he nevertheless prefers it to Fortress Europe.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nHowever, the morally dubious perspective that discusses migration only in terms of what Europe \u201cneeds\u201d is equally dystopian, not to mention that it fails to take into account the cost of all that \u201ccirculation\u201d for those doing it or propose ways to approach the upcoming mass climate migration.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nProgressive utopias<\/h2>\nFortress Europe certainly isn\u2019t the only dystopia out there. In light of the climate crisis, new concepts of communal life are cropping up everywhere. From Saudi Arabia\u2019s plan for smart city The Line to billionaire Peter Thiel\u2019s autonomous city \u201csomewhere in the Mediterranean\u201d, the future looks grim. So what if we turn the tables? What if, instead of marching towards dystopia, we put on utopian lenses?\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nThe supposed \u201cend of history\u201d \u2013 the idea that humanity has evolved to its final political and economic system in capitalist liberal democracy, as \u201cthere is no alternative\u201d \u2013 also meant the \u201cend of future\u201d in philosopher Franco Berardi\u2019s terms,<\/span> or the \u201cend of utopia\u201d in sociologist Rastko Mo\u010dnik\u2019s.<\/span> It heralded the rejection of utopias, seeing them as dangerous projects, irrational and escapist, or even potentially totalitarian.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nUnderpinning this idea of the end of history is the modernist pairing of utopia and progress,<\/span> the marriage of utopian impulses with the view of history as a linear succession of stages, each better than the last. At the pinnacle of progress, no higher stages are to be found; there is nowhere further to go.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nWe now know that history never ended. In fact, we are living through its turbulent \u201creturn\u201d. We also know that utopias didn\u2019t end either. They simply got a sort of dystopian overhaul. We didn\u2019t stop imagining other worlds (there are plenty of worse worlds we can think of); we stopped imagining better ones.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nCountering the modernist framing of utopia, the work of philosopher Ernst Bloch decouples utopias from the idea of progress. After all, the notion of progress is inseparable from various kinds of subjugation: patriarchy, colonialism, imperialism, and exploitation, to name just a few. Bloch sees utopia as a critical analysis of conventional constructions (or imaginaries) of reality, time, and the possible \u2013 a critical negation of that which merely <\/span>is <\/span><\/i>and a challenge to assumptions about what is possible and impossible in the present. In Blochian philosophy, the future is open; it is presented not as a blueprint but rather as a direction, a horizon.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nNew horizons<\/h2>\nFollowing Bloch in his search for non-progressive utopias, his insistence on the possibility of change and the role of subjects within it (as opposed to current trends of leaving human subjects out and counting on objects, nature, or technology), and his emphasis on processes \u2013 on the becoming, rather than on being \u2013 we could try sketching out other migration policy directions.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nA place to start is turning away from utilitarian approaches that permit migration on the basis of need \u2013 like labour shortages or ageing populations \u2013 and, instead, taking a proactive, subject-centred view on migration futures.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nA radical examination of what the EU is and should be about is indispensable to avoid the apartheid-shaped ditch we are headed to if Europe becomes home to a two-tier system of citizenship. What exactly are those \u201cEuropean values\u201d so tirelessly vaunted? At the moment, it seems to be an arbitrary selection of characteristics Europe wants to be known for \u2013 like democracy, the rule of law, and economic prosperity \u2013 which omits inconvenient ones like domination, exploitation, colonialism, fascism, and the ongoing brutal treatment of migrants. Another trope, the need to preserve a European \u201cway of life\u201d, a post-modern fascist favourite phrase and an official EU narrative, now acts as a suitable replacement for the overly problematic \u201cblood and soil\u201d justification. Identitarian reasoning is thus central to the EU\u2019s thinking on migration, which is therefore bound to fail.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nMoving away from a focus on ethno-nationalistic or even cultural bonds and instead building communities united around common goals \u2013 such as ecological sustainability, quality health care, and social protections \u2013 would shift the EU from a dystopian outlook to the realm of utopia. This scenario would also imply reconsidering citizenship laws \u2013 a step European elites seem unwilling to take.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nCuriously, however, the Serbian government might.<\/span>Serbia recently adopted amendments to its citizenship law that would, if passed, allow immigrants and asylum seekers to receive Serbian citizenship after just 12 months of temporary residence. Responding to the move, EU officials warned that harmonizing Serbia\u2019s migration policy with the EU\u2019s is essential for the functioning of the visa-free regime currently in place.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nIn their book <\/span>The Dawn of Everything<\/span><\/i>, David Graeber and David Wengrow offer a convincing rebuttal of the common wisdom that human societies advance from one stage to another in a linear \u201cprogressive\u201d fashion.<\/span>In fact, humans have shifted between hierarchical and egalitarian forms of organization for millennia, consciously building and destroying social orders. Graeber and Wengrow identify three basic social freedoms: freedom to disobey; freedom to move away; and freedom to create and transform social orders. These are found across cultures and centuries, facilitating the ability of pre-modern peoples to leave behind \u2013 by transforming, destroying, or simply abandoning \u2013 social setups that have become inappropriate or unwanted.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nIn contrast to the modern (Western) concept of individual freedom, where to be free means to be self-sufficient and as such is inseparable from private property, for the indigenous societies of America, individual freedom was embedded within structures of care; it implied that people permitted each other to live without fear of falling through the cracks. So why not re-examine the very foundations of our social environments?\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nWhat if, instead of investing in detention centres, we invest in elaborate social infrastructures that facilitate immigration by providing appropriate shelter, subsistence, and guidance? What if we use existing infrastructures not for profit-making but for humanity-saving purposes? What if we allow the creation of autonomous communities that develop their own avenues for migration among themselves? Dystopian avenues are already here, so why not try for utopian ones as well? What if we are no longer compelled to own but rather to take care of, to look after, to become custodians of our shared social and natural wealth? This future has no script. There\u2019s no certainty about how it goes. It\u2019s entirely open-ended.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nPerhaps, then, the most crucial step to be taken lies in the realm of imagination, in an effort to radically challenge the notions of what is possible, to break away from collective, socially engineered, and subsequently naturalized ideas about what can and cannot be achieved. What happens next is in our hands.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n[ad_2]\nSource link <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"[ad_1] Migration is one of today\u2019s most powerful, and most entrenched, imaginaries. The word conjures up images of walls, borders, police, uncertainty, destitution, misery, and<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":219351,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[154],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219350"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=219350"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219350\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":331973,"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219350\/revisions\/331973"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/219351"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219350"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219350"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/michigandigitalnews.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219350"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}](\"https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:A_line_of_Syrian_refugees_crossing_the_border_of_Hungary_and_Austria_on_their_way_to_Germany._Hungary,_Central_Europe,_6_September_2015.jpg\"){kind=link}