Chapter 12: Globalism, Nationalism, and Marginalized Communities

12.1 Case Study: Children of Men (2006)

Set in a dystopian future where humanity faces mass infertility, Children of Men presents a bleak vision of a world on the brink of collapse. With no children born in nearly two decades, societies have descended into chaos, and governments have turned to authoritarian measures to maintain order. Check out the clip below to see the first scene as citizens mourn the death of the youngest person in the world. In Britain, one of the last functioning states, refugees and immigrants—referred to as “fugees”—are scapegoated for societal decline, rounded up into detention camps, and subjected to brutal mistreatment. The story follows Theo, a disillusioned former activist, who is drawn back into resistance when he is tasked with protecting Kee, a young refugee who miraculously becomes pregnant—the first known pregnancy in years. As Theo helps Kee navigate a world that sees her as both a miracle and a threat, the film explores themes of state violence, xenophobia, and the erosion of human rights. Through its depiction of marginalization and crisis, Children of Men offers a powerful lens for understanding real-world issues related to nationalism, migration, and global governance.

Migration, or the movement of people from one area to another, occurs everywhere and has for most of human history. But a refugee crisis occurs when large numbers of people are forced to flee their homes due to war, persecution, or natural disasters, overwhelming the capacity of host countries to provide aid and protection. In Children of Men, Britain responds to the global refugee crisis by closing its borders and implementing extreme anti-immigration policies. Rather than offering asylum, the government rounds up refugees and detains them in camps reminiscent of real-world detention centers, such as those used for migrants on the U.S.-Mexico border or the refugee camps in Greece that have been criticized for their inhumane conditions. The film’s depiction of a state overwhelmed by crisis and responding with repression reflects real-world anxieties about migration. In many countries, the arrival of large numbers of refugees has been met with political backlash, leading to stricter immigration laws and policies aimed at deterrence rather than humanitarian relief. The refugee crisis in Children of Men is thus not a far-fetched dystopian invention but a reflection of ongoing debates about migration, national security, and human rights in the contemporary world. These anxieties often serve as justification for authoritarian measures such as marginalization.

Those in a society with power are often the ones that dictate policies and rules. On the other hand, marginalization occurs when certain groups are systematically excluded from political, economic, and social participation, leaving them without access to rights, resources, or opportunities. In Children of Men, refugees are treated as criminals simply for existing, herded into cages and ghettos by a government that sees them as a threat. This reflects real-world experiences of marginalized communities, from the Rohingya in Myanmar to undocumented migrants in the United States. Marginalization often stems from structural inequalities, such as discriminatory legal systems, economic barriers, or entrenched social biases. For example, in apartheid-era South Africa, Black citizens were denied political rights and forced to live in segregated areas, making it nearly impossible to escape cycles of poverty and oppression. Similarly, many Syrian refugees today find themselves marginalized in host countries, facing legal restrictions on employment, education, and healthcare. The consequence of marginalization is not just economic hardship but also a loss of political voice, making it difficult for affected groups to advocate for change. As seen in Children of Men, when marginalized groups are dehumanized, governments can justify extreme policies against them, leading to further cycles of violence and exclusion. This marginalization sets the stage for xenophobia and authoritarianism, two forces that reinforce state control over vulnerable populations.

Authoritarianism thrives in societies that prioritize national security over individual freedoms, often at the expense of marginalized communities. In Children of Men, the British government has become an authoritarian state, using mass surveillance, detention centers, and police brutality to maintain control. This reflects a broader pattern in history where states facing crises—whether economic downturns, security threats, or demographic shifts—turn to authoritarian measures to consolidate power. For example, during the 1930s, Germany’s Nazi regime used economic instability and nationalist rhetoric to justify the exclusion and persecution of Jews, Roma, and other marginalized groups. Similarly, after the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. government expanded surveillance programs and introduced restrictive immigration policies that disproportionately targeted Muslim communities. Xenophobia—fear or hatred of foreigners—plays a central role in reinforcing authoritarian policies in Children of Men. The government’s propaganda stokes public fear of refugees, depicting them as dangerous criminals responsible for society’s decline thus a threat to national stability. This mirrors contemporary political rhetoric in many countries, where populist leaders use anti-immigrant messaging to justify restrictive border policies. For example, in the United States, political debates around immigration often frame migrants as a threat to national security, leading to policies such as family separations at the border. In Europe, right-wing nationalist parties have gained traction by portraying refugees and asylum seekers as a cultural and economic burden. The film warns of the dangers of allowing xenophobia to drive public policy, showing how fear and prejudice can lead to the erosion of democratic norms and the normalization of human rights abuses. However, the film also raises the question of whether international cooperation and global governance can serve as a counterbalance to these nationalist impulses.

Global governance

Global governance refers to the collaboration of international institutions, states, and civil society organizations in addressing transnational issues, such as refugee crises and human rights protections. In Children of Men, the absence of effective global governance is evident—there are no functioning international institutions intervening to protect refugees, and Britain has isolated itself from global responsibilities. In reality, organizations like the United Nations, the International Organization for Migration, and various NGOs play a vital role in advocating for marginalized communities. For example, the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) provides critical support to displaced populations, helping them access asylum and basic services. However, global governance faces challenges, as seen in the European Union’s divided response to the Syrian refugee crisis. While some countries, like Germany, accepted large numbers of refugees, others, like Hungary and Poland, enacted harsh border policies, undermining collective humanitarian efforGlobal governance. Civil society—comprising NGOs, grassroots movements, and advocacy groups—plays a crucial role in holding governments accountable. Organizations like Amnesty International work to document human rights abuses, while activist networks use digital platforms to mobilize support for refugee rights. Yet, as seen in Children of Men, when governments restrict civil society and suppress activism, the protection of marginalized communities becomes even more difficult. This struggle between nationalism and globalism is further reflected in debates over migration and border security.

Migration

Migration is one of the most contentious issues in global politics, with national governments balancing border control against humanitarian obligations. In Children of Men, Britain’s response to the global refugee crisis is extreme: instead of offering asylum, it builds detention camps and violently expels migrants. This reflects real-world policies such as the U.S.-Mexico border wall, Australia’s offshore detention centers, and the concept of Fortress Europe—a term describing Europe’s increasingly restrictive immigration policies. Many migrants, especially asylum seekers, face legal limbo, uncertain of whether they will be granted protection or deported. Statelessness exacerbates this issue, as individuals without official citizenship are often denied access to employment, education, and healthcare. The Rohingya crisis in Myanmar provides a stark example: denied citizenship by their home country, they are forced into refugee camps in Bangladesh with little hope of resettlement. Border militarization, justified as a security measure, often leads to human rights violations, as seen with U.S. border patrol tactics or the European Union’s deployment of military forces in the Mediterranean to prevent migrant crossings. These policies, while framed as necessary for national security, raise ethical and legal questions about the rights of displaced people. This makes the role of international advocacy and human rights protections more critical than ever.

The struggle between globalism and nationalism has profound consequences for marginalized communities, shaping their access to rights, resources, and protection. Children of Men offers a powerful allegory of what happens when nationalism overrides global responsibility, depicting a world where refugees are dehumanized and abandoned. In reality, similar dynamics play out in the treatment of stateless individuals, migrants, and asylum seekers around the world. While global governance and civil society efforts provide some safeguards, political resistance to migration continues to create humanitarian crises. As students of political science, understanding these issues is crucial—not only to analyze current events but also to consider solutions that balance national sovereignty with human rights. In the end, the question remains: Can global cooperation and national interests coexist in a way that truly protects the most vulnerable?