UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of Migrant

S

swatiraohnlu

Swati Rao
The United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families was signed in 1990 and entered into force in 2003. The Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW) monitors implementation of the convention. The treaty is meant to ensure minimum protections to all migrants, focusing on ensuring freedom from discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, sex, religion or any other status, in all aspects of work, including in hiring, conditions of work, and promotion, and in access to housing, health care and basic services. It also ensures freedom from arbitrary expulsion from their country of employment and protection from violence, physical injury, threats and intimidation by public officials or by private individuals, groups or institutions. The treaty recognizes that legal migrants have the legitimacy to claim more rights than undocumented migrants, but it stresses that undocumented migrants must see their fundamental human rights respected.

Does the convention help solve a problem, or create problems?
 
* Migrant treaty presses mere compliance with national laws. Rory Mungoven, global advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, said in 2003 when the treaty went into effect: "The Migrant Workers Convention is not soft on illegal immigration. All it asks is that undocumented migrants be treated in full compliance with the law, and not subjected to abuse."[5]

* Migrant workers treaty gives illegals fewer rights/protections. The treaty recognizes that illegal aliens cannot be treated in the same way as legal migrant workers; that such legal workers have more rights and protections. But, it ensures that these illegal aliens are treated humanely, legally, and responsibly by host governments, whether it be in finding them, arresting them, deporting them, or in integrating them into society with some kind of a path to citizenship. National laws already demand such humane action, so the migrant workers treaty hardly does anything new that Western governments should find objectionable in this regard.
 
* Migrant treaty increases burdens of processing illegal aliens. The treaty requires that countries provide full legal procedures for illegal aliens. This could limit the ability of a nation to quickly process and deport illegal aliens. In some countries, large immigration problems make such lengthy judicial processes untenable. And, it is not the fault of the government that a massive and constant flood of illegal immigrants makes judicially and equitably handling each and every one of them impossible. In such instances of a breach of national and sovereign security, full legal processes for NON-citizens is simply not an option, not is signing a treaty that requires this.

* "Abusive" treatment of illegals is a matter of interpretation. What constitutes "unfair treatment" or "abuse" in a nation's immigration policy is a subject for interpretation under the Migrant Workers Treaty. In the United States, for example, people can be fined or held legally liable for aiding or employing illegal immigrants. Some consider this abusive. And, the United States has created a wall on its southern border. Is this abusive? These are all matters for interpretation based on US national interests, but the concern is that the UN will deem some of these actions or policies "abusive" or "inhumane", and thereby consider them unlawful under the Migrant Workers Convention.
 
* International migration treaty limits sovereign migration policy. The United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families would limit the sovereign rights of states to decide upon who can enter their territory and for how long they can remain. While this might not be a problem for countries of origin of migrants, it is certainly a central concern for migrant-receiving nations like the United States, Australia, in Europe, India, and Indonesia. Every state has its own set of issues to deal with as they relate to migration (ie, overpopulation, crime, deficits, national identity, etc.), and many believe they must have the independent flexibility to tailor their immigration policies to meet these issues. That's why an international treaty is seen as a potential liability to states that feel immigration policy must be fully within their own control.

* Migration policy should be crafted on a state-by-state basis. Every state has different issues and problems related to migration. It is inappropriate, therefore, to call for all nations to sign a treaty that would homogenize immigration policies. These policies should be approached on a state-by-state basis.
 
* Migrant rights are already protected under human rights law. If a nation violates existing international human rights law against a migrant, perhaps with exploitative working conditions, wrongful imprisonment, seizure of property, discrimination, or violence, existing international law already adequately protects them. There is no need to expand human rights law to create a separate category and separate protections for migrants.

* International laws protecting migrants will still lack enforcement. Even if the international community decided it wanted to better protect the human rights of migrants, an international treaty will not necessarily advance that cause, as international law has proven to be very difficult to enforce. This will continue to be a problem into the foreseeable future.

* Human rights are subject to interpretation under Migrant Workers Treaty. Some people consider access to the Internet to be a "human right". Others consider the ability to cross borders freely as a "human right". The definition of human rights is constantly expanding. It is for this reason that accepting a Migrant Workers Treaty that protects a migrant's "human rights" is risky. It could mean that these migrant's rights are interpreted by some in the UN to be broader and more inclusive than a state thinks they should be, and makes it possible that these rights only expand over time.
 
* Strengthening migrant rights improves diplomatic relations "Invisible people, irregular migrants." The Daily Star. June 7th, 2010: "When citizens of one country are abused in another country and left without recourse, bilateral relations are strained."

* Failure to ratify migrant workers convention draws rebukes from UN. "Human Rights Abuses in Plain Sight: Migrant Workers in the US." Huffington Post. December 18, 2009: "The failure of the U.S. to address human rights violations facing migrant workers has drawn sharp rebukes from the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Migrants, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, and the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination."

* Non-ratification of Migrant Workers Convention undermines state values "Europe, It's Time to Ratify the Migrant Workers Convention." International Federation for Human Rights. June 21, 2010: "The Migrant Workers Convention is one of the nine core United Nations human rights instruments. It has now been ratified by 42 states and a further 16 have signed up and are in the process of ratification. Yet, to date, no EU Member State has signed or ratified the Convention. Non-ratification brings the core values of the EU into question. The Member States of the European Union can no longer fall behind but must demonstrate in concrete terms their willingness to be held accountable for migrants as they have done for decades in relation to international treaties protecting other vulnerable groups, such as women and children."
 
The Convention is not proposing new human rights for migrant workers. Part III of the Convention is a reiteration of the basic rights which are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and elaborated in the international human rights treaties adopted by most nations.

So why are those rights subject to another International Legal Instrument?

The Convention seeks to draw the attention of the international community to the dehumanization of migrant workers and members of their families, many of whom being deprived of their basic human rights. Indeed, legislation implementing other basic treaties in some States utilises terminology covering citizens and/or residents, de jura excluding many migrants, especially those in irregular situations.
 
The Convention seeks to play a role in preventing and eliminating the exploitation of migrant workers throughout the entire migration process. In particular, it seeks to put an end to the illegal or clandestine recruitment and trafficking of migrant workers and to discourage the employment of migrant workers in an irregular or undocumented situation. It provides a set of binding international standards to address the treatment, welfare and human rights of both documented and undocumented migrants, as well as the obligations and responsibilities on the part of sending and receiving States.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top