P. 1
Irregular Migration, Human Smuggling and Human Rights

Irregular Migration, Human Smuggling and Human Rights

|Views: 118|Likes:
Migration policies across the world are driven by three core concerns: law and border enforcement, economic interest, and protection. This report argues that official policies are failing partly because one of these concerns, protection, has been marginalised. Intensified efforts to suppress migration have not deterred people from seeking security or opportunity abroad but drive many into clandestinity, while the promotion of open economic markets has attracted
millions of people to centres of prosperity but tolerated widespread exploitation.
As a political consequence, discussion of migration is widely polarised and distorted by xenophobia and racism.

The report suggests that it is in governments’ interest to affirm their legal and moral responsibility to protect everyone, including migrants. Human rights law provides a baseline of essential protection for migrants, and also some key
components of a more balanced and rational policy approach. A substantial appendix summarises the rights of irregular migrants in international law.

“Irregular migration is a hot topic in a large number of states ...and the debate is often ill-conceived, misinformed and jingoistic. It is essential that it be reframed on the basis of fact and law. The report makes a very useful contribution to that.”
Chris Sidoti, Human Rights Council of Australia

“We welcome the emphasis on protection of rights not just in terms of a legal framework, but also as sound policy that is in the interest of society as a whole.”
Open Society Institute (OSI)

“This report is an extremely useful compilation of relevant migrant rights legislation for civil society organisations. It provides very good conceptual and legal analysis and training material.”
Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women (GAATW)
Migration policies across the world are driven by three core concerns: law and border enforcement, economic interest, and protection. This report argues that official policies are failing partly because one of these concerns, protection, has been marginalised. Intensified efforts to suppress migration have not deterred people from seeking security or opportunity abroad but drive many into clandestinity, while the promotion of open economic markets has attracted
millions of people to centres of prosperity but tolerated widespread exploitation.
As a political consequence, discussion of migration is widely polarised and distorted by xenophobia and racism.

The report suggests that it is in governments’ interest to affirm their legal and moral responsibility to protect everyone, including migrants. Human rights law provides a baseline of essential protection for migrants, and also some key
components of a more balanced and rational policy approach. A substantial appendix summarises the rights of irregular migrants in international law.

“Irregular migration is a hot topic in a large number of states ...and the debate is often ill-conceived, misinformed and jingoistic. It is essential that it be reframed on the basis of fact and law. The report makes a very useful contribution to that.”
Chris Sidoti, Human Rights Council of Australia

“We welcome the emphasis on protection of rights not just in terms of a legal framework, but also as sound policy that is in the interest of society as a whole.”
Open Society Institute (OSI)

“This report is an extremely useful compilation of relevant migrant rights legislation for civil society organisations. It provides very good conceptual and legal analysis and training material.”
Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women (GAATW)

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: International Council on Human Rights Policy on Aug 09, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/11/2013

pdf

The International Bill of Human Rights (the UDHR, ICCPR and ICESCR) affrms a
range of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights that generally apply
to all persons, as well as the principle of non-discrimination that is central to the
idea of fairness in international human rights law. This principle circumscribes
the scope of differential treatment. Selective derogation made on the basis
of citizenship or immigration status must not be disproportionate, arbitrary or
discriminatory; an element of fairness and reasonableness is essential to bring
such measures within the bounds of international law.

A number of fundamental civil and political rights – including the rights to life,
freedom from torture, freedom from slavery and forced labour, equality before
the courts, and equal protection of the law – can never be limited even with
respect to non-nationals, including irregular or smuggled migrants. Differential
treatment on those grounds is never defensible.94

While the ICCPR applies to migrants as well as nationals, however, it does not
necessarily apply in the same manner or to the same degree. Article 25 (the
right to vote) applies only to citizens, while Article 13 (the right to judicial review
of an expulsion order) applies only to non-nationals. Moreover, the ICCPR draws
a secondary distinction between regular and irregular migrants. Article 12 (the
right to freedom of movement and choice of residence) and Article 13 (expulsion
after due process) “only protect those aliens who are lawfully in the territory of a
State party… [I]llegal entrants and aliens who have stayed longer than the law
or their permits allow, in particular, are not covered by its provisions”.95

If differential treatment is therefore sometimes permissible, it should be carefully
distinguished from discriminatory treatment. When an individual’s claim to
a particular right conficts with the state’s interests, the state may take into
consideration that individual’s citizenship or immigration status in deciding the
matter. On such grounds, the state may lawfully deprive non-nationals of certain
rights even when it upholds those rights for nationals; it may equally deprive
undocumented migrants of certain rights while affording those rights to legally
resident migrants. The default position, therefore, is that states are obliged to
grant migrants the same rights protection as nationals, except when different
treatment can be justifed. Often, however, states act without such justifcation.

94 The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has further asserted that
States Parties are obliged to ensure that each right enunciated in the Covenant is
satisfed to, at the very least, minimum essential levels (including the rights to food,
education, water, housing and health). In its General Comments Nos. 12, 13, 14 and
15, the Committee has directed that these core obligations are non-derogable.

95 UN Human Rights Committee (1986), General Comment No. 15: “The Position of
Aliens under the Covenant”: para. 9.

52 Irregular Migration, Migrant Smuggling and Human Rights: Towards Coherence

At the same time, international law limits differential treatment. The Human
Rights Committee has noted that differential treatment is permissible only
where distinctions are made to achieve a legitimate aim and where an objective
justifcation exists.96

The means employed must also be proportionate to the

aim.97

This principle applies even during times of emergency, when, under
strictly defned conditions, the ICCPR permits certain derogations.98

The
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has similarly stipulated
that “differential treatment based on citizenship or immigration status will
constitute discrimination if the criteria for such differentiation, judged in the light
of the objectives and purposes of the Convention, are not applied pursuant to a
legitimate aim, and are not proportional to the achievement of this aim”.99

All migrants, like citizens, are also entitled to claim economic, social and
cultural rights under the ICESCR, which theoretically extends to all persons
– and therefore to all migrants within the territory. These include wide-ranging
entitlements in areas where migrants are often at risk, including fair wages,
health care, housing and education. The Committee on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights has noted that the Covenant’s Preamble stresses the “equal and
inalienable rights of all” and the Covenant expressly recognises the rights of
“everyone” to the various Covenant rights. It also concluded that states have
an obligation to eliminate indirect as well as direct forms of discrimination. To
illustrate the former, it pointed out that requiring a birth registration certifcate for
school enrolment may discriminate against ethnic minorities or non-nationals who
do not possess, or have been denied, such certifcates. Finally, the Committee
has explicitly affrmed that Covenant rights are available without discrimination
to all non-nationals, regardless of their legal status or documentation.100

The ICESCR (Article 4) permits states to limit the rights contained in the Covenant

96 This committee monitors the implementation of the ICCPR: General Comment No.
18 on Non-Discrimination (1989).

97 Fitzpatrick, 2003, p. 172. Article 8 of the General Comment notes that “equal”
treatment does not mean “identical” treatment.

98 See Articles 4 and 12(3). Article 4 notes that: “In time of public emergency which
threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is offcially proclaimed,
the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from
their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the
exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with
their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination
solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.”

99 CERD, General Recommendation No. 30, Discrimination against Non-Citizens.

100 CESCR, General Comment No. 20: Non-Discrimination in Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (Article 2, para. 2), E/C.12/GC/20, 10 June 2009.

Irregular Migration, Migrant Smuggling and Human Rights: Towards Coherence 53

where this is required to promote the “general welfare”101

– a vague clause
that could permit wide interpretation. The Limburg Principles, which provide
interpretive guidance on the ICESCR, assert that this article was primarily
inserted to protect the rights of individuals, and was not intended to limit rights
affecting the subsistence or survival of individuals or the integrity of the person.
According to the Principles, the term “promoting the general welfare” should be
“construed to mean furthering the well-being of the people as a whole”.102

Article 2(3) of the ICESCR also allows industrialising states to limit the provision
of economic rights to non-nationals. Again, however, the Limburg Principles
conclude that Article 2(3) addressed the economic infuence of certain
groups of non-nationals under colonisation and that, accordingly, it should
be interpreted narrowly.103

The principle of “progressive realisation” (ICESCR,
Article 2) refects a recognition that to some extent the realisation of economic,
social and cultural rights may be impeded by lack of resources, and that some
rights can only be achieved over a period of time.104

However, it is clear that lack
of resources cannot justify indefnite inaction or postponement of implementing
measures. Even when resources are limited, states have a duty to ‘take steps’,
including targeting programmes to protect the most disadvantaged, vulnerable
and marginalised sectors of their society. In many societies, this group would
include migrants, including migrants in an irregular situation.

States therefore have certain immediate obligations in relation to economic,
social and cultural rights, including the duties to eliminate discrimination, to
take steps to respect the prohibition on retrogressive measures, and to ensure
minimum core obligations. The latter rights, which apply equally to all individuals
present on the territory of the state, include access to: employment; basic
shelter; water and sanitation; a social security scheme that provides minimum
essential benefts; and free and compulsory primary education.105

101 ICESCR, Article 4: “[T]he State may subject such rights only to such limitations
as are determined by law only in so far as this may be compatible with the nature
of these rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a
democratic society.”

102 Limburg Principles, Article 4, para. 52.

103 The history of the Covenant indicates that the drafters intended to protect the rights
of nationals of newly-independent former colonies from resident non-nationals
who controlled important sectors of the economy. The Limburg Principles further
provide guidance that the term ‘developing countries’ applies to those countries
that gained independence and fall under the appropriate United Nations defnition
of the term, in order to stress further the intentionally limited scope of the article.
Limburg Principles on the Implementation of the ICESCR, 1986, paras 42-44.

104 ICESCR, Article 2, paras 1-3.

105 OHCHR, 2008a, p. 13.

54 Irregular Migration, Migrant Smuggling and Human Rights: Towards Coherence

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->