International Conventions on Migrants Rights
Graziano Battistella
Scalabrini International Migration Institute - Rome In the Report of the Committee on Migrant Workers of the June ILO International Labor Conference the expression “multilateral framework” occurs 32 times. It is an expression introduced by the workers’ representative with the specification that “this multilateral framework would not call into question national sovereignty to determine the magnitude of, or criteria for, migration; rather it would aim to guide policy and promote best practice on migration in both sending and receiving countries” (ILC 2004, §65). The idea was borrowed from the conclusions of the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization (2004, §428), which stated that: “A major gap in the current institutional structure for the global economy is the absence of a multilateral framework for governing the cross-border movement of people.” The concept was not favored by major countries of destination, but it became the first point in the ILO plan of action for migrant workers, reading: “This plan of action shall include development of a non-binding multilateral framework for a rights-based approach to labor migration which takes account of labor market needs, proposing guidelines and principles for policies based on best practices and international standards” (ILC 2004, §21). It is important to note the key addition of the word “non-binding,” the only way to make it acceptable to all.
The conclusion reached at the ILC 2004 seems, to me, the right point of departure for a discussion on conventions for the protection of migrants. In fact, it seems the conclusion of a journey of 50 years, or even more if we go back to the League of Nations, and which is far from being completed. In this presentation, I will first retrace that journey, trying to show how the various instruments responded to specific concerns in the various phases of the development of international migration. I will then recap the discussion on the limited adherence of governments to such international instruments, underscoring the major difficulties to ratify international conventions. I will then try to indicate the essential components of a multilateral framework for the current management of migration.
Historical Developments of the Conventions on the Rights of Migrants
Before World War II: Only Discussion
The first attention given by international law to the protection of migrants considers their condition as foreigners. The law on the state responsibility towards aliens, however, was never adopted by the international community because of the traditional but persistent conflict between the national and international standard. In the first case, foreigners who suffer injuries while abroad receive the same treatment as nationals; in the second case, they are granted a minimum level of protection agreed upon by the international community. Because of that conflict, the Convention on the treatment of aliens, discussed at the 1929 Paris Conference of the League of Nations, remained just a discussion document. It should be observed, however, that the Convention was excluding migrants from aliens to be protected, as migration was considered something falling under domestic jurisdiction (Nascimbene, 1984). The international climate in 1929 was not too favorable to extend protection to migrants. Migration at that time was mostly the movement of people from Europe toward the Americas. Such movement, which had reached massive proportions before World War I, had already been limited by the restrictive measures to immigration adopted both by North American and South American countries. Thus, migration flows were down to a trifle in comparison with the pre-war migration. Regardless of the consistence of the phenomenon, however, the protection of strangers was something derived from the colonial times, when the issue was how to grant protection to investors and traders from the western countries, and seeking the definition of a legal system was considered a better alternative to using force.
Migrants, however, were not out of the international picture. In 1919, the International Labour Organization was established with the Peace Treaty of Versailles, which contains in the Preamble the “protection of the interests of workers when employed in countries other than their own.” It was the task of ILO to promote a minimum international standard for working conditions through Conventions and Recommendations. Migrants were given specific attention even before World War II. A Migration for Employment Convention (66) was adopted in 1939 but it never entered into force because no country ratified it. Behind the lack of ratification are two obvious facts: first, that same year the world entered a disastrous war, which stopped international migration for a few years and put any consideration for the conditions of migrants in second place; second, with World War II the League of Nations, which had originated a spirit of international cooperation, was dissolved.
The failure of establishing a specific international instrument for migrants during the interwar period should not lead to the conclusion that nothing happened in the field. In fact, the concern of ILO for migrant workers went in two directions: first, to ensure them equality of treatment with nationals in matters of social security and second, to establish an international system for keeping acquired rights in case of the migrant’s transfer from one country to another.
The Post-war Development Growth: Protection to Migrant Workers
The international instruments for the protection of migrants are all established in the new climate which originated after World War II and within the new organization of states, the United Nations. As international cooperation was considered necessary and possible in other areas, particularly the political prevention of conflicts, so it was deemed beneficial in handling with dignity the conditions of international workers. Migration in the years following the war was still mostly a European phenomenon. Migrants from southern Europe were going in considerable numbers toward South America, since migration toward the US was still restricted. However, the flows from south to north Europe began soon to take over those across the Atlantic.
The basic nature of European migration clearly determined the characteristics of the ILO Migration for Employment Convention (Revised) (97) and the accompanying Recommendation (Revised) (86), which were adopted in 1949 and entered into force in 1952. The word “revised” remained in the title of both, as the text was in fact a revision of the 1939 Convention which had not entered into force. This Convention is made up of 23 articles and three annexes, which can be excluded at the moment of ratification. Among its relevant provisions are the following:
- information and assistance to migrants should be free (art.2);
- false advertising should be punished (art.3);
- departure, traveling and arrival of migrant should be facilitated (art.4);
- adequate medical services should be provided (art.5);
- equality of treatment with nationals on employment conditions, participation in labor unions, benefits from collective bargaining and on social security, subject to some limitations (art.6);
- authorization to transfer earnings and savings should be granted (art.9).
Much more detailed provisions were included in the three annexes: the first on recruitment, placement and working conditions of migrants not recruited through government programs; the second on the same subject, but in the case of government programs; and the third on the importation of personal effects and working tools and instruments. The fact that these parts could be excluded at the moment of ratification allowed for flexibility by governments in the design of their migration policy.
Convention 97, ratified by 42 countries, has a limited scope. It only concerns dependent migrant workers legally admitted, and excludes frontier workers, professionals and artists admitted for a short stay, and maritime workers. It responds to a basic philosophy of that time that migration was a positive social phenomenon, so much so that art. 4 of the Recommendation (86) encourages the movement of workers from countries with oversupply of labor to those with labor scarcity. In the time of reconstruction in Europe after a disastrous war, with sustained economic growth which lasted almost thirty years (called in France “les Trentes glorieuses”), that approach is perfectly understandable. This is also confirmed by the ratifications. At the end of the 1950s the Convention was ratified by 13 countries, seven of them in Western Europe. Seventeen more countries ratified the convention in the 1960s, including Malaysia, but limited to the territory of Sabah and with the exclusion of the three annexes. Only four countries ratified in the 1970s as well as the 1980s. The remaining four ratifications came from the newly formed republics of the former Yugoslavia. After the 1960s, ratification came mostly from central and South American countries. Therefore, even the rate of ratifications shows that the convention was particularly significant for the postwar European migration.
One salient feature of the Convention, which is actually included as an annex to the Recommendation, is a module for a standard bilateral agreement. In a labor migration mostly managed through government plans of workers import, bilateral agreements were a natural integration of the more limited general provisions contained in the Convention. The strategy of entering into bilateral agreements was pursued mostly by European countries, both concerning migration flows among themselves, as well as immigrants from non-European countries. It was a most effective strategy, as bilateral agreements are based on reciprocity. However, in many cases agreements were reached when the most convulsive and problematic aspects of migration had subsided.
Regional Protection: The Case of the Council of Europe
As the protection of migrants was receiving its international codification from the competent UN agency, regional groupings were formed to ensure peaceful cooperation and further economic development among neighboring countries. The Council of Europe, established in 1949 by ten European countries, has now 46 member states, including Russia, and embraces the whole of Europe. Among its more significant activities: it has adopted some 160 conventions; is open to the ratification of the member states, on a variety of issues. Fundamental, among such conventions, was the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. In regard to migration, three conventions stand out.
First is the 1955 European Convention on Establishment, which continues the idea of assimilating the foreigner to a citizen; it had failed in the 1929 Paris conference. In fact, the original text, then largely modified, for this convention relied heavily on the text of the Convention on the treatment of aliens. It embraces all aspects, except the social ones, concerning a foreigner resident in a European country.
The limitations of the convention derives mostly from its applicability, since it can be ratified only by European countries, it requires residence, its benefits cannot be extended to third country migrants and it is not specific on aspects related to entry and stay. However, the Convention applies not only to dependent, but also to self-employed workers.
The European Social Charter, adopted in 1961, contains article 19 on the right to protection and assistance of migrant workers and their families, which is largely taken from ILO Convention 97. Section 4 is important as it ensures equality of treatment with nationals insofar as remuneration, union membership and housing systems. However, this equality can be limited by administrative regulations. As countries are free to decide on which articles to ratify (a minimum of five out of seven, among which is also article 19), the Charter remains an objective to be reached.4
The third instrument is the European Convention on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers, adopted in 1977.5 Its intent was to specify the minimum obligations member states have toward migrants. It is a framework convention with the purpose of ensuring equality of treatment between migrants and nationals. It is meant to regulate relations among states and it codifies existing provisions already established in bilateral agreements. This Convention, which started off with ambitious goals, had little significance because of the limited number of ratifications, because it concerns only migrants from member states, because it excludes major categories of migrants, such as self-employed workers, frontier workers and seasonal workers, and most of all because it was established when most of the intra-European migratory movement had decreased and even countries in Southern Europe were becoming countries of immigration.
The example of the Council of Europe indicates how, next to the international approach to migration, the regional approach has already an established tradition. The advantage of the regional approach is that it allows for greater integration of migration policies, providing entitlements that cannot be granted in international instruments. At the same time, the regional approach has limited benefits for many migrants coming from third countries, as their governments cannot ratify those instruments.
The Issue of Irregular Migration
The 1970s marked a significant change in international migration. The change originated from the economic crisis caused by the increased cost of energy, following the war between Israel and the Arab countries. The impact affected migration in different ways in the world’s regions.
In Europe, the labor migration government programs were halted. Plans to encourage return to the countries of origin were not very successful. Instead, the major labor import countries focused on integrating the foreign work force, modifying the short-term to a long-term stay. A key provision in this regard was the possibility to be reunited with the family. Slowly, southern European countries turned from countries of emigration to countries of immigration.
In Asia, labor migration toward the Middle East increased rapidly, originating first in South Asia and then in Southeast Asia. It was followed by migration toward East and Southeast Asian countries, eventually becoming a structural phenomenon also in this continent, where unprecedented economic growth could only delay, but not avoid recourse to foreign labor.
In North America the traditional immigration flow from Europe was reduced to a trickle, substituted by migration from Latin America and from Asia. Rapid population growth, the huge income differential and the long border made Mexico the primary source of workforce, particularly for the labor intensive activity of seasonal agriculture.
Latin America was traversed by internal and bordering movements, while population from some African countries started looking increasingly to opportunities in Europe.
In this complex scenario, one aspect became widespread and common to all continents: the increase of irregular migration. Motivated by a variety of factors, including restrictive immigration policies, difficult and long procedures to obtain regular admission, available opportunities for employment in sectors neglected by national workers, aggressive recruitment machinery sometimes operating outside regulations, and trafficking of persons in the worst scenario, irregular migration became the highest concern of policy makers, who found it necessary to establish additional international instruments to cooperate in this matter.
ILO Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions) Convention (143) was adopted in 1975. It consists of two parts: the first is applicable to all migrants, but is designed in particular to protect immigrants in an irregular situation. States are invited to suppress clandestine movements, illegal hiring and smuggling of migrants. National legislation should provide sanctions against employers who hire irregular migrants, as well as intermediaries in the clandestine trafficking of labor. The second part of the convention, applicable only to regular migrants, aims at achieving not only equal treatment but also equal opportunities (such as access to employment, trade union rights, cultural rights, and freedoms). This brings back the question of what equality of treatment means, if one considers how differently workers are treated in various countries (Böhning, 1989:59).
The companion Recommendation No. 151 Concerning Migrant Workers is more detailed in the suggested provisions for equality of treatment, family reunification, health and social services. It also marks a change of philosophy within ILO as migration is no longer encouraged, as it was in Convention 97. Following the economic crisis and the change in immigration policies, concern is expressed on how to protect migrants who lost their jobs. Moreover, consideration is devoted to how to improve economic conditions in countries of origin. This idea was to become more explicit in Recommendation No. 169 Concerning Employment Policy, 1984, which invites countries of origin “to create more employment opportunities and better conditions of work in countries of emigration so as to reduce the need to migrate to find employment” (art.39, par.a).
The UN Convention on the Rights of Migrants
The same preoccupation for irregular migration that originated ILO Convention 143 motivated also the drafting of the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (MWC). However, the road to the Convention passed also through the interest on the protection of migrants expressed by the Sub-commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities as well as the concern for racial discrimination to which migrants were subjected as voiced in the first World Conference against Racism, held in Geneva in 1978. The intermingling of these various dimensions, as well as the problems experienced by ILO Convention 143 led to a new UN Convention. In fact, during the preparation of ILO Convention 143 it was apparent that some countries, like Mexico and Morocco, were reluctant to suppress drastically irregular migration and even to the US irregular migration was convenient because of its flexibility in handling seasonal agriculture jobs (Böhning, 1991:699).
The MWC underwent a long process of approximately thirty years between the initial idea, the drafting process, and then the ratification process until it entered into force on 1 July 2003. Thirty years is a long time, particularly if in between one has to include the resurgence of neoliberalism, reducing the role of the State and of social policies, the fall of the Berlin wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Asian financial crisis and the explosion of terrorism after September 11, 2001. Such events modified the international approach to migration, which has become more dominated by concerns of national security, linking migration to potential terrorist threats, increasing border controls and emphasizing the suppressive component in migration management, rather than protection. Nevertheless, the MWC is now in force, with its triple approach: first, ensuring that all migrants (also those in irregular situations) are granted human rights; second, extending more benefits to migrants in a regular situation; third, calling on government cooperation to eliminate irregular migration.
Many instruments, little support
The cursory overview of conventions for the protection of the rights of migrants, presented from a historical perspective to suggest that such instruments arise in response to specific concerns, but remain in force for much longer, even when perhaps the conditions have profoundly changed, has only mentioned a few major sets of norms, also in consideration of their relevance for migrants in Asia.6 In fact, additional considerations can just focus on the two ILO conventions and the MWC, as the only instruments with international scope.
The overview should also convey the idea that states do not have just unbridled authority to regulate the movement of migrants who cross their borders. “There is, in fact, a fairly detailed – even if not comprehensive – set of legal rules, multilateral conventions and bilateral agreements that constrain and channel state authority over migration” (Aleinikoff and Chetail, 2003:11).
At the same time, it is fairly evident that ratification of international conventions for the protection of migrants has been rather low. A geographical analysis of these ratifications leads to some interesting considerations:
- Convention 97 is the most ratified. It concerns 42 countries with a total population of 921 million. Most of all, it involves some major countries of destination, as most of the Western and Southern European countries are members to it. Those countries in Southern Europe that ratified the convention at a time in which their concern was for their migrants going abroad, have now become countries of immigration. Also Central and South America have good, although patchier representation.
- Convention 143 is the least ratified. It concerns 18 countries with a total population of 231 million. Apart from the recent ratifications of countries of former Yugoslavia, Europe is represented only by Italy, Portugal, Sweden and Norway. The other member countries are sparsely distributed in the rest of the globe.
- The MWC is ratified by 27 countries with a total population of 566 million. European membership is practically null, except for Bosnia Herzegovina, which, together with Burkina Faso, is the only country that has ratified all migrant conventions. Instead, membership has increased among African and Latin American countries, which form the bulk of ratifications. The only other important country outside of these regions is Mexico.
- Overall, countries in which at least one instrument has been ratified amount to a 1.5 billion population, which is not at all insignificant. More interestingly, there has been an important shift in the adherence to multilateral instruments for the protection of migrants from a concern of the European countries to a concern of African and Latin American countries. Asian nations have always shown more reluctance to utilize the multilateral approach.
- No major country of immigration has ever ratified any migrant convention, perhaps because of the basic different nature of the migration system, geared toward admitting immigrants rather than migrant workers. Nevertheless, even those countries have temporary workers schemes. Furthermore, most provisions in Convention 97 and 143 do not distinguish between permanent and temporary workers (ILO 2004) and the discussion whether the MWC applied also to such countries as the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand presented contrasting opinions.
- In addition to the absence of major countries of immigration, the MWC is also characterized by the practical absence of any major country of destination. Although the instrument is in force, it has little impact on the actual conditions of the majority of migrants. In fact the most popular destinations, North America, Europe and Oceania, do not feel obliged by the convention.
From the previous considerations, it is apparent that, although the set of standards available to migrants is considerable, countries are reluctant to tie themselves to such standards when it comes to managing migration. Further proof for that comes from the fact that very few countries (only one-third) responded to the specific question concerning gaps in regulation included in the International Labour Migration Survey organized by ILO before the 2004 International Labuor Conference. Of the countries that responded, gaps were indicated in the protection of irregular workers, domestic workers and temporary migrants.
Gaps in international protection exist in particular for domestic workers, who are often excluded from national labor laws; categories of migrant workers excluded in art. 11 of Convention 143 (among them, artists, under which fall the category of entertainers), temporary workers who lose employment (and are entitled to seek another employment as long as their residence permit is still valid). However, there was no decisive push for ILO to provide additional standards.
Considering the situation, ILO concluded that the following options were available:
- to launch a promotional campaign for additional ratifications
- to address existing lacunae through protocols and guidelines
- to adopt a new Recommendation with principles for the protection of migrants and for the governance of migration (ILO, 2004:96).
Although both ILO conventions might appear to some extent not consonant with the current situation of migration, the ILC did not conclude with the recommendation that the two conventions should be revised. Instead, it insisted on the idea of a non-binding multilateral framework.
What are the real obstacles to the ratifications of instruments concerning protection of migrants? Obstacles could be divided into three types:
Technical Obstacles
Often governments cannot ratify conventions because of specific provisions. The provisions they like the least have to do with equality of treatment between foreign and national workers (art. 6 of Convention 97 and art. 10 of Convention 143); the maintenance of residence rights for permanent migrant workers who have become ill after entering the country (art. 8 of Convention 97); the protection of migrants in case they lose employment (art. 8 of Convention 143). Obviously, these are provisions that improve the conditions of migrants and reduce their disposability. But disposable work is what migration is and it is not acceptable when such con-dition is lost.
Turning to the MWC, obstacles deriving from its content concern first of all the provision that grants irregular migrant workers participation in trade unions; some countries (like Tunisia and Turkey) reserve this participation only to documented migrants (Pecoud, 2004). However, when this provision was adopted the representative of ILO objected that it was already curbing the ILO standards, because it was not including for irregular workers also the possibility to form trade unions. A second issue which is cause for reservation is the definition of family, considered too wide for some countries, as it recognizes unmarried couples. At the same time, in the working group African NGOs made a representation for the reception of the extended family in the definition, which was not accepted as it would have expanded considerably the persons entitled to family reunification.
However, often issues are misconstrued by governments, perhaps as a way out. One motivation often presented for not ratifying these conventions, particularly the MWC is that they do not want to be dictated to on their admission policies. But in fact, the conventions explicitly say that such aspect remains fully in the purview of government’s action.
Technical Difficulties
Ratification of conventions implies aligning national norms with the international standards. This might create various problems, including competence problems among departments, or different texts to use as reference. Paradoxically, some countries that have ratified the ILO Conventions do not want to complicate matters with also the additional text of the MWC. The biggest difficulties, however, derive from the lack of experience some countries have in dealing with migration. In this regard, explicit request was made to ILO to provide countries with technical assistance and capacity building, especially for gender-sensitive policies, for reviewing and updating laws and regulations, for developing databases and others (ILC 2004:31).
Political Obstacles
This appears the most important. They include the unwillingness of governments to lose the flexibility of unprotected migrant labor; the aversion to allow the possibility of influx that will modify the cultural characteristics of the country; the disinclination to subject to a multilateral approach for an issue perceived to be a national affair; the reluctance of being the first country to ratify an instrument, preferring to see the experience of other countries first; the unwillingness to grant migrants rights that are not even available to nationals; the fear of uncertainties that migration brings to security; the need to choose in the plethora of international instruments (Pecoud, 2004).
A dispassionate consideration of the various obstacles could lead to uncovering how tenuous their basis is. Nevertheless, facts are not opinions, and facts indicate that at the same time that international migration is perceived as an area which deserves adequate protection because of the inherent vulnerability migrants are subjected to, the actual commitment of governments to binding multilateral standards comes mostly from countries of origin. Whether it is possible to imagine development in this area and what aspects it would include will be discussed in the next section.
Toward a Migration Regime?
The brief illustration of the historical development of some major conventions for the protection of migrants, and the examination of the difficulties in ratifying them, led to the strange conclusion that governments do see how relevant it is to provide a system of protection to foreign workers, but at the same time are reluctant to bind themselves to such instruments. The conclusion should not be that migration is left untended, open to any abuse. In fact, even in the absence of ratification of international instruments, national legislation and bilateral agreements are in place. In addition, migrants receive indirect protection, so to speak, from other instruments to which they also are entitled. Instead, the conclusion should be that the dislike is for the multilateral approach.
Nevertheless, various sources keep reminding governments that the only sound approach toward migration is a multilateral one. The ILO (2004:137) report in preparation of the ILC had concluded that “managing migration is inherently a multilateral issue,” and, as already mentioned at the beginning of this paper, the ILC has called for a non-binding multilateral framework. But what should the characteristics of such framework be?
A Non-binding Multilateral Framework
Such framework shall consist of guidelines in the form of best practices, meaning and leading through example. A cursory overview of the areas in which such guidelines are required reveals that most areas are already covered by existing instruments. In fact, guidelines are requested, among other, for managing migration for employment, licensing and supervising recruitment and contracting agencies, preventing smuggling and trafficking of persons, protecting the human rights of migrants, just to quote a few. In other words, governments do not need legal instruments, they need to know how to apply these legal instruments. The message that one receives is that we are not short of norms, we are scarce in ideas and example of what actually works. With this conclusion, it becomes clearer why, although Conventions 97 and 143 might be in need of a remake, neither governments, nor employers or workers representatives called for it.
In the UNESCO definition,7 best practices are successful initiatives which:
- Have a demonstrable effect and tangible impact on improving people’s quality of life;
- Are the result of effective partnership between the public, private, and civic sectors of society;
- Are socially, culturally, economically and environmentally sustainable.
Obviously, the key in discussing best practices is the potential for replicability. Considering the fundamental national approach to migration, one wonders what can actually be replicated. In fact, replicability is observed within similar migration systems. The similarities within permanent, long-term and temporary migration systems respectively are numerous. But the tendency, when it comes to replicability, is for governments to imitate neighbors not so much in the best, but in the worst practices.
A Migration Regime
Concluding the survey of the expert study on international legal norms and migration, Aleinikoff (2004:55) said that existing international law “does not establish a comprehensive international migration regime.” A regime would have power on such things as structuring the international system of labor flows, dictating on the level of immigration to be allowed or on the rules for attributing citizenship. The current conventions carefully avoid all that.
The reason why conventions, although covering most aspects of the migrants’ life, do not amount to a regime and states do not provide the critical mass of ratifications to consider those international norms equivalent to a regime is that “migrant destination countries have little incentive to join such a regime because foreign labor, especially low-skilled labor, is in abundant supply” (Koslowski, 2004:3). There still are good reasons for a regime, and in fact the already cited ILO (1004:127) report stated that: “There is a need for an international regime based on the rule of law, that establishes common parameters for all, clear accountabilities and mechanisms for reporting and monitoring.” Such reasons could be improving economic efficiency and reducing global inequalities. “However, the additional economic gains to individual destination countries of joining such an international regime, as opposed to maintaining the unilateral status quo, are negligible in comparison to the non-economic costs of large-scale immigration on security, society and culture” (Koslowski, 2004:3).
A key factor to still pursue a migration regime would be security, according to Koslowski. Probably, such regime would not necessarily be very liberal in admission policies, nor focus primarily on the protection of migrants. Therefore, it would be a different regime from the one envisioned by the ILO. And even that regime might not be expected soon, as the necessary leadership to implement it is not there yet.
A Role for NGOs
In a scenario where the normative system for the protection of migrants is not complete, but at the same time also not too thin, and where states remain reluctant to engage much further in multilateral action, what can NGOs do?
They should still engage, pursuing both traditional and non-traditional action.
In the traditional action we can quickly list the following:
- campaigning for the ratification of existing instruments;
- monitoring the implementation of the existing instruments;
- offering initiatives for the education of migrants, but also other actors in the migration process, on the rights of migrants;
- contributing analysis and information to appropriate bodies with a role in supervising the implementation of conventions; and
- assisting migrants through legal and paralegal action to seek redress of abuse and torts received.
The non-traditional action can look at the following:
- gathering information toward an alternative list of best practices in the management of migration;
- documenting worst practices in view of denouncing inappropriate management of migration;
- forging a regional NGO protection regime, with competence in the various areas, pooling resources and distributing competencies;
- choosing a specific issue as catalyst for furthering the rights of migrants; and
- empowering migrants to advocate those measures that best respond to their needs.
Ultimately, the battle for the protection of migrants is a battle for more inclusiveness in a world dominated by exclusion. Migration policies, although designed to include, respond often to logic of exclusion: many migrants are not admitted, those who are admitted often cannot remain; those who can remain often cannot participate. Inclusiveness should begin in the design of migration policies, because “rather than simply trying to manage people, a better approach is to involve them in the making of policies that affect them” (ILO, 2004:127). |
