Migrant labor treaty campaign

A Brussels-based nonprofit is working to secure ratification of the 1999 International Convention on the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families throughout the European Union no later than the 20th anniversary of the treaty's adoption via U.N. General Assembly resolution 45/158. That date, like the name of the organization, is December 18, a date also known as International Migrants Day. (hat tip: Immigration Prof Blog)
The migrant workers treaty, which entered into force in 2003, now has 43 states parties throughout the world. A glance at the list reveals very few countries in the developed world. Hence the efforts of the December 18 group -- including a petition to pressure the EU's 27 members to become states parties.

Protecting Migrant Domestic Workers

I've blogged before on the situation of migrant domestic workers -- largely composed of females and ethnic minorities, without permanent legal status and working in the "private" sphere, this group of laborers is uniquely vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. The UN Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families has turned its focus to this group, and rleased last week a draft report summarizing the proceedings of October's Day of General Discussion on Migrant Domestic Workers.
Panelists began by discussing the obstacles to protection of migrant domestic workers. The central problem has long been familiar to feminist legal activists: "domestic work is broadly not perceived as real work, and is thus almost universally excluded from labour legislation and regulations and not subject to labour inspections." The curtain of the domestic sphere is drawn tightly and resists lifting, particularly when the subjects are migrants. Many domestic workers, the report notes, have irregular migration status, and are thus particularly vulnerable to sexual and other abuse. Employers withhold salaries, confiscate migration documents, and fail to contribute to social security benefits, without threat of investigation let alone prosecution. In addition to the obvious candidates for treaty protection (CEDAW and CMW), the report suggests that International Labor Organization conventions, including those prohibiting forced labor and employment discrimination as well as those concerning migration for employment (none of which has been ratified by the U.S.).
The first working group focused on the recruitment of migrant domestic workers, suggesting that protective bilateral agreements between migrant-sending and migrant-receiving countries as well as standard binding recruitment contracts might help to prevent the exorbitant recruitment fees and the lack of written contracts that lead to exploitation of migrant domestic workers. Raising awareness on the part of migrant domestic workers about their rights is also an important protective measure. The second working group highlighted the link between stringent immigration laws and exploitation of domestic migrant workers -- because these laborers often have no legal means of entry into countries of employment, they fail to report mistreatment to the police for fear of deportation. For others, particularly in the Middle East, work permits are attached to particular employers, increasing the opportunity for exploitation and abuse. If the migration status of domestic workers could be regularized, even through temporary work visas, this would open up the possibility of consular involvement, labor inspections, and control of health and labor standards.
The report specifically suggests use of "a gender perspective [to] facilitate understanding the specificities and gender-based discrimination that migrant domestic workers face throughout the migration process." It suggests the creation of a new ILO instrument specifically focused on migrant domestic workers, and notes the important role of sending and receiving states in piercing the private sphere to protect these vulnerable women.

Resurrecting State Protection: Migrant Workers Abroad

In the age of human rights, the conventional wisdom is that we should be skeptical of the role of states in protecting the rights of their citizens abroad. Our cherished human rights treaties focus on individually-enforceable rights, fearing that states will be ineffective at rights protection, especially when it comes to migrants. However, an interesting example from the Philippines illustrates the promise of state involvement in protection of migrant workers abroad. Dovelyn Rannveig Agunias of the Migration Policy Institute reports here on the creative steps that the Philippines is taking to protect its migrant workers. As of 12/06, almost 25% of the Filipino labor force and 9% of the total population worked abroad, the majority as temporary workers. Remittances from Filipino workers abroad are likely to approach US$15 billion this year. As far back as 1982, the government created the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), which regulates the recruitment of Filipino workers and warns them about private agencies that have cheated workers in the past. The Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) protects Filipinos while abroad, including providing immediate repatriation of distressed and physically ill workers, life and disability insurance, loans, and scholarships and training. Another agency provides legal services to Filipino workers abroad. These agencies, empowered by outrage on the part of domestic political constituencies at the treatment of Filipinos abroad (ranging from unfair trials to "mysterious" deaths), are funded in part through contributions from foreign employers and workers abroad. While the programs are not yet perfected, they seem to be more effective than, say, the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers, which has yet to be ratified by any developed nation. For developing countries with a high percentage of workers abroad, this model presents an innovative avenue to protect migrant workers.

Human Rights at the Border

As Congress and the President debate the viability of the current immigration reform bill, the delay in fixing our broken immigration system takes a human toll at our southern border: 453 deaths last year alone. A GAO report found border deaths doubled between 1995 and 2005. The cause? Luis M. Lopez Moreno, the Mexican consul in the small border town of McAllen, Texas, explains:

Since the border has become so difficult to cross, working men who moved back and forth annually are now stuck in the north, and family members unaccustomed to the trek are “trying to reunite” by traveling to the States. Women, arguably less able to withstand the journey, sometimes caring for children, are represented more in the migrant stream. Young migrants, the majority of those who come, are likely to be better educated and more urban now, less aware of how to manage themselves under extreme conditions.

The alarm bells have been sounding for years; 5 years ago, UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants Gabriela Rodríguez Pizarro recommended:

In view of the demand for labour in many parts of the United States, the Special Rapporteur invites the United States Government to strengthen migration agreements and implement new measures to regularize migrant workers and their families. This would give migrants more dignified access to the United States labour market and without the risks that an irregular crossing of the border entails.

The Special Rapporteur also recommended that the US ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which entered into force in 2003 and has yet to be ratified by any developed nation. Nonetheless, the simple moral force of the report makes for compelling soft law: While the Special Rapporteur acknowledges the right of the United States to protect its borders, she would like to receive the guarantee that all measures taken to this end respect the right to life. 'Nuff said.