An appeal to view migrant rights as human rights
“You cannot extract the labor out of migrants and ignore their humanity,”
These were the words of United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan in an address in Europe January last year. The message is simple. In the status quo, despite the significant progress of the human rights movement in the international community during the last decade, there exists a double standard on the way some view the premium on the welfare of the human person. Human rights should be universal and intrinsic; it exists regardless of race, location, contribution or class. It should apply to everyone regardless of which government and which jurisdiction we question. We all concede these principles. But in reality, for migrants, it exists contingent on two things:

One, government protects primarily their own--- an understandable policy; but post-globalization, sadly results to segregation of migrants into a different category. Migrant workers, millions in number, consequently are second-class citizens, not afforded the same treatment as one’s own nationals, despite the fact that they support nation building within their host countries.

And two, if you happen to be an expatriate, your worth is measured best by your productivity--- a system unfortunately adhered to by both sending and receiving governments. Ergo, our migrant laborers have become “commodified,” to be sold and bought, leaving their “universal” and “intrinsic” rights when they leave their borders, some even before. If you think hard on it, from the beginning, even the system that forced them to uproot themselves to better their life, in itself, highlights a crisis that our esteemed neighbors in the global village should address. Not because it is any government’s fault, but because we are past the political landscape where only self-interest and not humanitarian crises are justifiable reasons to intervene. We have a common responsibility. These migrants are not merely surplus of labor in third world economies that cannot support them. Not just outflows to another country whose market is not as congested. They are not just economic beings. They are human beings.

I am here to issue a challenge. Migration undoubtedly presents a marvelous opportunity for advancing human welfare, but this clash of economics and politics makes weighing its cost and benefits very difficult. As an economic analyst point out, effects that look like benefits from a liberal economic point of view becomes cost when viewed with politics in mind. There are many states that have started efforts to protect expatriates, but later gave in to an unenlightened local electorate demands. I argue, that at the end of the day, despite political and economic gains, we still should give priority to the human person wherever they may be.

Specifically, I want to appeal to all the states present, which has yet to sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, to kindly keep this consideration very high on your legislature’s agenda. I am happy to report that last June 2003, this convention was ratified after more than a decade of extensive lobbying. It presently has 22 signatories (as of 2003), although sadly, the countries with high importation of labour, so called receiving countries, have yet to sign it. I am hoping that today, I may change your mind. Also as important, I appeal to all governments that have ratified it, my own colleagues in the Philippine congress and senate included, to jumpstart the statutes that would render these principles effective. In the advancement of migrant rights, much depends on legislation.
Let’s analyze the situation. Primarily, I argue this in the context of grassroots migrant laborers, mostly in blue-collared work, as they are the ones most in need of institutionalized global reform. Conceding that there are exceptions, and I salute all countries and individuals for their efforts and success, I contend that much is still needed to be done.

First off, what does this convention entail? In sum, these are its landmark provisions:
1. It provides a universal definition of the migrant workers as a person who is to be engaged or had been engaged in remunerated activity in a State of which he or she is not a national
2. It extends fundamental human rights as elaborated in the principles embodied in existing basic human rights instruments of the United Nations without distinction to all migrant workers and members of their families, both documented and undocumented.
3. It views migrants as not just economic beings but social beings, hence, migrant workers and members of their families are treated as a unit with rights beyond that of laborers. Thus, there is a premium on family reunification either in host society or in their return home. And
4. It establishes the principle of equality of treatment with nationals for all migrant workers and their families in areas such as before court and tribunals and access to education for their children.

Allow me to lay down my premises before I address more controversial areas.

A concern on the onset is why should we consider this matter high on the agenda?

First premise is this: I argue that migration is inevitable.

Two reasons make this so. The first is the more obvious change that has been triggered by globalization. But the second, a more systemic reason, is the recognition that third world poverty necessitates it.

Let me briefly address the first one. Globalization and free trade has already opened the floodgates to a borderless world where one maximizes their competitive advantage by sending their best to where the market is needed. Oxfam showed that the number of people living other than that of their birth was 175 million in 2000 up from 105 million in 1985. Advances in telecommunications and transportation systems have “diminished” the global and facilitated the movement of capital, commodities, people and ideas. Skeldon, in particular, has detailed 5 structural changes in transnational migration. First, he said that there are more countries involved in global migration than in previous years. From traditional receiving states of Western Europe;--- Middle East, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan have become important sites for both capital accumulation and labor immigration. Second, there is an acceleration of the volume of migration. This is true for both sending and receiving countries. Third, in the status quo, migration systems are more diversified: types include settler migration systems, student migration systems, contract labor migration systems and refugee movements. Fourth, migration has become highly feminized, and with it its corresponding implications on the family and parenting, and last , migration has become increasingly “commodified.” There are both government and private institutions assuming an important regulatory function in the global mobility of labor and trend towards greater involvement. Recruitment and placement services abound, attracting the importation and exportation of labor, making it more systematized, and likely to last for a long time. In short, over the past years, there is greater, faster, more diverse, more feminized and more systematic migration, which, by sheer number and speed alone inevitably will affect a large amount of nations for years to come. Therefore, we need to standardize basic principles concerning their treatment. Given that all these is inevitable, the challenge then is to exploit the development opportunities that migration offers.

Second, the polarization of economies make the push and pull of people a systemic problem that has its roots in basic human instinct to better their standards of living. Initially migration is a temporary measure to meet employment economic and livelihood needs of the people. But it has become permanent temporary measure as more and more nations fall into debt and currency devaluation; as well as possess an economy that fails to support the population. It is conceded that given a choice, migrants prefer to live in their respective countries, for who would willingly leave their spouses and children to face an uncertain fate and an unfamiliar culture in another land. Governments regret their labor flight, but with little incentive and capital to make them stay, it is still advancing their welfare to go. What I am saying is, as long as there is poverty to be addressed, people will continue going abroad for employment.

This reminds me of the worldwide ban of workers in Iraq, a sad fact that some of my Filipino workers circumvented by flying to Iraq’s neighbors, and crossing the border from there on, and braving a post-war zone. Although the Philippine government stopped deployment for their sake, some still insisted that, when pressed between a hard rock and a wall, you take your chances. For them, there is no choice, because to remain is to suffer unemployment.
And so the solution therefore, is to improve this imbalance of wealth, and generate the jobs that can assist this people within their states. And I agree, wholeheartedly. But as most of you fighting for debt relief know, this is not a simple economic equation. But this is the good thing about migration of labor. Migration, through remittances, is a lifeline for nations to solve their problem. By opening your doors, you have helped bridge that gap between richer and poorer states. Let me address this further as I argue my next point.

Second premise: The migration phenomenon is a win-win situation.

Migration, if properly facilitated and managed, has triple beneficial effects.

In the host country, imported labor help boost growth, reduce inflationary pressure and fill labor market shortages that are in demand in many a first world economy. Self-selection by migrants means that they are likely to be especially resourceful, entrepreneurial and ambitious. Most offer relatively cheap labor compared to first world counterparts, thus they sustain the industries and increase local GDP.

It benefits these migrant individuals and their families whose incomes rise and would be able to improve their standards of living. Remittances are key for those they leave behind. For the Albanian workers in the United Kingdom, as detailed by Oxfam, these salaries are used initially for day to day survival, then later to improve living conditions like indoor toilets, piped water, furniture and domestic appliance and if successful, then to the building of a house and a house extension.

It benefits the sending nations, for the remittances that are sent are utilized to buffer the impact of economic recession and cover growing budget deficits that cheat the taxpayers of programs for social reform. Furthermore, it increases global GDP and it promotes convergence in wages and opportunities between sending and receiving areas that eventually reduces the situations that called for the migration to begin with.

Given global awareness of developing nations being in need, here is an effort of third world nations to better themselves, and we thank all the states that have responded to these efforts. As good as a direct aid such as the packages you give to states suffering from war, calamity and oppression, this is an implicit exercise of moral responsibility we applaud.

If it is this simple, why doesn’t these benefits manifest itself?

The Fabian Society and Oxfam Great Britain research on migration myths for the European Union, United Kingdom and Albania has the following conclusions, which I argue to be generally applicable. They believe that the benefits of migration are hampered by two main blocks: first is the stereotypes against migrants that civil society and various governments hold and two, the difficulty mobilizing different forms of repatriated capital for the development of the sending country.

First, the stereotypes. Migrants are viewed as a foreign presence requiring constant surveillance on the part of employees and the society. There is a categorization of migrants as different entities, a paradigm that shifts even into legislation. Civil society responded to the immigrant question as a threat to local economic and social position when in the first place they take jobs locals do not want to take (i.e. domestic help, care giving, construction work, etc.), specialized jobs that the country’s labor force lack (i.e. IT professionals) or jobs that there is little manpower to sustain (ie. Migrant nurses support Britain’s health care systems.)

Second is the improper use of repatriated capital. This is Glick Schiller et al’s concept of Tran nationalism; migrants involved in their home country and their new country at the same time. Portes et al (1991) and Vertovec (2001) said that presently, the migrant’s connections to their home region is much more possible than in the past. Perhaps, vis-à-vis this campaign, is the campaign on how these money can be invested and utilized wisely, and efforts on these are starting.

But third premise, most important of all, is this: Regardless of inevitability, regardless of gains economically and politically, this convention is the logical extension of the UN Declaration on human rights that everyone profess to agree on in principle.

We created the free trade and liberal globalization systems. Advocates always come out and say that if you join this bandwagon, it is better for you. Cheap labor will fill ailing industries in capital-intensive countries and your unemployed citizens will have competitive salaries.
But one should understand that with this “win-win” system we created, we lost foresight for social costs. Why is migration open to human rights violations?

One, there is considerable cost on the migrant’s families. As explained earlier, to migrate for work is inevitable and shall continue until significant economic growth can be sustained in sending countries. When a migrant leaves, a large upheaval on the family, conceded as a significant unit in any society, happens. There is the issue of loneliness as the seas separate the migrant and his family. There is a disruption in the power structure of the remaining family unit. Because some work for years abroad, it is not unusual for divorces, extramarital affairs and abandonment to ensue. Kids, even as young as toddlers, are left to questionable guardians, by mothers who ironically takes care of other people’s kids as caregivers and domestic helpers abroad. Statistics will tell you that there is a greater rate of drug addiction, promiscuity, drop-outs and delinquency among children of overseas workers owing to the fact that there is an absence of parental control and supervision—and yes, even love. Upon reintegration, these parents and children, these spouses are strangers----when ironically they left the country for their family’s sake.

A problem like this on one family is a case. If it happens to many---and migrant care providers like non-governmental organizations, the church and others will attest it happens to a considerable number of them---it becomes no longer a case, but a crisis. This disruption in the family, silent though it is---happens to millions. And will continue to happen because this is the inevitable carryover of globalization and poverty.

Many of you are concerned with this premium on family reunification on this UN Convention. We understand and hear your concerns. Primarily, some are afraid that ratification may bring an influx of unproductive family members. But human rights are above productivity. People should be with their loved ones, as cheesy as that may sound, it is an intrinsic human right and if we can do something about it, why don’t we? It is a sad situation that economics uproots the family unit. But it is rather concerning to say that it is alright for us to have the laborers even at the expense of these social costs, the cost of the family. This means that we---the countries who send them and the countries that receive then---are perpetuating a crisis that we are aware exists. Is this the post-human rights movements paradigm? That we sit on an ivory tower because we can’t feel the repercussions because they are internal?

That there would be an influx of unproductive migrants dependent on welfare is arguable. One, it can be regulated vis-à-vis programs for reintegration in the homeland and through provisions based length of stay. And two, the family can always make itself productive, and in fact, by virtue of a working member, least likely to become dependent on the state.

Second consideration is the openness for abuse in this set-up. The migration and employment experiences of those who go overseas are neither as straightforward nor as empowering as presumed. The expansion of secondary or low wage labor markets in receiving countries gradually has led to segmentation by gender, class and ethnicity. The discrimination can come in the form of denial of benefits and unsafe working conditions that they would most likely bear silently owing to their need and owing to the number of competition. Crisis centers abound with cases of physical, verbal and sexual abuse. They are vulnerable because of their absence from their state of origin and the government that protects them. This discrimination is felt, some even cultural in origin, thus leading the United Nations to include migrants in their convention against xenophobia.

Just the system that necessitates migration encourages migrants to engage in human trafficking, illegal entry and prostitution. The convention does not encourage them, rather, it wants to level the playing field so that these can be avoided and their rights can be upheld.
As migration is a large-scale phenomenon, we need your states’ assistance regarding this matter. Embassies can only do so far, faced with a crisis this large, particularly since most embassies still have to deal with the states to address institutional concerns. Why you? Globalization made us a big melting pot of cultures that respective governments can’t reach them anymore. This should be a collective effort of the international community.

If signing this convention is too much to ask at this point in time, may I request that you consider the spirit of these vital points, and use whatever means are available to you, to uplift the welfare of your migrant workers? We know there are considerations, and matters are not so simple. We know that some countries, Malaysia for instance, had to institutionalized affirmative action for its indigenous Malays because of the favor on migrant Chinese and Indian nationals. We know that there are migrants as well who have abused your state’s hospitality in the past. We know that you have other unique burdens to carry as a nation and as a government. But these can be addressed.

Perhaps you can incorporate, in your local labor laws and immigration policies, through a campaign to and by concerned civil society members---and all the other resources we can tap into for this honorable cause; incorporate all the significant principles in these convention, that we may still be dynamic and responsive, even as we schedule signing the convention itself for later.

Regardless of how you go about it, at the end of the day, we ask you, can we extend the human rights we afford our own locals to migrants. We all value the same things: dignity of labour, tolerance, premium on the family, meritocracy, equality and justice. Why can’t we extend it to all?

We know you all care about migrant rights. That is why you are here. Now lets put it in paper.