Memorandum submitted by Anti-Slavery International
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Anti-Slavery International was set up
in 1839 and is the oldest international human rights organisation
in the world. Today Anti-Slavery International works to eradicate
all contemporary forms of slavery through research, awareness
raising and advocacy.
1.2 In recent years we have done a considerable
amount of work related to trafficking in human beings. Our most
recent research, The migration-trafficking nexus, which will be
published in November 2003, considers the link between trafficking,
smuggling and migration. It reviews current trends in migration
and considers how changes in migration policy could reduce irregular
and exploitative migration and boost development in countries
of origin. Some of the findings and recommendations from the report
are highlighted below.
2. AN OVERVIEW
OF INTERNATIONAL
MIGRATION
2.1 According to International Labour Organization
(ILO) estimates, there are 120 million migrant workers and family
members in the world today. There are three features of modern
migration which are particularly worth highlighting:
(a) Labour migration is not simply from developing
to developed countries. Some 60% of migrant flows are between
developing countries.[8]
(b) Women now constitute 50% of migrants
in the world and in some areas they make up much larger percentages
of the total migrants. For example, in the Philippines women made
up 70% of migrant workers abroad in 2000.[9]
(c) The number of migrant workers has dramatically
increased in recent years. According to the International Organization
for Migration (IOM), the total number of people residing outside
their country of origin has increased significantly between 1985
and 2000 from 105 million to 175 million.[10]
This represents a 67% increase at a time when the total world
population only increased by 26%.
2.2 There are several reasons for the growth
in the number of migrant workers in recent years, which can be
summarised into push and pull factors:
2.3 Push factors
(a) Inadequate employment opportunities,
combined with poor living conditions, including a lack of basic
education and health provision.
(b) Political breakdown or economic dislocation
which may be caused by conflict; environmental disaster, structural
adjustment policies, mismanagement of the economy, etc. These
may threaten an individual's ability to sustain themselves and
their family directly or indirectly as such crises usually lead
to higher unemployment, rising cost of living and fewer public
services.
(c) Discrimination (gender, ethnic or caste),
nepotism and/or corruption, which excludes people from employment
or professional advancement.
(d) Family breakdown (particularly the sickness
or death of one or both parents), which often compels remaining
family members to send the children away from their homes to work
and/or have better opportunities.
2.4 Pull factors
(a) Fewer constraints on travel (eg less
restrictions on freedom of movement; cheaper and faster travel
opportunities; easier access to passports; development in some
countries or regions gives people the opportunity to migrate;
etc).
(b) Higher salaries and standard of living
abroad; greater job mobility and opportunities for professional
advancement; and more options for acquiring new skills and education.
(c) Established migration routes and communities
in other countries and a demand for migrant workers, along with
the active presence of recruitment agents or contacts willing
to facilitate jobs and travel.
(d) High expectations of opportunities in
other countries boosted by global media and internet access.
Push and pull factors in operation in Mexico-US
migration
2.5 The migration of Mexicans to the US
is hugely important to both economies. The Mexican community contributes
some US$82.1 billion a year to US gross domestic product and nearly
US$9 billion was sent back to Mexico by Mexican nationals or persons
of Mexican origin in 2001 alone.[11]
2.6 These figures do not take into account
the irregular migration of Mexicans to the US. More than 90% of
US "permanent" visas for employment based immigration
are targeted at well educated and skilled immigrants and their
families. This means there are insufficient avenues for regular
migration to fill posts for less skilled jobs, despite a strong
demand for these workers in the US. Consequently, many migrants
try to cross the border illegally in search of work and it is
estimated that some 4,000 irregular migrants successfully enter
the US every day.[12]
2.7 The risks of irregular migration are
significant. Between 1998 and 2001, more than 1,500 migrants died
while trying to cross the border. Some 1.5 million migrants each
year are arrested on the US-Mexican border and forced to return
home.[13]
Others may make it into the US only to find themselves compelled
to work as forced labourers or in situations of severe exploitation.
2.8 Despite these very substantial dangers,
there is no shortage of migrants willing to risk their savings
and their lives in the search for work in the US. The explanation
for this can be found in the fact that on average an undocumented
Mexican migrant worker in the United States will find a job within
two weeks of arriving.[14]
Furthermore, Mexican migrants earn around nine times as much in
the US as they did in their last job in Mexico.[15]
Clearly any immigration policy which ignores the domestic demand
for migrant workers, in whatever sector of the economy, is simply
encouraging irregular migration and making migrant workers more
vulnerable to exploitation by unscrupulous employers, smugglers
and traffickers.
2.9 The growing inequality of wealth within
and between countries is increasing both the push and pull factors
and leading more people to make the decision to migrate. Yet governments
in developed countries are generally reluctant to publicly recognise
their dependency on both skilled and unskilled migrant labour.
Instead of tackling xenophobic reactions to the issue of migration,
many government have sought political advantage by promoting more
restrictive immigration policies. Such policies only reduce the
opportunities for regular migration, thereby providing greater
opportunities for traffickers and smugglers to operate.
3. THE INCREASING
DEMAND FOR
MIGRANT WORKERS
IN DEVELOPED
COUNTRIES
3.1 Low fertility rates and longer life
expectancy means that most developed countries have an ageing
population. This will lead to labour shortages, skills shortages
and an increased tax burden on the working population in order
to support and provide social benefits to the wider population.
Old age dependency ratios, already at breaking point in many OECD
countries at a ratio of five to one, will fall to three to over
the next 15 years.[16]
The proportion of adults over 60 in high income countries is expected
to increase from 8% to 19% by 2050, while the number of children
will drop by one third.[17]
3.2 Thus without mass immigration, the working
age population (between 15 and 65) in Western Europe is projected
to fall by 8.5% (22.1 million) between 2000 and 2025 and by 37.2%
(96.6 million) by 2050. The situation is similar in Central and
Eastern Europe, where the working age population is projected
to decline by 9.2% (eight million) between 2000 and 2025 and by
30.9% (27 million) by 2050.[18]
3.3 Even if European governments rigorously
promote policies to put more people into the job market (eg discouraging
early retirement or improving child care facilities) this will
not change the fact that their economies will become increasing
dependent on migrant workers in the coming years. In order to
stabilise the size of the working population in the 15 EU member
states, there needs to be a net inflow of some 68 million foreign
workers and professionals between 2003 and 2050.[19]
3.4 The demand for migrant workers will
be filled by irregular migration unless policy makers recognise
that it is in their national interest to facilitate and manage
this process. Countries of destination benefit from the contribution
migrants make to the economy through their work, their innovation
and their tax contributions. If channels for regular migration
are opened up, migrants would not have to put themselves in the
hands of smugglers and traffickers and would also be in a better
position to defend their labour rights in the receiving country.
Governments in countries of origin could also better manage the
migration process in order to make sure it contributes to, rather
than undermines, their own country's economic and social development.
4. THE POTENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES
OF MIGRATION
4.1 Uncontrolled migration can have a negative
impact on developing countries, particularly those that already
have significant problems in terms of education, adult literacy,
nutrition and child mortality. These countries can ill afford
to lose their most talented professionals to satisfy recruitment
shortages in developed countries and must try to ensure that migration
is planned and contributes to sustainable development.
4.2 Jointly developed migration programmes
between countries of origin and destination can maximise the positive
impact of migration on development while limiting depletion of
skilled labour in countries of origin ("brain drain").
Such programmes could encourage migration that is short term and
in which migrants return to the country of origin. They may also
include training to enhance the migrants' skills base while abroad
and to facilitate the sharing of information, contacts and expertise
with local staff when they return. They may also contain agreements
on how to maximise the impact of remittances in order to promote
long term development in the country of origin.
5. REMITTANCES
5.1 The total value of official remittances
doubled between 1988 and 1999. According to the World Bank, official
remittances further increased from $60 billion to $80 billion
between 1998 and 2002.[20]
Unofficial remittances, which are sent via private courier systems,
friends or relatives, are likely to be two or three times the
official figure.[21]
5.2 Remittances account for substantial
amounts of a state's income and therefore have an important impact
on national economies. In Benin, remittances averaged 4.5% of
the gross domestic product (GDP) between 1980 and 1999[22]and
in the Dominican Republic and Honduras they exceed 7% of GDP.
In Nicaragua and Yemen remittances make up more than 16% of GDP
and in Lesotho the figure rises to 26.5%.[23]
5.3 Remittances can narrow the trade gap,
increase foreign currency reserves, facilitate debt servicing,
reduce poverty and inequalities in wealth and support sustainable
development. In low income countries, remittances are, on average,
larger than overseas development assistance. Over the last 20
years, annual official remittances to several African countries,
including Morocco, Nigeria and Tunisia, have been worth more than
double the overseas development assistance these countries have
received.[24]
In El Salvador, remittances accounted for more than 80% of the
total financial inflows in 2000, with overseas development assistance
and foreign direct investment accounting for less than 20% combined.[25]
5.4 Individual families also receive significant
benefits from remittances, which often make up 50% of the household
income. In many Latin American countries remittances increase
the average per capita income by between 7% and 14%.[26]
This money may be used to cover expenditure on food or other essentials
such as medicine. Alternatively it might be spent on locally produced
goods and services thereby stimulating demand and having a multiplier
effect throughout the community, particularly in rural areas.
5.5 The additional income provided by remittances
may allow families to send their children to school rather than
to work or it may be used to cover further education or training.
Remittances may also be invested in starting or developing businesses
or be deposited in savings accounts in local banks.
5.6 Clearly, remittances are already an
extremely important source of foreign income for many national
economies. However, within the context of the increased demand
for migrant workers, it is important to try and ensure that more
remittances go back to the country and people that need them and
that their potential to promote sustained development is fully
harnessed. Addressing the following issues will help to facilitate
this:
(a) Migrants need to have a regular immigration
status in the countries in which they are working, otherwise they
will be subject to exploitation which will substantially reduce
their earnings and consequently their ability to send home remittances.
Migrants with regular status are also subject to exploitation
and measures need to be taken to ensure that their rights are
fully protected in law and in practice (eg through legislative
measures, information prior to migration regarding their rights,
unionisation, etc).
(b) Migrants need to be able to access banks
in their country of residence which will offer them the facility
to send money home through official channels at very low costs.
This would remove the need for migrants to use private money transfer
firms, which often charge extremely high transfer fees. In Central
and South America these fees are normally around 13% and often
exceeds 20%.[27]
(c) Migrants could be encouraged to keep
some or all of their saving in their country of origin rather
than in foreign savings accounts. For this to take place migrants
will have to be confident that the financial sector in their home
country is efficient, trustworthy and that their savings will
not be at risk. If these conditions can be guaranteed, migrants
may accept lower rates of interest on their savings because of
a loyalty to their country of origin.
(d) Programmes need to be developed by governments
which encourage the use of remittances in investment and development
projects. For example, further reductions on money transfer fees
could be offered to migrants if they open savings accounts in
country of origin. Governments in both countries of origin and
of destination could also commit to financing development projects
as a proportion of official remittances.
(e) Governments need to engage directly with
migrants and their communities to listen to their concerns, help
solve their problems and make them partners in the process of
developing policies around migration. Migrants should never be
compelled to accept any of the measures outlined above.
5.7 Policies designed to maximise the development
impact of remittances:
Mexico
5.8 The Mexican Government introduced a
"three plus one" programme under which the federal,
state and municipal governments provide one dollar each to complement
each dollar of remittances invested by a migrant's home town association
in their community. This type of programme encourages migrants
to send money home because the matching funds provided by different
levels of government represent a significant injection of resources
into their local communities.
Senegal
5.9 By offering a special transfer scheme
to Senegal through the Banque de l'Habitat du Senegal in Paris,
official remittances from France increased dramatically. In 1999,
more than US$24 million was officially transferred to Senegal
via this scheme, 26% of the total official remittances to the
country in that year.[28]
6. MIGRANTS'
RIGHTS NEED
TO BE
PROTECTED
6.1 Despite the many opportunities presented
by the migration process to all states involved, most countries
still refuse to acknowledge the real extent to which they rely
on migrant workers or guarantee the rights of migrant workers,
as set out in various international labour and human rights instruments.
6.2 Irregular migrants are obviously most
at risk of being subjected to forced labour and exploitation,
but regular migrants are also routinely denied both their human
and labour rights.
6.3 The need to protect the rights of both
regular and irregular migrants has been recognised in international
standards like ILO Convention No 143 on Migrant Workers, 1975
and the UN Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant
Workers and their Families, 1990.
6.4 However, these standards have received
a very low number of ratifications—only 22 states have ratified
the 1990 UN Convention to date and all of these are sending countries.
There needs to be a concerted effort to ensure that both sending
and receiving countries ratify the 1990 UN Convention on migrant
workers. This will help ensure equality of treatment and opportunity
for migrant workers as well as the protection of their basic human
rights.
7. CONCLUSIONS
7.1 Growing inequalities of wealth between
and within countries and an increasing, and often unacknowledged,
demand for migrant workers in both developed and developing countries
are fuelling migration. Many governments have reacted to this
by mounting campaigns which seek to evoke fear in potential migrants
and dissuade them from travelling abroad, and by implementing
more restrictive immigration policies. This response is unlikely
to deter migrants who are seeking work abroad and is likely to
increase the profitability of trafficking and smuggling by reducing
regular routes for migration.
7.2 Irregular migration undermines governments'
efforts to manage the migration process and to maximise the potential
of migration to help promote sustained economic and social development.
However, it should be stressed that both regular and irregular
migrants are subjected to trafficking, forced labour and other
serious forms of exploitation and discrimination. It is therefore
essential that migration takes place within a system which is
transparent, standards-based and managed for the benefit of the
migrants themselves as well as sending and receiving countries.
8. RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 All states should sign and ratify the
United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All
Migrant Workers and their Families, 1990.
8.2 Frameworks for planned migration should
be developed in consultation with migrants, trade unions and employers
so that they benefit of sending and receiving countries, as well
as the migrants themselves.
8.3 There needs to be a clear recognition
of the increasing demand for migrant workers in developed countries
and the promotion of policies which facilitate regular migration
and the integration and acceptance of migrants in the country
of destination. Such policies must be consistent with recommendations
8.1 and 8.2 above.
8.4 Measures need to be taken to ensure
that migrants' rights are fully protected in law and in practice
(eg through legislative measures, information prior to migration
regarding their rights, unionisation, etc).
8.5 Migrants need to be able to access banks
in their country of residence which will offer them the facility
to send money home through official channels at very low costs,
thereby removing the need to use private money transfer firms
which charge high transfer fees.
8.6 Programmes need to be developed by governments
which encourage the use of remittances in investment and development
projects and seek to ensure that remittances benefit the wider
community and not just the immediate family of the migrant. For
example, further reductions on money transfer fees could be offered
to migrants if they open savings accounts in country of origin.
Governments in both countries of origin and of destination could
also commit to financing development projects as a proportion
of official remittances.
November 2003
8 International Labour Organization, Facts on Migrant
Labour, 2003. Back
9
9258002002ternational Organization for Migration, World Migration
2003, Geneva, 2003, p 7. Back
10
This figure includes migrant workers, permanent immigrants, refugees
and displaced persons, but does not include irregular migrants.
International Organization for Migration, World Migration 2003,
op cit, p 5. Back
11
International Organization for Migration, World Migration 2003,
op cit. p 148. Back
12
International Organization for Migration, World Migration 2003,
op cit. p 150. Back
13
International Organization for Migration, World Migration 2003,
op cit. p 31 and p 60. Back
14
P Taran and G Moreno-Fontes Chammartin, Getting at the Roots:
Stopping Exploitation of Migrant Workers by Organised Crime,
Perspectives on Labour Migration Vol IE, ILO Geneva, 2003, p 5.
Quoted in ILO Trafficking in Human Beings, New Approaches to the
Problem, Geneva 2003, p 5. Back
15
International Organization for Migration, World Migration 2003,
op cit. p 66. Back
16
There are 32 developed states in the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), International Organisation
for Migration, World Migration 2003, op cit, p 66. Back
17
United Nations Populations Division 2002, World Population
Ageing 1950-2050, New York. Quoted in Brunson McKinley, Director
General of the IOM, International Migration and Development-The
Potential for a Win-Win-Situation, presentation at G77 Panel
for Migration and Development, New York, 20 June 2003, p 7. Back
18
The only exceptions to this in European countries are Ireland
and Albania. UN Population Division. Quoted in International Organization
for Migration, World Migration 2003, op cit, p 244. Back
19
International Organization for Migration, World Migration 2003,
op cit. p 245. Back
20
World Bank, Global Development Finance, April 2003. Quoted
in Human Rights Watch, Letter to World Bank President James
Wolfensohn, 18 September 2003. Back
21
Brunson McKinley, Director General of the IOM, International
Migration and Development-The Potential for a Win-Win-Situation,
presentation at G77 Panel for Migration and Development, New York,
20 June 2003, p 9. Back
22
International Organization for Migration, World Migration 2003,
op cit. p 227. Back
23
Brunson McKinley, Director General of the IOM, International
Migration and Development-The Potential for a Win-Win-Situation,
op. cit, p 9. Back
24
IOM, Migration Policy Issues, Facts and Figures on International
Migration, No 2 March 2003, p 2. Back
25
Brunson McKinley, Director General of the IOM, Migrants' Remittances
in the Americas, paper delivered during the VIII Regional
Conference on Migration in Cancun, Mexico, 29-30 May 2003, p 5. Back
26
Brunson McKinley, Director General of the IOM, International
Migration and Development-The Potential for a Win-Win-Situation,
op cit, pp 5 and 8. Back
27
De la Grarza and Lowell, Sending Money Home: Hispanic Remittances
and Community Development, Rowman and Littlefield, Oxford,
2002. Quoted in Brunson Mckinley, Migrants' Remittance in the
Americas, op cit, p 6. Transfer costs of remittances to Nicaragua
reached 25% of the money transferred. Back
28
International Organization for Migration, World Migration 2003,
op cit, p 230. Back
| 
