INTRODUCTION
The 19-member Global Commission on International Migration (GCIM) released
a six-chapter consensus report on 5 October 2005 calling on all nations to
respect the human rights of migrants and recommending a new Interagency
Global Migration Facility to help coordinate migration policies at the regional
and eventually global level. The GCIM mandate was to put migration on the
global agenda, to highlight gaps in policy responses to people crossing national
borders, and to examine links between migration and other global issues.
The report includes six principles and 33 more specific recommendations aimed
at creating a comprehensive global framework in six broad areas: migrants in a
globalizing labour market, migration and development, irregular migration, migrants
in society, the human rights of migrants, and the governance of migration.
Of the 33 recommendations, 25 are directed primarily at developed or receiving
countries, 15 to sending countries, and eight to the international community.
Many of these recommendations have been made previously, and some are
included in earlier United Nations’ system reports and declarations.
MIGRANT WORKERS AND DEVELOPMENT
Chapter one begins with the estimate that 200 million people are outside their
countries of birth or citizenship (the UN is revising this figure to 190 million in
2005), that half are in the labour forces of receiving countries, and that development
and demographic disparities, as well as deficits in the protection of human
rights, promise more migration. Perhaps the most important GCIM recommendation
is the call to open more doors for guest workers in order to reduce illegal
migration.
GCIM praises traditional immigration countries such as Australia, Canada, and
the United States, but calls for more temporary worker programmes because
they are more acceptable in “non-immigrant Europe” as well as in many developing
countries attracting migrants from their poorer neighbours. GCIM asserts that
some sending countries believe that the circular migration promised by guest
worker programmes is more beneficial to them, and concludes that “the old
paradigm of permanent migrant settlement is giving way to temporary and circular
migration” (GCIM: 31).
GCIM acknowledges the problems of temporary worker programmes, including
the fact that migrant workers have limited rights and may settle rather than
return, but argues that well-designed programmes can work as intended, that is,
admit temporary workers rather than permanent residents. GCIM says that welldesigned
guest worker programmes are those that fully inform migrants of their
rights and obligations; allow them to change jobs in receiving countries; and
have governments enforcing laws that regulate contractors, employers, and
others involved in moving workers over borders and employing them. GCIM
believes that regular returns to countries of origin as well as reintegration assistance
can minimize guest worker settlement.
Most migrants cross national borders for higher wages and more opportunities,
but only 25 per cent work in countries in which they are covered by bilateral
pension agreements, so that the work-related taxes paid abroad by 75 per cent
of the migrants do not necessarily provide them with benefits. GCIM argues
that non-portability of pension benefits is one reason why migrants are willing
to work in the informal sector abroad and reluctant to return home.
GCIM generally welcomes the movement of professionals from developing to
developed countries, but also notes that their exodus can slow development.
The idea of receiving countries compensating migrant countries of origin for
the loss of their human capital is rejected as impractical, and GCIM does not
think that codes of conduct that discourage, e.g. “aggressive recruiting” of
health-care personnel can be effective. Instead, GCIM calls for sending countries
to value nurses and other professionals likely to emigrate more highly, for
receiving countries to train more nurses rather than recruit foreigners, and for
both to co-invest in human capital in developing countries, such as by using
foreign aid to train health-care workers.
GCIM urges that the GATS Mode 4 negotiations be brought to a “successful
conclusion”, and notes that some developing countries see Mode 4 as a way to
begin to liberalize the movement of professionals. GCIM asserts that global
corporations want and should get more power to “deploy the right people at the
right time and place”.
Chapter two covers migration and development. GCIM sees mostly benefits
from the US$150 billion in remittances to developing countries in 2004. GCIM
emphasizes that remittances belong to migrants and should not be “subject
to undue official regulation”; urges efforts to reduce transfer costs with technology,
education, and competition; and calls on sending countries to create a
“conducive environment” to encourage migrants to invest their remittances at
home (GCIM: 27-28). GCIM recognizes that remittances can lead to dependency
among recipients, and that going abroad to earn them can impose significant
psychological costs on migrant families.
The third “R” in the migration and development nexus is returns. GCIM highlights
the development potential of diasporas, noting that many of the 600 Mexican
Hometown Associations (HTAs) in the United States voluntarily contribute to
develop the infrastructure of their communities of origin, with their contributions
matched by federal, state, and local governments under 3 x 1 programmes
(US$3 in government funds for each US$1 of HTA contributions). In addition to
providing funds, diasporas can forge trade and investment links and provide the
ideas and energy needed to get development going, but GCIM emphasizes that
development must begin at home. GCIM notes that diasporas can, but need not
always, contribute to development, and can impede development when they, for
example, finance conflicts in their countries of origin.
IRREGULARS AND INTEGRATION
Chapter 3 tackles irregular migration, emphasizing that 25 to 35 per cent of all
migrants in many industrial countries are irregular and that there are large numbers
of irregular migrants in some developing countries as well. GCIM acknowledges
both the complexity of irregular status and the conditions that encourage
migrants to risk migrating illegally, and laments the divide between those concerned
primarily with human rights and those concerned primarily with national security.
Differences between these extremes can prevent governments from adopting
one or both of GCIM’s preferred solutions – regularization or returns (GCIM:
37-38).
GCIM notes the significant investments that have been made in border controls,
and calls on receiving countries to combat irregular migration by opening new
channels for legal migrants (“appropriately designed temporary migration
programmes”). GCIM also calls for prosecuting employers of irregular workers
to de-magnetize the labour market for irregular migrants and the smugglers
and traffickers who emerge to facilitate illegal migration.
States are called on to protect the human rights of the migrants they are removing,
and countries of origin are reminded that they should accept the return of
their nationals. Meanwhile, GCIM urges case-by-case regularization. In another
difficult trade off, GCIM acknowledged the link between irregular migration
and asylum and called for maintaining respect for asylum by having a fair
and fast procedure to determine if an applicant is in need of protection while
implementing policies to reduce irregular migration.
Chapter 4 turns to integration, noting that major cities in industrial countries
have become very diverse. Diverse societies can find it difficult to achieve consensus,
especially when residents cannot communicate easily and there is competition
for limited resources. GCIM calls on host countries to respect the human
and labour rights of migrants, and for employers, unions, and migrants and their
associations to cooperate to promote integration. As with irregular migration,
GCIM sought a balance between respecting cultural differences and condemning
cultural practices that violate international human rights standards.
GCIM noted the special problems of women, children, and irregular migrants,
asserting that irregular migrants “who have been living in a country for long
periods of time” have some claim on the services of the state (GCIM: 51).
GCIM takes aim at journalists and groups who fan xenophobia, calling instead
for a “responsible debate on migration” (GCIM: 52).
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND GOVERNANCE
Chapter 5 turns to the international legal framework for managing international
migration. It notes that international law sets out the rights and responsibilities
of governments to regulate migration into their countries, the rights and responsibilities
of migrants, and areas in which cooperation among states is essential to improving responses to international flows of people. GCIM emphasizes that
the basic rights of migrants are established in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and seven human rights treaties, most of which have been
ratified by a large majority of states. The exception is the 1990 International
Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members
of their Families, which has been ratified by 30 mostly migrant-sending
countries. Recognizing that receiving countries are unlikely to ratify the Migrant
Rights Convention in large numbers, GCIM focuses on the pressing need for
governments to implement the laws that they have ratified and recommends that
the UN human rights machinery should be used more effectively to ensure the
protection of migrant rights.
追问完整的呢？