RSS

Over the last three decades of globalization, the foreign population in European and North American countries has grown rapidly while the disadvantages and inequalities suffered by migrants have become more obvious and more egregious.  Where these migrant populations are marginalized from rather than integrated into the host society, they can be a serious security threat.  Yet host countries largely consider these marginalized migrant populations a social issue, if at all, and strategies to counter the problems raised are correspondingly de-prioritized and under-funded.  The solution to the increased crime and radicalization of these migrants is clearer international law, specifically an international migrants bill of rights, which could improve the situation by highlighting the rights applicable to all migrants, making these rights uniform around the world, and emphasizing those that are most effective and most likely to be passed by state governments.

When migrants are not afforded basic rights and opportunities, it is not only a human rights travesty; it raises two serious issues for national and international security.  First, a restrictive migrant's rights regime can lead to higher crime rates.  This is true even in countries such as the United States where the foreign-born are less likely than nationals to commit crimes.  Foreigners are more vulnerable to crime, as criminals are often aware that they may not have the language skills or cultural awareness to report crime when it happens.  Migrants may also be unwilling to interact with the police or the courts for fear of being deported, or they may view these important institutions as unfair or unhelpful, especially if they have been the victims of discrimination or racial profiling.  When crimes are reported, this inability or unwillingness to work with law enforcement can impede investigations and hinder police from solving crimes and punishing those responsible.

Perhaps even more importantly, restrictive rights regimes can increase radicalization among migrants.  When people are not afforded effective, legitimate avenues to participate in society and have their concerns heard, they are more likely to speak out through violence.  Those with limited access to education and economic opportunity, especially when great wealth is all around them, are more likely to turn to subversive groups aimed at bringing down the society they feel is treating them unfairly.  European examples of this phenomenon, including the murder of a Dutch filmmaker in 2004, the London subway bombings in 2005, and the riots in the French suburbs later that year, have become worryingly frequent. 

Given the rise of international criminal rings and terrorist organizations, not only those countries with large marginalized migrant populations are threatened.  When states do not provide sufficient rights to the migrants residing within their borders, their allies are threatened as well.  Unintegrated migrants are a problem for the entire transatlantic community.

Luckily, an academic consensus has been building around effective integration strategies and their positive effects.  Important laws and policies include, among others, strong anti-discrimination laws, effective enforcement of existing employment regulations, clear and achievable paths to permanent status and citizenship, avenues for political participation, and access to language and cultural training.  These policies have the added benefit of being relatively uncontroversial and inexpensive.

However, crucial integration policies have not been fully implemented by the NATO countries.  The solution is comprehensive, effective international law.  Not another treaty to further complicate the thicket of agreements that apply to only some migrants and are signed by only some sending countries, but rather a soft-law framework along the successful model of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement.  This document would be a common understanding of the minimum standards applicable to all migrants, a concrete goal for states to work towards in improving migrant's rights and their own security, and a benchmark for assessing state conduct: Basically, an international migrant's bill of rights.

A bill of rights would improve the current situation in three ways.  First, because it would apply to all migrants, it would ameliorate the negative consequences of the existing network of piecemeal treaties.  It would be easier for migrants to know which rights apply to them and harder for governments to rationalize denying important rights or freedoms to particular groups.  And as existing law would remain in effect, additional international law would not disadvantage any groups currently entitled to more extensive protections.

Secondly, such a document would improve the situation for future migrants by making the same basic rights applicable around the world.  Then sending countries could help publicize the contents of the bill and ensure that potential migrants know the rights they are entitled to and how to enforce them, regardless of destination.  Furthermore, having one clear standard would help migrants make informed decisions about potential destinations and NGOs carry out their essential "naming and shaming" enforcement function.

Finally, a bill of rights could emphasize those laws that are most important for security and most likely to be adopted.  By highlighting those policies by which states can get the most bang for their bucks, such a document would have a greater chance of creating positive change in the area of migrants rights in a way that more expansive instruments, those considered intrusions on  sovereignty rather than helpful suggestions, have not.  If this approach is combined with a lobbying effort to convince states that these policies are in fact necessary for national and international security, and thus in their own interest, it could be particularly effective.

Fair treatment and integration of migrants can no longer be ignored as "merely" a social issue, as deficits in this area are exacerbating the security problems addressed above.  A migrant's bill of rights would be the most effective instrument to address these transatlantic security issues.

Julia Follick is a graduate student at Georgetown University.  

This article was submitted for the atlantic-community.org's competition: "Empowering Women in International Relations." It coincides with the 10th Anniversary of UN resolution 1325 calling for an increased influence of women in all aspects of peace and security. The contest is sponsored by the U.S. Mission to NATO and the NATO Public Diplomacy Division.

You can read more submissions from the competition here.