Policies that facilitate a human security approach

This section builds on the previous section’s analysis of human security and insecurity in the different stages of the migration cycle, examining how policies can improve human security for migrants and communities, addressing international, regional, national and subnational policy considerations. It is important to acknowledge that some policies that significantly foster or improve human security (or reduce human insecurity) do not always directly address the regulation of emigration and immigration.

Before we examine policies from the governance level perspective, we also need to acknowledge that responses and priorities concerning human security and migration often reflect historical and contemporary emigration, immigration and displacement dynamics and policies within countries and regions. There is no one-size-fits-all policy approach to improving human security, as it depends on what and how specific challenges are manifesting. While this chapter is not able to cover the breadth of impacts around the world, the short case studies in Appendix B help to show the diversity of human security issues and impacts being felt by different countries. These studies each represent one country per United Nations region, and focus on a particular human security issue:

• Burkina Faso (Africa): internal displacement due to conflict and violence.
• Canada (Northern America): leading the way on gender equality in migration.
• Colombia (Latin America and the Caribbean): regularization programming.
• The Philippines (Asia): initiatives to counter human trafficking.
• New Zealand (Oceania): multiculturalism and integration to counter extremist violence.
• Switzerland (Europe): inclusion of irregular migrants.

From the case studies, we can see that human security and migration impacts and implications differ by country. In Burkina Faso, for example, conflict resulting from political instability and the rise of violent extremism had displaced more than 1.5 million persons by end of 2021.⁷² This represents a challenge for national and international actors that struggle to provide food and shelter. In New Zealand, two terror attacks linked to white supremacist ideology prompted the Government to reconsider its counter-terrorism policies and enhance training on multiculturalism and diversity. In Switzerland, the Zurich municipality, unable to get broader cantonal support for the introduction of a regularization programme, introduced a “city card” which effectively provides access to essential services such as health care to undocumented migrants living in the city and nearby. In the Philippines, sustained efforts to combat human trafficking meant the country retained a tier 1 ranking in the United States trafficking in persons report for the seventh consecutive year and gained praise for its approach to the rehabilitation and reintegration of victims. In Colombia, COVID-19 heightened political tensions and the conditions of precarity among its growing population of displaced persons, prompting a mass regularization initiative that has increased human security significantly for millions of Venezuelans in vulnerable situations. Finally, in Canada, new programmes, mechanisms and resources have been developed to address gendered inequality in migration management and improve integration outcomes for migrant women and migrants from minority gender groups. Further details are in Appendix B.

Policies across different levels of governance

The governance of migration is a complex and multi-layered process structured around State sovereignty, which is central to migration policy design and implementation.⁷³ In other words, most migration policy is situated at the national level.⁷⁴ Notwithstanding this, international normative instruments exist, and they have been designed to determine or shape how States govern migration and mobility. International instruments such as treaties act to outline specific requirements of State Parties. Some are migration specific, such as the Protocol Against Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, while others, such as the core international human rights treaties, apply equally to all individuals and thus guarantee a minimum set of rights to all, including migrants. Appendix C provides a summary of global multilateral treaties related to migration and migrants. There also exist international non-binding State‑negotiated texts (such as the Global Compact for Migration) and State consultative mechanisms (such as the Global Forum on Migration and Development), which are designed to inform and guide policymaking at the national level. A detailed discussion of these multilateral processes and related outcomes is provided in Chapter 8 of this report.

The international governance framework on migration obliges States to uphold the human rights of migrants, for example, by refraining from arbitrary immigration detention and by upholding the principle of non-refoulement. Elements of the framework also summon States to protect the human rights of migrants from third-party violation, for example by calling on them to regulate the activities of recruitment agencies to guarantee ethical recruitment practices, or by mandating that antidiscrimination legislation is enacted. The international level, therefore, is central to the consideration of migrants’ human security because it encompasses agreed norms and informs standards that can be replicated (or even enhanced) at other levels of governance, including by regional, national and subnational authorities.

At the regional level, migration governance also encompasses legal frameworks and policies, complemented by organizational structures, consultative mechanisms and other processes. Regional approaches shape how mobility takes place within regions (geographic or geopolitical) and address issues pertaining to human security (including rights) through binding and non-binding instruments. In some regions, migration-related agreements have been finalized and implemented by regional structures and groupings. Examples of this include the access to national labour markets for all nationals of the ECOWAS region without the need for employment visas or permits (see text box below), or the right to residence across the MERCOSUR region for nationals of their member States. In the case of the European Union, policymaking at a regional level has harmonized entry requirements and created residence categories for migrants. It has also created minimum employment rights standards, and mandated anti‑discrimination legislation.

At the national level, there are a wide range of policies that impact the human security of migrants. For example, visa policies determine who can enter and transit through territories, under which conditions, and for what purposes. Immigration legislation creates different categories of migrants, with residence conditions and entitlements attached to them. The ability of migrants to enter, transit and stay in countries through regular channels is a key determinant of human security, as access to rights – such as health care, housing, decent work and social protection – is often predicated upon immigration status. Irregular migrants, or those with temporary or precarious statuses, face difficulties or exclusion in accessing those rights and may be exploited in the labour market because of their status. They may also be subjected to additional forms of insecurity, such as immigration detention, and forced to return to their country of origin. Additional forms of support for migrants are therefore needed, depending on their situations.

Countries also shape the experiences of their nationals moving abroad. Countries of origin for large numbers of migrant workers may sign bilateral labour agreements with countries of destination to help safeguard the well‑being of their nationals abroad. In certain cases, like in the Philippines for instance, migration may be prohibited to countries where human security cannot be guaranteed. Other policies may include the provision of welfare and consular assistance or the facilitation of safe return and reintegration.

Although migration policies are often conceived at the national level, they are often implemented in a decentralized manner. In some systems, it is the subnational level that both sets and implements aspects of migration policy. More commonly, it is local level authorities (particularly city or municipality authorities) that are responsible for the provision of services to migrants, a key aspect for the security and well-being of migrant communities. In some cases, these local level authorities have discretion in interpreting and implementing national policies. In certain cases, they may openly oppose restrictive national policies, such as immigration detention or the exclusion of irregular migrants from health-care services. This is the case for “sanctuary cities” in the United States and beyond, which seek to protect the rights of migrants regardless of their immigration status, including by providing access to health care, shelter, integration and education services. Other municipalities have created specific programmes to protect migrants from exposure to potential harm in reporting crime. As described in the text box below, what started as a local level policy in Amsterdam has gone on to be expanded into a national approach, exemplifying how local approaches can also shape national policies.

Measuring policy implementation

Attempting to align migration policies to individual stages of the migration cycle proves challenging because most policy impacts migrants at multiple stages. Such is the case of national and regional policies aimed at countering migrant smuggling. While their primary objective is to protect the territorial sovereignty of States and promote regular migration, the disproportionate use of force and militarization of borders can, for example, result in pushbacks at land and sea, effectively denying migrants the right to seek asylum, breaching the prohibition of collective expulsion and undermining the principle of non-refoulement.⁷⁵ Additionally, the same policies may, directly or indirectly, criminalize the provision of humanitarian assistance to irregular migrants, further compounding their vulnerabilities in places of transit and destination.⁷⁶ In some instances, these policies and practices have not reduced smuggling, but have forced those smuggling and being smuggled to take on greater risks to cross international borders. This intensifies precarity and vulnerability.

Several attempts have been made to measure the comprehensiveness of different aspects of migration governance and policy structures. For example, the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX), in place since 2007 and rolled out in 56 countries across six continents, identifies and measures integration policies across eight areas: labour market mobility, education, political participation, access to nationality, health care, family reunion, permanent residence and anti‑discrimination.⁷⁷ The Migration Governance Indicators (MGI) is one of the most holistic attempts to measure and compare such governance.⁷⁸ It is a framework measuring policies across multiple stages of the migration cycle. It was developed in 2016 by IOM in collaboration with Economist Impact to support governments in assessing the comprehensiveness of their migration policies, structures and practices, and to identify gaps and areas that need to be strengthened. The 90+ indicators are based on the six principles and objectives of the IOM Migration Governance Framework, grounded in target 10.7 of the Sustainable Development Goals, and aligned to the 23 objectives of the Global Compact for Migration.⁷⁹ At the time of writing, 92 countries and 52 subnational authorities had undertaken an assessment,⁸⁰ while others were embarking on an assessment. These completed assessments represent a baseline measure from which governments can work to improve their migration policies. Additionally, 18 countries have conducted follow-up assessments, contributing towards a longitudinal database that will help measure progress in areas of migration governance.

However, the MGI is limited insofar as it focuses on the existence of migration governance structures, with limited assessment of how policies are implemented and no assessment of the outcomes of those policies. As such, other tools are necessary to move beyond simply measuring whether frameworks are in place, and to understand how countries manage migration in practice. One way of measuring policy implementation may lie in developing Global Compact for Migration indicators.

On 7 June 2022, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Progress Declaration of the International Migration Review Forum. Paragraph 70 of the Declaration calls on the Secretary-General to propose, for the consideration of Member States, a set of indicators to measure progress related to the implementation of the Global Compact for Migration at a national level. In its 2022–2024 workplan,⁸¹ the United Nations Network on Migration is mandated by its Executive Committee to develop such indicators drawing on the global indicator framework for the SDGs and 2030 Agenda targets, as well as other relevant frameworks. For this purpose, a new workstream of the United Nations Network on Migration has been created, co-led by IOM and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and tasked with developing such indicators and conducting consultations with Member States and relevant stakeholders by the end of 2023.