UNDESIRABLE AND PLACELESS

Mobilizing public opinion for/against foreign labor policies in Korea, 1995–2005: NGOs, trade unions, and employers’ associations in contested terrain

All over ‘Fortress Europe' groups of refugees and undocumented migrants are organizing themselves to resist and protest against the current migration regime and border system. This paper will be argued that while the migration regime aims to push undocumented migrants into invisibility, to silence their voices, to tame their bodies and to let them live in a constant state of fear, this does not deprive migrants of their capacity to rebel and to struggle.For years, sewing the lips, hunger strikes, setting fire to one's body have expressed acts of protest occurring daily both in foreign detention centres and on the streets of Europe. Recently a new mode of protest started emerging in many Western European countries, including the Netherlands, Germany and Italy, namely collectively squatting unused buildings. This marks an important shift in the undocumented migrants' modes of struggle that goes from isolated acts of protest to a collective mode of resistance that affects the everyday lives of undocumented migrants. Drawing on the case of the ‘We Are Here' movement in the Netherlands, this chapter argues that squatting buildings has been used by undocumented migrants for shelter, protest and to gain visibility, but also to open collective autonomous spaces where to organize political struggles, to intervene in the way migrants are supposed to experience their everyday lives, and to take their basic need in their own hands: thereby resisting mechanisms of both ‘crimmigration' by the state, and victimisation by civil society.

[This article aims to identify jurisprudence which advances the standards of treatment of unauthorised migrants in the context of often hostile domestic laws and political rhetoric. Due to its universalist and humanist underpinnings, many would consider international human rights law to be a natural source of rights protecting migrant workers. However, human rights doctrine takes a chequered approach to the protection of those living or working in a foreign state without visa authorisation. Even the Migrant Workers Convention recognises states' sovereign prerogative over immigration control, and thereby fails to cater to the especially precarious position of irregular migrants who decline to assert their rights for fear o f facing sanctions under immigration laws. It is argued that we need to look to regional judicial forums to find international legal doctrine which articulates a progressive legal framework robustly protective of irregular migrants' rights. This article canvasses jurisprudence in the regional Human Rights Courts in Europe and the Americas which succeeds, in different ways, at decoupling the absolute discretion of states to regulate border control from the substantive rights of irregular migrants once present in a host state.] CONTENTS I Introduction II The Rights of Irregular Migrants and the Promise of Human Rights Law A Arguments for the Need to Protect Irregular Migrants B The Promise of Human Rights Law III The Hesitant Approach of Human Rights Law to the Protection of Irregular Migrants A Irregular Migrants and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights B The Innovation Presented by the Migrant Workers Convention IV Seeking Out More Progressive Doctrine: The Regional Human Rights Courts A European Jurisprudence on the Right to Family Life B The Inter-American Court of Human Rights V Conclusion I INTRODUCTION International migration featured high on the United Nations' agenda in 2006, when, on 14 and 15 September, government delegations from around the world met for the UN General Assembly's High-Level Dialogue on International Migration and Development. (1) This same year saw hundreds of thousands of people lining the streets of Los Angeles with placards proclaiming 'no human is illegal'. (2) Clearly, international migration has become the subject of urgent policy debate within many countries and at the international level. It is equally evident that no single issue is more contentious than that of the movement of people without state authorisation, described in international parlance as 'irregular migration'.(3) As the Australian Government attempts to guard against the entry of asylum seekers arriving by boat, (4) even 'fortress Australia' (5) is not insulated from irregular (or 'undocumented') migrants, in December 2005, there were approximately 46 400 visa overstayers in Australia, (6) together with an unknown number of non-citizens present in Australia with valid visas who were working in breach of their visa conditions. (7) In current Australian public debate, as in most Western countries, irregular migrants are maligned as 'economic migrants' (8)--less deserving even than refugees because the circumstances precipitating their arrival in Australia are not considered to found a legitimate claim to stay on Australian soil. (9) As irregular migrants have not been extended the privilege of entry into Australian territory, enforcement plays a dominant role in political discourse. (10) Those who advocate for the rights of undocumented migrant workers are often blocked by the hold that the mantra of border control has on the popular psyche. This article has the practical goal of identifying jurisprudence which advances the standards of treatment of unauthorised migrants in the context of often hostile domestic laws and political rhetoric. It is hoped that this article will fuel a more sophisticated public debate about the conceptual frameworks necessary to protect the rights of undocumented migrant workers. …

The U.S. Immigration Crisis and a Call for the Church's Lifeworld Politics: Why Should Hauerwas Collaborate with Habermas on the U.S. Immigration Crisis? Ilsup Ahn Introduction: Saying “No” to the State's Biopolitics Against the Undocumented Migrants According to the recent survey report published by the Washington, D.C.‐based Public Religion Research Institute, throughout 2013, there has been consistent bipartisan and cross‐religious support for creating a path to citizenship for immigrants living in the United States. While 14 percent percent of Americans support allowing undocumented immigrants to become permanent legal residents but not citizens, 63 percent favor providing a way for immigrants who are currently living in the United States without legal documentation to become citizens provided they meet certain requirements. They also discovered that nearly two‐thirds of Americans believe that the U.S. immigration system is either completely broken (34 percent) or mostly broken but working in some areas (31 percent). The report also shows that 41 percent of Americans believe immigration policy should be an immediate priority for President Obama and Congress, while roughly as many (42 percent) say it should be a priority during the next couple of years. Interestingly enough, only 14 percent of Americans say it should not be a priority at all. Despite the majority of the U.S. citizens favor some sort of comprehensive immigration reform, the Congress has failed to pass a comprehensive immigration overhaul to date largely due to the House Republican leaders, who recently unveiled their principles for an overhaul for the nation's immigration laws. These principles, however, do not clarify whether most undocumented immigrants would ever be able to become legal residents or U.S. citizens, while they would require tighter border security and more interior immigration enforcements. These principles seem to reiterate the problematic anti‐immigration mantra to continuously militarize our borders as well as to criminalize undocumented immigrants. The Obama administration has been increasingly criticized in regard to the inhumane deportation of many undocumented people, especially those parents whose children are U.S. citizens. Critiques argue that President Obama has overseen record levels of deportations, with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) repatriating about 2 million undocumented people since he took office in January 2009 (roughly 400,000 a year or 1,100 per day). Amid the increasing political turmoil relating to the immigration reform, the public media begin to notice that the real winners in immigration control are the prison industry. The Atlantic, for example, reports that since 2003, when ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) was created and government crackdowns on undocumented aliens increased, private prisons have gained business, with industry profits more than doubling. Damon Hininger, CEO of CCA (Corrections Corporation of America), said during a conference call with investors in May 2010 that between 2007 and 2009, when earnings for the S&P dropped by 28 percent, the company's earnings drew by 18 percent. According to The Atlantic, the government spends more than $2 billion a year on immigration detention, while spending only $72 million on alternatives to detention. It also reports that the private prison industry, such as CCA, has spent more than $1 million on lobbying. Although private prisons say that their lobbying efforts are aimed at promoting their services, not shaping immigration policy, immigrant advocates argue that the private prison industry is always lobbying for more detention beds. Given that the cost of detaining an immigrant averages $159 a day and half of 34,000 beds are operated by private prison corporations, it is not difficult to see the connection between the interests of the private prison corporations such as CCA and the Geo Group and the criminalization of undocumented migrants. According to Lee Fang of The Nation, the controversial Arizona SB1070 was developed in consultation with private prison lobbyists through a group called the American Legislative Exchange Council. Unfortunately, as Aubrey Pringle reports, several pending immigration bills would increase the number of incarcerated immigrants even more. The ongoing political struggles related to the increasing border militarization, the widespread criminalization of undocumented migrants, and the massive deportation of undocumented parents are the explicit exemplification of what philosophers Michel Foucault and Giorgio Agamben call the...

This chapter summarizes Mexico's questions concerning de jure discrimination prejudicial to labor rights of undocumented migrant workers. It then analyzes leading cases of de jure discrimination in U.S. domestic remedies for undocumented migrant workers- Sure-Tan v. National Labor Relations Board and Hoffman -as well as the intervening Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The chapter then considers the state of applicable international law prior to the Court's Advisory Opinion: (1) Fundamental international labor rights of all workers, including undocumented workers. (2) Treaties specifically protecting undocumented workers, but only in a relatively few states parties. (3) Whether discrimination against migrant workers, based on their undocumented status, was limited by international norms of equality and non-discrimination. (4) Whether denial of certain remedies for undocumented workers violated their internationally protected rights. (5) The progressive development of the internationally protected rights of migrant workers. (6) Whether norms of equality and non-discrimination are jus cogens . Keywords: court's advisory opinion; de jure discrimination; international law; labor rights; Mexico; non-discrimination; undocumented migrant workers

The end of the Cold War marked a major break for migration policies in Europe. Defensive projections and visions of migration came to the fore in a European Union whose integration and openness toward the internal border-free single market went hand-in-hand with joint isolation of a ‘Fortress Europe’ vis-à-vis undesirable and, especially illegal, in-migration from outside its borders. As long as a negative coalition against unwelcome immigration prevails instead of a European migration concept, Europe itself contributes to the illegalization of immigration and to the persistence of the enemy image of ‘illegal immigration’. Against a background of widespread and confused fears of migration pressure from outside Europe, three issues have to be promoted by clear political direction with long-term perspectives: (1) a further normalization in dealing with migration and integration; (2) the acceptance and understanding of the feasibility of these central issues of social life in an immigration country, but also (3) the pragmatic acceptance of the limits of migration control in view of the often underestimated autonomous dynamics of migration and integration processes. This combines perspectives of researching migration and integration as well as the shaping of policies.

This article critically analyzed the Turkish and Libyan refugee deals. We argued that these deals proved to be unsustainable policy frameworks by focusing on their practical outcomes regarding humanitarian objectives. We utilized the 'Fortress Europe' concept to demonstrate how the European Union’s security concerns shaped the framework of these deals. Our study elaborated on two main arguments: First, these deals have undermined both Turkey and Libya’s migration management capacities. Second, these deals failed to provide adequate mechanisms supervising the enforcement of humanitarian objectives. We focus on two dynamics leading to the failure of these deals. First, the EU’s prioritization of security concerns has resulted in overlooking the irregular migration’s humanitarian and societal costs to the third countries. Second, the EU’s securitarian strategy contributed to further politicization and securitization of cooperation on migration. In conclusion, we argue that the EU should revise its securitarian strategy on irregular migration to include a more effective multi-lateral and multi-dimensional framework that focuses more on humanitarian issues while ensuring that the responsibilities will be fairly shared between the EU and third countries based on their capacities.

Burmese people have been migrating to Malaysia since early 1990s. Socio-political-economic pressure pulls the Chin migrant workers from Burma to come into Malaysia rather than India and Thailand for better network in Malaysia as well as to shun from direct deportation to home country. Amidst Malaysia government’s violation of migration rights, resettlement from Malaysia to third countries plays critical role in migration to Malaysia. The largest irregular migrant populations from Burma, besides economic factors, ethnic and religious discrimination are the main factors that push Chin people to migrate out of Chin State. Low income, dependency on other migrants, assistance from community based groups, and support from friends in third countries help Chin people to survive amidst destitution in Malaysia. Being only a State Party to only two of international human rights instruments: the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and has not ratified the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (ICPMW), and has not signed the 1951 Refugee Convention, both refugees and irregular migrants are illegal. This research has tried to classify and enrich understanding about the authentic situation of irregular Chin migrants from Burma, their experiences and working conditions in Malaysia and related consequences. It has exposed the push and pull factors of Chin people’s migration to Malaysia irregularly, and has identified working environments, economic situation and social welfare conditions of irregular Chin migrants in Malaysia too understand irregular Chin migrants’ survival strategies. The research unveils that no policy protects Chin irregular migrants in Malaysia that they are in a risk situation.

Based on ethnographic research undertaken between 2012—2014, this article focuses on the experiences and narratives of four refused, male asylum seekers living in a network of emergency night shelters located in churches across Greater Manchester, UK. Without the right to work and under No Recourse to Public Funds, many refused asylum seekers are pushed into dependency on charitable support and live under threat of arrest, detention and deportation. This enforced destitution interlocks with other mechanisms of deterrence within the UK’s asylum system to produce a weaponised time in which the state uses time to marginalise, destabilise and exert control over asylum seekers and refused asylum seekers. This paper argues that this weaponised time should be considered as a technology of state power alongside dispersal, detention, destitution and deportation. In making this assertion, it also takes stock of the UK’s asylum system and its built-in forms of marginalisation. It also places both the ethnographic content and policy discussion within the controversy surrounding the UK government’s ‘hostile environment’ towards so-called ‘illegal immigrants’ that was unfolding as the ethnographic research took place. This opens towards wider discussions on the mutually reinforcing relationship between asylum policy and political discourse.

The article by Weathers and her coinvestigators in this issue titled “Health Services Use by Children of Migratory Agricultural Workers: Exploring the Role of Need for Care”1 is only the fourth article published on the health care of migrant farm worker families in Pediatrics since 1948, excluding policy statements by the Committee on Community Health Services.2,3 During the past 54 years the only clinical or health services research on children of farm workers published in Pediatrics included 1 article in 1972 and another in 1974 on lead exposure and toxicity.4,5 A third article, published in 1962, did not report findings of a research study but called on medical schools and pediatricians to become more actively involved in the study of the health problems of migrant farm worker children.6 The small number of publications describing clinical and health services research related to migrant farm worker children in Pediatrics is consistent with the experience of other peer-reviewed journals and is a reflection of the very limited number of research studies that have been conducted in this high-risk vulnerable population. As referenced in the Weathers article, a 1998 Institute of Medicine report highlighted this concern by stating that there is “a glaring and significant gap in the scientific literature” for research on children of migrant farm workers, especially undocumented workers.7 In setting research priorities, funders usually consider the magnitude of the problem, the ability of the research to contribute to better health outcomes through improvements in care and/or better health policy, and a sense of fairness or social justice … Address correspondence to Steve Berman, MD, Children’s Hospital 1056 E 19th Ave, B032 Denver, CO 80218. E-mail: berman.stephen{at}tchden.org

This article studies the effects of the Israeli migration regime on the prospects for the emergence of a politics of claims‐making by labour migrants, comparing the structures of constraints and opportunities to establish organisational frameworks faced by documented contract workers and undocumented spontaneous migrant workers. In spite of the exclusionary character of this migration regime, some groups of migrant workers have succeeded in establishing associations that attempt to place demands on the public agenda. Paradoxically, these organisations were established by the migrant workers that hold the most insecure and vulnerable status in the country: the undocumented spontaneous migrants. The paradox is explained by the differences between the institutional arrangements that shape the incorporation of documented and undocumented migrants. While the control mechanisms exercised both by state agencies and the employers upon the documented migrant workers impede their collective organisation and articulation of demands, the relative ‘autonomy’ enjoyed by the undocumented migrants allows them to establish associations that function as vehicles for claims‐making. The article further analyses the strategies employed by these migrant organisations to gain access to Israeli state agencies and public opinion. It is shown how these strategies as well as the content and the discursive framing of the demands are affected by the exclusionary principles of the Israeli migration regime.

Drawing on data from in-depth interviews with refused asylum seekers from Zimbabwe and Kurds from Turkey, who have stayed in Britain as irregular migrants, this paper examines everyday lives, strategies and fears. The paper focuses on four main areas: individual experiences of the asylum system leading to irregularity; living as an irregular migrant with the constraints on economic participation and limited housing options; social lives, relationships and community activities alongside the ways in which decisions about social interactions intersect with irregularity and subsistence support; the fears and everyday struggles faced by irregular migrant's living in England, and the ways in which this translates into relationships with place and space. The paper draws out both the commonalities and the diversity of experiences among refused asylum seekers living in England.

The United Kingdom’s National Health Service (‘NHS’) emerged in the post-war era as part of a joint European effort to consolidate key social rights such as the right to health. To this end, the NHS pledged to provide a ‘comprehensive health service’ imparting health services free of charge at the point of delivery. It is true that, for the most part, the NHS has fulfilled its intended role and has offered its valuable services free of charge irrespective of the patient’s background. On the other hand legislation has always permitted ‘the making and recovery of charges [for health services]’ where ‘expressly provided for’ in the Act in question. Irregular migrants are ‘foreign nationals who do not comply with immigration law requirements.’ They carry the more familiar label of ‘illegal immigrants’ in everyday parlance. That term is avoided here partly because of its (largely erroneous) associations with criminality, but primarily because of the stigmatising and dehumanising effects that such epithets bear on the individual concerned. For these reasons the more neutral term ‘irregular migrant’ is preferred by some authors and is used throughout this chapter. Irregular migrants include clandestine entrants into the country, those in possession of falsified travel documents such as passports, those who have overstayed their visas or who are in employment contrary to their conditions of residence, and refused asylum seekers.

IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic has exposed various health risks and inequities experienced by international migrant workers. The number of migrant workers in the Republic of Korea (ROK) is rapidly growing and is expected to continue growing. Health related research on migrant workers in ROK is limited, especially among undocumented migrant workers who were more vulnerable to the pandemic. This study aims to examine the experiences of migrant workers and their knowledge and awareness of treatment and immigration policies during the pandemic.MethodsWe used data from the International Migrant Workers’ COVID-19 Health Literacy and Access to Medical Care project, a cross-sectional survey conducted with international migrant workers residing in ROK in 2021 (n = 537). Descriptive statistics and multivariable regression models were employed to understand different demographic, occupational, and immigration factors affecting migrant workers’ knowledge and awareness of treatment and immigration policies.ResultsUndocumented migrant workers had a longer length of residence in ROK and earned less compared to workers with work visa status. None of the undocumented migrant workers had access to health insurance since they were ineligible to enroll in the national health insurance scheme. In the early days of the pandemic, most undocumented migrant workers experienced a decrease in their average income. After adjusting for demographic differences and language proficiency, undocumented migrant workers (AOR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21, 0.78) were less likely to be aware of the policy allowing foreigners, including undocumented individuals, to access COVID-19 testing and treatment without the risk of deportation. Workers with a longer length of residence (AOR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.09, 1.53) were more likely to be aware of this policy.ConclusionUndocumented migrant workers were often less informed about COVID-19 policies. While most of the survey respondents were knowledgeable about governmental policies regarding COVID-19 treatment and immigration, our results reveal multiple occupational and health insurance vulnerabilities of undocumented migrant workers living in ROK. More attention is needed to understand healthcare service barriers and how to provide adequate resources for this vulnerable population.

Undocumented migran worker violate immigration rule and potentially give damage toward host state. However many persons exploited them, get advantages from illegal status of the worker. Two problems in this research are how does international law protect undocumented migrant worker and what solutions offer to host state to solve undocumented migran worker matter. This thesis employs normative method of research with qualitative analysis. The result of this thesis reveals international law protect undocumented worker without discrimination. Preventive action will be better conducted by host state than enforcement Keywords: undocumented migran worker, illegal, non discrimination