The Global Compact for Migration in a nutshell

 

Some of the actions that relate to these objectives include:

 

• Improving national data collection by integrating migration-related topics into national censuses;

• Banning the confiscation of work contracts and travel or identity documents from migrants, in order to prevent abuse;

• Ensuring that the provision of humanitarian assistance for migrants is not considered unlawful;

• Establishing transnational coordination channels and contact points for families looking for missing migrants;

• Facilitating access to justice and safe reporting without fear of detention, deportation or penalty for victims and potential victims of trafficking;

• Protecting family unity and ensuring that anyone legitimately claiming to be a child is treated as such;

• Ensuring that immigrant detention is not promoted as a deterrent or used as a form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment;

• Stopping allocation of public funding to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants;

• Developing standards for the mutual recognition of foreign qualifications and informal skills;

• Enabling political participation and engagement of migrants in their countries of origin, including in peace and reconciliation processes, in elections and political reforms.

 

 

The good, the bad and the absent

 

The Migration Compact offers a powerful platform to start doing international migration politics in a fresh way. Beyond introducing new commitments such as those highlighted above, the Compact intends to simplify administrative procedures for a broad range of migration-related topics, from consular assistance to preserving social security benefits for migrant workers. It upholds human rights in contexts where they are not always a given and it puts data and knowledge at the centre of policy-making. Another celebrated innovation is the inclusion of provisions that understand migration as a consequence of natural disasters and climate change.

 

On the other hand, the Compact also has some problematic aspects. First, the clear-cut divide it establishes between migrants and refugees might do more harm than good to those on the move. Building on the 2016 decision to draft two Global Compacts, one on refugees and one on migrants, paragraph 4 states that these are two ‘distinct groups governed by separate legal frameworks.’ Leaving aside the theoretical discussion, explicitly excluding refugees from the Migration Compact deprives them of benefits like the enhanced protection against discrimination or the facilities to transfer remittances. This distinction also overlooks regional protection frameworks (such as the American) which define refugees more broadly and would grant refugee protection to people who under the Migration Compact could be classified as ‘migrants in other precarious situations’ (paragraph 21.g).

 

Another issue is the relationship between migration and development. The text rightly recognises the impact of migration as a driver of development for all countries and the economic impact of remittances and diaspora investments. However, it misunderstands the other side of the link, by conceiving development as a way of curbing migration. This premise, for which there is very little empirical evidence, appears both as the second objective (‘mitigate the adverse drivers and structural factors that compel people to leave their country of origin’) and as one of the purposes (paragraph 12). The consensus among academics and practitioners on the field, however, is that the availability of means and the capacity to move are directly – not inversely – correlated. In other words, that more development can lead to more migration.

​

Yet another controversial aspect is the unbending criminalisation of smuggling. While the efforts to protect migrants victimised by their smugglers are commendable, experts like Gabriella Sanchez or Jørgen Carling have long argued for a more nuanced perspective on this phenomenon. Smuggling has stepped up with the increasing securitisation of borders and the scarcity of safe and regular routes; for those on the road, including refugees, smugglers are often just service providers who offer the only way to cross the border. Cracking drown on smuggling before putting out pathways in place for migrants may have disastrous humanitarian consequences. Once the need for smugglers slackens, their business should decline by itself.

​

Finally, there are some important issues that were left out of the Compact. For example, it was impossible for states to agree on banning child detention altogether, limiting themselves to ‘favouring community-based care arrangements’ (paragraph 29.h). It would have also been interesting to have a definition of what the Compact’s vague catchphrase – ‘safe, orderly and regular migration’ – actually means to its signatories.

 

All in all, the Global Compact for Migration is a historical breakthrough, ambitious in its scope and its determination. It represents a new global approach to international migration, acknowledging that the movement of people across borders is an unstoppable reality which may even be beneficial for all. In the words of Louise Arbour, UN Special Representative for International Migration, on the adoption of the Compact, ‘rather than ignore the impetus of some to relocate, or worse, to attempt to crush it at unconscionable cost, we are now committed to safer and fairer ways of managing borders.’ The implementation of the text will tell how far the international community is willing to go on from these first steps.