module 10 - migration HR

main question of this discourse

is migration considered a right or privilege → possible protected interest

arguments for migration being a right

freedom of movement - UDHR A13, right to leave and seek asylum

arguments for migration being a privilege

states’ sovereign right to control borders and regulate entry

what is migration a battle between

individual rights and state interest

cicero’s thoughts on immigration

all humans are rational (durrr) and have a moral equality. universal hospitality and moral aid should be an expectation.

what’s the word cicero used to describe what we should lock in and be doing

cosmopolitan ;)

hugo grotius

he created the book “right of passage in natural law”

right to travel and INNOCENT PASSAGE BRO

states cannot close borders to all foreigners… especially the peaceful ones

kant

he believes in a cosmopolitan right that advocated for perpetual peace.

we kinda owe it to other humans to be hospitable

states AND individuals have rights under international law

rights for all, even foreign nationals

joseph caren

wrote ethics of immigration

borders are morally arbitrary and they exemplify a sorta feudal privilege

if anything, liberal governments must at LEAST justify restrictions on rights

long term irregular migrants should just be given a legal status

this guy is a big shot in migration ethics ;)

seyla benhabib

advocated for THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS

human rights have a cosmopolitan foundation that exceeds state borders

individuals have rights man, get over it

david hume

of national characters

immigration creates a “moral/social decay” via mixing people

friedrich list

argued for a sorta economic nationalism

he believed that a strong nation is protected by borders

let’s limit these people

us nativist writings

the know nothing party

first major political party against immigration from catholics

wanted to keep the economy, tradition, and religion (protestant)

non refoulement

it is customary

this is the core of refugee protection under the 1951 refugee convention a33

prohibits returning individuals to places where they may face persecution or violence or yadi yada

non deportation

expands upon non-refoulement and goes BEYOND refugees; all people facing irreparable harm are protected. tuhhhh

non detention

arbitrary detention is prohibited (iccpr a9)

detention must be necessary proportionate and be of LAST resort!!!!

non extradition

barred when a person faces persecution, torture, death

convention against torture a3 → no extradite 2 place where torture is likely

ione teitota vs. new zealand

first climate change related non refoulement

deportion to Kiribati was challenged under A6 of ICCPR (right to life)

what was the committee’s decision regarding ione teitota vs. new zealand

climate change DOES and CAN trigger non-refoulement obligations

hirsi jamaa + others vs. italy

italy intercepted migrants at sea and returned them to libya

violated A3 of ECHR — prohibition of torture

while also violating the prohibition on collective expulsion

mss vs. belgium and greece

asylum seeker returned to greece under dublin regulation

conditions in greece violated a3 of ECHR

singh vs. canada

refugee claimants were denied oral hearing

the supreme court of canada held that charter protections apply to everyone EVEN the non citizens

what did the singh vs. canada case create

immigration and refugee board

suresh vs. canada case

tamil refugee was facing deportation… he argued for a RISK OF TORTURE!!! she call be private party sos

scc held that deportation for torture reasons would be unconstitutional

recognition of non-refoulement as a foundational principle

INS vs. caradoza-fonesca

defined the status of asylum seekers

“well-founded fear” was ranked lower than a “clear probability”

A BIG YESSSSSSIRRRR for asylum seekers

finally, us law was aligned with the refugee convention

zadvydas vs. davis

address indefinite immigration detention

must be limited for 6 months

due process applies for non citizens