It is good we’re talking about this—even though the topic of irregular migration “can start a fight in an empty bar…”

Everyone knows we have to address the issue. Everyone knows the history of failed efforts/techniques to address irregular migration—just pick anyplace on the planet. Everyone has long known that we have to discuss the phenomenon, the failures, any successes—not just one-side of the story for the media, not just in one country or with one approach, and certainly not just in electoral processes.

What the structuring of session 1.2 of the 2010 Global Forum tells us is that the subject of irregular migration is not taboo to talk about anymore. And actually, it has been becoming “un-taboo” at an accelerating pace: it was a major focus of IOM last year in its always well-prepared international dialogue on migration series; then it was approved for the sessions on both sides of this year’s Global Forum, and just a fortnight ago there it was, protection of the rights of irregular migrants the single focus of a landmark statement unanimously approved by the 14 members of the Global Migration Group—14 of the most reputable intergovernmental organizations in the world—from the World Bank to the ILO to UNHCR, IOM, OHCHR, UNDP, UNICEF and UNDESA. It is further significant that 9 of the principals of those agencies thought the issue important enough to participate in the meeting and support the statement in person.

But just because it is suddenly possible to talk about doesn’t mean it’s easy to talk about. Don’t we know that—don’t the States know that—from the experience trying to organize GFMD Session 1.2. Isn’t it clear in the background paper how different the approaches—and perspectives—can be. But it’s no longer taboo. That is very different from before, and we should consider what that means.

I will briefly offer here just a few propositions, a few concrete approaches, and then a few recommendations for the Global Forum this year.

The 1st PROPOSITION is that: none of us “wants” irregular migration. That means that our starting point is actually a consensus: migrants don’t want it, citizens don’t, not states of origin, states of transit or destination, not legitimate employers. The only ones who want it are certain employers (industry and individual) cutting every corner and stepping on human beings and their labour: it’s good (and cheaper) for business they say. Smugglers and traffickers love irregular migration: the more irregular (and desperate), the better for their business. Our experience on the ground, growing research—and surely the heavily reported massacre of the 72 migrants in Tamaulipas, Mexico in August point only more clearly at this straight-line cause and effect: the harder the laws and patrols make it to migrate—whether for survival, family or work, the more there is for the smugglers and traffickers to exploit.

To read the statement in its entirety, please see the pdf below.

Solutions to address irregular migration (465.96 KB)