On the 24th of November 2020, the Migrant Forum in Asia, together with the Cross Regional Center for Refugees and Migrants, the Global Research Forum on Diaspora and Transnationalism, and the Civil Society Action Committee, organized an online webinar on the Global Compact for Migration Objective 13. Various experts on migration discussed on the topic, “Use migration detention only as a measure of last resort and work towards alternatives”.
Detention of Children should be Abolished
William Gois, Regional Coordinator of the Migrant Forum in Asia, was the moderator of the webinar. He started the webinar by asking the first speaker, Verena Knaus, the Senior Migrant Advisor at UNICEF, to predict when will countries understand that children should never and under no circumstances be detained. According to Verena Knaus, some states are not willing to stop the detention of children. However, there were other states willing to stop detention of children under certain conditions. Detention of children is also one of the main reasons why many states are not ready to sign the Global Compact for Migration. Knaus stressed the importance of reaching a common settlement. “We need a compromise that allows states to sign on and indicates the road we want to travel”:Verena Knaus.
Even more, Knaus insisted, that detention of children is a violation of human rights. However, many states around the world perceive detention of children as the part and parcel of migration regulations. In order to stop the children’s detention, it is important to do three things. First of all, change the public opinion and delegitimize the detention of children. Secondly, create a new effective form of immigration policies, where detention has no place. Thirdly, countries need to start implementing new immigration policies and change the whole system.
Time forNew Alternative Immigration Regulation Systems
Silvia Gómez, Global Advocacy Coordinator at the International Detention Coalition, was the second speaker of the webinar. She started her speech by describing the immigration system, which is characterized by inherent wrongness. “Some human beings are looked upon as less deserving of certain rights”: Silvia Gómez.
Gómez admitted that detention and alternative immigration policies are a political issue. The negotiation of Objective 13 was based on negotiations among many actors, such as UN agencies, civil society actors, and governments. Therefore, Objective 13 should be seen as a stepping stone in the process. This objective provides a policy solution on how to actually reduce immigration detention and how to prove that immigration policies do not necessarily need to practice detention.
Inability of Malaysia to meet the GCM obligations
Objection 13 requires signatory states to review and revise the migration law and practices. However, Malaysia has not done so, according to Dato’ Sri M. Ramachelvam, the Advocate and Solicitor of the High Court of Malaysia. Even more, the Malaysian government executed a crackdown of undocumented migrants during the pandemic. As Ramachelvam mentioned, in Malaysia, detention is not the last resort. “Malaysia takes the position of detention as the first resort, although, the Global Compact calls for it to be the last resort”: Dato’ Sri M. Ramachelvam.
The government of Malaysia should change its immigration policies in order to fulfill its commitments to the Global Compact. Ramachelvam highlighted that the migrants in Malaysia lack access to free legal assistance. The Malaysian system does not provide any alternatives to deportation as well. Therefore, the whole immigration process, according to Ramachelvam, needs to be changed. However, these changes should be proposed by Malaysian policymakers, government, leaders, and society.
Immigration System in the USA based on Racial Discrimination
The immigration policies and detention in the United States of America (USA) were described by Reverend Deborah Lee, the Executive Director for the Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity. According to Rev. Lee, the immigrant detention system in the USA represents a small part of problematic migration policies in the USA. Rev. Leetraced the xenophobic practices exhibited by the US immigration system to the history of slavery. “Four hundred years of history in our country, that has been used to reinforce white rule, and this idea that the USA should be a country for white people and white control”: Rev. Deborah Lee.
The migration policies have been used to control who is able to come in, who is legitimate to have full status, and who should be deported.
The second problem related to US immigration policies is, according to Rev. Lee, the militarized approach. In the past years, immigration regulation has come to be seen as a war that needs to be fought with all war tools, such as helicopters, drones, and immigration prisons. She pointed out the increase in number of detained people over the past years, with the majority of detained being placed in privately run detention facilities with the main aim to increase profit.
The Clash between Concepts of Alternatives to Detention
Michael Flynn, the Executive Director of the Global Detention Project in Switzerland was the last speaker at the webinar. According to him, based on different approaches to immigration systems around the world, we face a number of different realities. It is mainly because each country sees detention differently. Therefore, not all countries trust alternatives to detention. Flynn believes that, today there are two different concepts of alternatives to detention. The first one is around the approach adopted by the UN Network on Migration, the Compact, the International Organization for Migration, which is framing alternatives to detention as anything that can lead to less detention. While on the other hand, there are organizations, such as the European Union, which provides specific information through its guidelines related to the role of alternatives to detention. However, as Flynn pointed out, these two ideas do not meet. He believes that the alternatives to detention should not be pulled from the necessity proportionality calculus. In his address, Flynn criticized many alternatives to detention pilots for being unrealistic. “Most of the pilots, at least many that I have evaluated, are basically NGOs doing a very good job identifying people who may be vulnerable to detention, but are not in detention procedures”: Michael Flynn.
Efforts to be Continued
After all speeches, the webinar moved into discussion, as participants discussed various issues related to the alternatives to detention and shared their opinions related to this topic. All speakers agreed that the immigration processes in most countries have to be changed. Countries should start adopting various alternatives to detention. In order to reach this point, further dialogue between governments and other organizations, is required. While it is vital to bring the states on board, it is also equally important to get the support of the civil society. The process of changing the immigration system and the implementation of alternatives to detention will take time and will require lots of effort. However, as all speakers agreed, it is not only necessary to continue the efforts, but it is also important to persuade more and more countries about the necessity and effectiveness of alternatives to detention.
Michal Tengeri, PhD Candidate in Asia-Pacific Studies at National Chengchi University Twitter: @Michal8810