With 232 million international migrants in the world, according to
recent figure released by United Nations Department of Economics and Social
Affairs (UNDESA), migration is one of the most important and pressing global issue
of our time (Amrith 2014). Further research into the matter has found that
migration is often driven by the search for better livelihoods and new opportunities
which is basically challenging for the host countries. Given the weight of
challenges, irregular migration, known as asylum seekers and refugees, are
highly securitized and therefore contested in policy debate and making (Koser
2005). However, experts argued that migrants provide with economic growth for
both of receiving countries [via remittance transfer] and host countries [by filling
the gap of labor demand]. This paper thus will briefly argue how state security
and human security are in conflict because of migration.
To begin with, state is the
main actor of providing all opportunities, rights and security for citizens,
and border control. So, human security cannot be separated from the operation
of states (Barnett & Adger 2007). However, states party to the
international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the international
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination against
Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child must guarantee to anyone who
is in their territory and subject to their jurisdiction the rights recognized
in those legal instruments (Vietti and Scribner 2013). Accordingly, states
ought to abide by international obligations towards migrants in providing security
which means protecting fundamental freedoms—freedoms that are the essence of
life (Commission on Human Security 2000). In addition, UNDP (1994) popularized
the emerging concerns of human security as job security, income security,
health and environmental security, security from crime. To protect this whole magnitude
of security for migrants means a lot for states and therefore is clashed with
the interest of state security. The fundamental reason for states, as could be
argued, to limit access to their territories is in fear of those
responsibilities for migrants.
Migration from one country to
another has been primarily regulated by the decisions of the sovereign
regarding who is allowed into and out of their national boundaries since the
emergence of Westphalian state (Vietti and Scribner 2013). However,
international migration has increasingly been framed as a security problem in
the West after the international terrorist attack on 11 September 2001
(Humphrey 2013). Following this, Western countries are forced to bolster their
border defense which is pertinent in line with the right of their sovereignty. In
fact, states have a sovereign right to control who crosses their borders and
remains on their territory, but irregular or illegal migration challenges this
right (Koser 2009). In light of global terrorism threats, failure to tighten
state security and border control, the state would be much vulnerable to
broader consequences such as threats to its homeland security, public disorder,
disease, crime and other resources. At last, government will lose its legitimate
power to rule the nation. What is more is the phenomenon of illegal immigration
tends to be described as a challenge to state autonomy because frontiers are
violated, and the ability of governments to control entry and the shape and
composition of migration flows is challenged (Abell 1996).
In addition, Abell (1996)
noted that migration is increasingly portrayed by governments, the media, and
analysts in both developed and developing countries as a security threat. Applied
to this concern, Australia is increasing counter-terrorism legislation and
tightening border control due to its own citizens, who were migrants before
naturalizing citizenship, joining terrorist groups and supporting terror groups
in the Middle East, justifying this phenomenon as national threat. Regardless, Viettie
and Scribner (2013) explained about state power that the goal of securing state
security is preeminent with each nation seeking to preserve its integrity and
to defend itself against the intrusion of other individuals or state powers
intent on asserting their will. Despite all this, states still need to respect
human rights and bear in mind that they have international obligations. Thus,
the challenge for states is to limit access to their territories without
undermining the right to seek and enjoy protection (Koser 2005).
In the increasingly inter-connected age, migratory
movements today are of a mixed nature, including migrants moving for employment
or study purposes, people moving from rural to urban settings, refugees and
asylum seekers, victims of trafficking or vulnerable persons in an irregular
situation, including unaccompanied minor or women at risk (Klaauw 2010). Abell
(1996) therefore raised concern that migration has an impact on the security
interests of individuals, communities, institutions, countries, and regions,
posing unprecedented political, social, and economic problem which can draw the
host countries into turmoil. This is vastly happening across the globe. At the
paradox, massive flow of migration appears to be chaotic for the host nations
by affecting social stability and cohesion, opening doors for transnational
terrorists into society, making employment competitive, and crime on the rise at
the threat of public security.
Assessing the above-analysis,
what most conflicts caused by migration between the state security and human
security seem to be based on the context of security threat and a wider mixed
nature. However, the United Nations (UN) and its agencies insist that states
party to UN’s protocol and covenants and conventions must stick to their
obligations in commitment to carrying out their responsibility to migrants even
if exercising their power in defense of national security. Therefore, today
migration is much more complex than was expected and thus needs to be
scrutinized as it has an immense impact on the host societies.
In conclusion, nation-states
securitize migration in the wake of terrorist attack on 11 September 2001, escalating
to limit access to their territories without undermining the right to seek and
enjoy protection. On the contrary, the global body, UN (United Nations) and its
agencies are urging its member-states to comply with their obligations in the
face of the rise of migration. Thus, the state security which is exercised in
the context of securitization and human security obligated to provide for
citizens and migrants are in inconsistency.
Bibliography
1. Amrith, Megha 2014, Why Migration Matters, United
Nations University, Viewed on 05 November 2014 <http://unu.edu/publications/articles/why-migration-matters.html> .
2. Koser, Khalid 2005, Irregular migration, state
security and human security, Global Commission on International Migration, Viewed on 05 November 2014 <https://www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/site/myjahiasite/shared/shared/mainsite/policy_and_research/gcim/tp/TP5.pdf > .
3. Barnett, Jon and Adger, W. Neil 2007, ‘Climate change,
human security and violent conflict’, Political geography, University of
Melbourne, No. 26, pp. 639-655.
4. Veitti,
Francesca & Scribner, Todd 2013, ‘Human Security: Understanding
international migration from human security perspective’, Journal on migration
and human security, New Yor, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 17-31.
5. Klaauw, van der Johannes 2010, ‘Refugee Rights in
times of mixed migration: Evolving status and protection issues’, Refugee
Journal Quarterly, Oxford University, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 59-86.
6. Humphrey, Michael 2013, ‘Migration, Security and
Insecurity’, Journal of Intercultural studies, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 178-195.
7. Abell, Nazere Albuquerque 1996, ‘The impact of
international migration on security and stability’, Canadian Foreign Policy
Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 83-109.
