How Does DACA, fit into United Nations Immigration Policies of 1921? A 1921 law imposed the first overall numerical quota on immigration to the U.S.—about 350,000, reduced to 165,000 in 1924 (Martin, 2011). The 1924 law set annual quotas for each European country based on the foreign-born population from that nation living in the U.S. in 1890.

 This is part 4, Topic Part 1: Who Are The Founders For DACA?

Topic Part 2: The Legal Flaw With Ditching DACA Administrative Procedure Act Magn...

Topic Part 3: 50 States DACA Administrative Procedure Act


 If we take Sessions at his word and consider the 1924 law as a model for those (like both Sessions and Bannon) who have helped shape the Trump administration’s immigration policies, those histories offer a clear and helpful way to think about these current debates. More exactly, they make clear that debates over DACA and immigration policy are never simply about “legality.” They, like the history of immigration laws itself, are centrally linked to the battle between exclusionary and inclusive visions of American identity.

 The 1921 Emergency Quota Act and 1924 Act were the first truly national immigration laws, but they built directly on the legacy of the prior half-century of laws, each of which were created solely to exclude particular groups. The 1875 Page Act, the first immigration law, excluded very specific groups: the insane, convicted criminals, “prostitutes” (a blatant attempt to exclude single Chinese women). The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act extended such exclusions to a particular national community for the first time, and over the next few decades that same principle was applied to many Japanese immigrants (in 1907) and then arrivals from the many nations in the “Asiatic Barred Zone” (1917).

 This first half-century of immigration laws did two interconnected things. They established a direct link between immigration law and exclusion, making clear that the creation of such laws at all reflected an attempt to keep particular groups out of the national community (even, if not especially, when those groups were already very well established here, as was the case with Chinese Americans by 1882). And they did not affect in the slightest immigrants outside of those categories—as of 1920, that is, an immigrant from a nation such as England or Germany was still not subject to any laws.

 The 1921 and 1924 Acts changed that, establishing for the first time a more truly comprehensive system of immigration laws. But they did so by explicitly extending the principle of exclusion: creating a quota system (based on a highly arbitrary calculation using the 1890 census) that was overtly and solely intended to establish a national and ethnic hierarchy, privileging arrivals from certain nations and regions and severely disadvantaging those from others. After 1924, for example, arrivals from Germany had an annual quota of over 51,000 and those from Great Britain just over 34,000; while Italy had a quota of less than 4000, and nations such as Greece, Turkey, and Syria had the minimum of 100 annual “legal” arrivals.

 Such numbers speak for themselves, but they don’t have to, as supporters of the 1924 Act outlined its exclusionary goals, and their link to a white supremacist vision of America, quite blatantly. In a speech on the Senate floor, for example, South Carolina Senator Ellison DuRant Smith argued:

It seems to me the point as to this measure … is that the time has arrived when we should shut the door. … Thank God we have in America perhaps the largest percentage of any country in the world of the pure, unadulterated Anglo-Saxon stock … and it is for the preservation of that splendid stock that has characterized us that I would make this not an asylum for the oppressed of all countries, but a country to assimilate and perfect that splendid type of manhood.

 In 1928, arguing that the 1924 Act’s exclusions should be extended to Mexican arrivals (who were initially exempt, partly because of labor needs and partly because the southern border remained largely un-patrolled and difficult to regulate in this era), Texas Congressman John Box made clearer still the bigoted and exclusionary vision of non-Anglo arrivals underlying the 1924 law. He argued, “every reason which calls for the exclusion of the most wretched, ignorant, dirty, diseased, and degraded people of Europe or Asia demands that the illiterate, unclean, peonized masses moving this way from Mexico be stopped at the border.”

 That’s how immigration laws developed and evolved in the U.S.: to exclude or severely limit certain communities and prioritize others, in service of a set of exclusionary, white supremacist ideas about American identity and community. The 1924 Act and its follow-ups were the culmination of that development, and reigned as the law of the land for more than four decades.

 The 1965 Immigration Act to which Sessions objected in his Breitbart interview did reverse that white supremacist emphasis, removing national or ethnic quotas as the defining factor in creating categories of “legal” and “illegal” immigrants. The law and its many subsequent revisions did still rely on certain categories and priorities, and thus still privileged certain arrivals and penalized others, but it did so based on other factors (such as family connections, professional training, or educational backgrounds).

 That is of course one reality of immigration laws: if we’re going to have them at all, they do have to categorize and prioritize arrivals in one way or another. Some of our current (pre-Trump, at least) priorities I find more troubling, such as the so-called “million dollar visa” (established in 1990) which allows immigrants who invest $1 million in a business to obtain a green card far more immediately and smoothly than most others. Others seem like common sense, such as prioritizing arrivals who have family members already in the nation. But in any case we can and must acknowledge this reality of immigration laws, and consider how it affects different arrivals quite distinctly.

 But as our histories reflect, there’s also more at play than that. Immigration laws, like debates over immigration themselves, exemplify the battle between exclusionary and inclusive visions of America. The 1965 law, whatever its flaws or limits, offered and modeled a more inclusive vision of immigration and nation. The 1924 law offered a far more exclusionary and white supremacist vision, by design and in execution.

 Every conversation about immigration laws, or about categories and communities of immigrants such as “legal” and “illegal” ones, that doesn’t recognize this fundamental thread in our history risks replicating it in the present. And we’ve seen that time and again in discussions of DACA and much else: exclusionary and white supremacist rhetoric, descriptions of immigrant communities that depend upon bigoted visions of both them and their relationship to American identity, masked as simple or logical concerns about “the law.”

 So Jeff Sessions, himself a purveyor of such rhetoric and ideas throughout his public career, has unexpectedly (and perhaps unwittingly) given us an opening here. He’s given us a chance to acknowledge these histories and link them to these present debates, and thus to have a more open conversation about exclusionary vs. inclusive visions of immigration and nation. To talk, for example, about whether DACA recipients are a community we want to be part of the United States (literally and symbolically), or one we don’t.

 I know where I stand on that question: the Dreamers are as American a community as I can imagine. But in any case and at the very least, it’s long past time we had these broader and more defining conversations. If we can and do, we might just have to thank two of our unlikeliest productive conversation starters, Jeff Session and Steve Bannon, for helping get it going.

Views: 182

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

You Go Girl

US withdraws from United Nations agreement to establish ... › News › World › Americas › US politics
Dec 3, 2017 - The United States is withdrawing from a United Nations declaration intended at protecting the rights of migrants, saying in a notice to the international group that staying in the agreement would be inconsistent with American immigration policy.

US withdraws from United Nations agreement to establish international rights for migrants

The US says that the declaration is inconsistent with its state sovereignty

The United States is withdrawing from a United Nations declaration intended at protecting the rights of migrants, saying in a notice to the international group that staying in the agreement would be inconsistent with American immigration policy.

The decision to withdraw from the so-called New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants — a declaration reached last year — is consistent with efforts by the Donald Trump administration to limit incoming immigration and refugee settlement. The declaration calls for a global compact on migration, which is expected to be adopted next year.

In discussing the American withdrawal, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said that her country is proud of its leadership on human rights issues, but framed an international agreement as a breach in US sovereignty.

Trump's America First doctrine will destroy the United Nations

“Our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone,” Ms Haley said. “We will decide how best to control our borders and who will be allowed to enter our country.”

The president of the UN General Assembly expressed regret for the US decision to withdraw, saying that no single nation can tackle the issues surrounding migration on its own.

“The role of the United States in this process is critical as it has historically and generously welcomed people from all across the globe and remains home to the largest number of international migrants in the world,” Miroslav Lajčák, the UN General Assembly president, said in a statement. “As such, it has the experience and expertise to help ensure that this process leads to a successful outcome.”

The American decision comes just days before the international community is scheduled to meet to discuss migration rights and concerns in Mexico.

The Trump administration has pushed for restrictions in immigration to the United States, and has succeeded in establishing at least temporary restrictions on the acceptance of refugees through executive orders known as his travel bans.

Those bans have targeted predominantly Muslim countries, and one was upheld by the Supreme Court, which deferred matters of national security to the White House.

(SRSG) for International Migration - United Nations Population ...
Ms. Arbour has a long and distinguished career in international affairs. She previously served as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and as Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. She is a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and of the ...

United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General
Secretary-General Appoints Louise Arbour of Canada Special Representative for International Migration (9 March 2017)

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has appointed Louise Arbour of Canada as his Special Representative for International Migration. The Special Representative will coordinate the work of the UN system to implement the New York Declaration, adopted at the High-level Summit on Addressing Large Movements of Refugees and Migrants on 19 September 2016. Ms. Arbour will lead UN system-wide preparations for the 2018 intergovernmental conference on international migration, working with Member States, in partnership with other stakeholders, as they develop a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration. She will also lead United Nations advocacy efforts on international migration, provide policy advice and coordinate the engagement of United Nations entities on migration-related issues.

Ms. Arbour has a long and distinguished career in international affairs. She previously served as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and as Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. She is a former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. From 2009 to 2014, Ms. Arbour was President and CEO of the International Crisis Group.

The Secretary-General would like to thank for their dedicated service and effective leadership, Peter Sutherland of Ireland, who served as Special Representative on Migration for more than 11 years from January 2006; Karen AbuZayd of the United States, who served as Special Adviser on the Summit on Addressing Large Movements of Refugees and Migrants; and Izumi Nakamitsu of Japan, who has been serving as Special Adviser ad interim on the follow-up to the Summit on Addressing Large Movements of Refugees and Migrants since November 2016.



Peter Sutherland is the United Nations Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) for International Migration. Appointed in January 2006, he supported the Secretary-General in promoting the United Nations agenda on international migration prior to and during the 2006 High-level Dialogue on International Migration and Development as well as the second High-level Dialogue in 2013. With the Secretary-General, he proposed and advocated for the creation of the State-led Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) in 2006, which now attracts over 150 countries annually to advance international cooperation on migration. In addition to serving as the primary link between the United Nations and the Global Forum process, Mr. Sutherland advises the Secretary-General on issues related to international migration and development; leads initiatives to foster cooperation on critical issues such as protecting migrants affected by crises and ensuring that migration is considered in the follow-up to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; and writes and speaks frequently on migration-related issues (see below).
Advocate for migrants
"No other force—not trade, not capital flows—has the potential to transform lives in sustainable, positive ways and on the scale that migration does”

Mr. Sutherland is a strong advocate for promoting practical action to increase the benefits of migration for countries of origin, destination, and migrants alike, while reducing its economic and human costs. He strongly believes that international migration, development, and human rights are intrinsically interconnected, and advocates for promoting and respecting the rights of all migrants, regardless of their status. He is currently highly engaged in promoting global responsibility sharing for migrants affected by crises such as civil conflicts or natural and man-made disasters, as well as developing priorities for international cooperation on migration in the coming decade.

Mr. Sutherland has served as Attorney General of Ireland; EC Commissioner responsible for Competition Policy; Director General of GATT and then of The World Trade Organisation; Chairman of Goldman Sachs International; Chairman of the London School of Economics; a member of the UN Commission on Human Security; Chairman of the European Institute of Public Administration; and Chairman of BP plc. He has received numerous honours, including an honorary knighthood, as well as awards and honorary degrees for his work on regional and global interdependence. He currently serves as Professor in Practice at the London School of Economics in the School’s Institute of Global Affairs as well as the President of the International Catholic Migration Commission.

General Assembly Adopts Declaration for ... - the United Nations

Sep 19, 2016 - It was worth considering bringing people smugglers to justice in international courts, he added. The private sector could help foster opportunities for prospective economic migrants. Noting that the acute situation in Europe had brought the internal and external dimensions of migration to the fore, he said that ...

General Assembly Adopts Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, as United Nations, International Organization for Migration Sign Key Agreement
‘We’re Living on the Edge of Hell’, World Leaders Told as Speakers Demand Action

The General Assembly adopted the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants today, thereby mapping a route towards a collective, rights-based response to record displacement numbers around the world.

As outlined in the Declaration (document A/71/L.1), such a response would be of key importance in providing burgeoning numbers of refugees and migrants with desperately needed assistance. The Declaration recognized that in 2015 alone, the number of migrants had surpassed 244 million, in addition to roughly 65 million forcibly displaced persons, including more than 21 million refugees, 3 million asylum seekers and over 40 million internally displaced persons.

In endorsing the 90-paragraph Declaration, Member States agreed to a set of commitments, among them acknowledging a shared responsibility to manage large movements of refugees and migrants in a humane, sensitive, compassionate and people-centred manner. They agreed to do so through international cooperation, while recognizing the varying national capacities and resources in responding to those movements.

Also by the Declaration, the Assembly underlined the importance of working collectively and, in particular, with origin, transit and destination countries, noting that “win-win” cooperation in that area would have profound benefits for humanity. The declaration’s two annexes outlined a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration, as well as a comprehensive refugee response framework.

Describing the grim situation of people who were both stateless and stuck, Mohammed Badran of the organization Syrian Volunteers in the Netherlands, declared: “We are living on the edge of hell.” Every day brought anger and fear directed at refugees, and many doors were closed while the international community continued its inaction as crisis followed crisis. “We have been waiting for so long for the day that the world would hear our voice,” he said. “Refugees are already taking action; we want world leaders to do the same.” He expressed hope that actions would be taken to keep refugees from having to put their lives on hold.

Elaborating on that point, Eni Lestari Andayani Adi, Chairperson of the International Migrants Alliance, said: “We are the people who have been denied the future, the rights and the dreams we used to imagine.” Noting that poverty in Indonesia had caused her to seek domestic work abroad, she said that for the majority of migrant workers, the promise of a better future was a lie, often ending in exploitation. She called for a “real and actionable” global compact on migration, based on rights and intent on reducing displacement, resolving conflict and ending the root causes of poverty. “Let’s work for a world without vulnerability, insecurity or invisibility,” she added.

Nadia Murad Basee Taha, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Goodwill Ambassador for the Dignity of Survivors of Human Trafficking, shared her perspective as a refugee who had fled from areas controlled by Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/Da’esh). Describing herself as a survivor of the Yazidi genocide, she recalled that when Da’esh had attacked, they had killed men and enslaved women. “I wished that the rapes I endured by 12 terrorists were 12 bullets in my flesh,” she said. “We have to address the causes of immigration, eradicate terrorism and stop instability.” Until security was established in conflict areas, the international community must keep borders open to innocent women and children, she said, declaring: “The world has only one border; it is called humanity.”

Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, High Commissioner for Human Rights, reflected on the reasons behind convening today’s meeting, saying “the bitter truth is, this summit was called because we have been largely failing”. The summit “cannot be reduced to speeches and feel-good interviews”, he said, emphasizing the urgent need for action.

To foster such action, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon launched a new global campaign called “Together — Respect, Safety and Dignity for All”. He urged States to join the campaign and commit to concrete steps in that direction. “Today’s summit represents a breakthrough in our collective efforts to address the challenges of human mobility,” he said, adding that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was advancing the same principles as the Declaration, with the common goal of leaving no one behind.

Peter Thomson (Fiji), President of the seventy-first session of the General Assembly, expressed hope that the new campaign would help to overcome the hostile and hateful rhetoric that some refugees and migrants were facing. “The well-being of millions rests with us at the United Nations,” he said. “We must not fail them in their hour of need.”

Echoing that message, Mogens Lykketoft (Denmark), President of the seventieth session of the General Assembly, said “the desperation and suffering of people in flight tugs at our collective conscience and compels us all to act compassionately to forge a global response to what is clearly a global challenge”.

Jim Yong Kim, President of the World Bank Group, said the Group had increased funding for refugees, bolstered data collection and helped the job-creation efforts of host countries. Much was riding on the summit because the outcome would have a bearing upon everyone’s future, he said.

Filippo Grandi, High Commissioner for Refugees, called upon Member States to take the necessary steps to make all efforts to work, emphasizing that “we are looking at you”.

Also during the opening segment, Secretary-General Ban and Director General William Lacy Swing signed the United Nations-International Organization for Migration (IOM) Agreement.

Throughout the day, almost 200 Heads of State and Government, senior officials, representatives and observers agreed that countries must together embrace a robust action plan to address the needs of refugees and migrants and fight against the xenophobia they faced.

Also delivering statements during the opening segment were Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson; Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, Executive Director of the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN-Women), on behalf of the Global Migration Group; Yury Fedotov, Executive Director of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC); and Mats Granryd, Director General of GSMA.

During the day, Heads of State and Government chaired six round tables covering the following issues: “addressing the root causes of large movements of refugees”; “addressing drivers of migration, particularly large movements, and highlighting the positive contributions of migrants”; “international action and cooperation on refugees and migrants and issues related to displacement: the way ahead”; “global compact for responsibility sharing for refugees; respect for international law”; “global compact for safe, regular and orderly migration: towards realizing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and achieving full respect for the human rights of migrants”; and “addressing vulnerabilities of refugees and migrants on their journeys from their countries of origin to their countries of arrival”.

Participating in the plenary discussion were Heads of State and Government, as well as other senior officials, representing the following countries: Finland, Mozambique, Latvia, Brazil, China, Cyprus, Estonia, Kenya, Chad, Egypt, Libya, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Mexico, Guyana, Malta, Burkina Faso, Lebanon, Indonesia,, Denmark, Greece, Georgia, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Malaysia, Kuwait, Colombia, Jordan, Ghana, Italy, Cameroon, Ecuador, Liechtenstein, Hungary, France, Côte d’Ivoire, Japan, Iceland, Gambia, Haiti, Malawi, Guinea, Ireland, El Salvador, Germany, Congo, Mali, Croatia, Canada, Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Botswana, Chile, New Zealand, Cambodia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Morocco, Honduras, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Guatemala, India, Iran, Eritrea, Cuba, Czech Republic, Iraq, Peru, Slovakia, Nigeria, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Niger, South Africa, Slovenia, Poland, Nauru, Portugal, Senegal, Spain, Paraguay, Andorra, Ukraine, Tuvalu, Papua New Guinea, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Panama, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Austria, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Thailand, Australia, Philippines, United Kingdom, Yemen, Turkey, Uganda, Nepal, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Belarus, Seychelles, Namibia, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, Argentina, Somalia, United States, Netherlands, Serbia, Zambia, Uruguay, Romania, Sudan, Armenia, Syria and Tunisia.

Also participating were the delegations of the European Union, the State of Palestine and the Holy See.

Representatives of the International Olympic Committee, Council of Europe, Sovereign Order of Malta, League of Arab States, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Inter-Parliamentary Union, International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, International Development Law Organization, INTERPOL, African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, International Committee of the Red Cross, International Centre for Migration Policy Development, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean, Partners in Population and Development, Union of South American Nations and the University for Peace also spoke today.

International Migration Convention | United Nations Educational ...

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families entered into force in July 2003. Its primary objective is to ... listed at the United Nations Treaty Collection ... Their right to equality with nationals of the State before the courts and tribunals must be respected.

International Migration Convention

The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families entered into force in July 2003. Its primary objective is to protect migrant workers and their families, a particularly vulnerable population, from exploitation and the violation of their human rights.

UNESCO advocates ratification of this convention by all states and disseminates information about this convention and other legal instruments concerning migrants.

Read the Convention:
Present state of ratifications and signatures:
Listed at the United Nations Treaty Collection


The Convention on Migrant Workers defines the rights of migrant workers under two main headings:

Human Rights of migrant workers and members of their families (Part III) : applicable to all migrant workers (undocumented included)
Other Rights of migrant workers and members of their families (Part IV): applicable only to migrant workers in a regular situation.

1. Human rights of migrant workers and members of their families

The Convention is not proposing new human rights for migrant workers. Part III of the Convention is a reiteration of the basic rights which are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and elaborated in the international human rights treaties adopted by most nations.

So why are those rights subject to another International Legal Instrument?

The Convention seeks to draw the attention of the international community to the dehumanization of migrant workers and members of their families, many of whom being deprived of their basic human rights. Indeed, legislation implementing other basic treaties in some States utilises terminology covering citizens and/or residents, de jura excluding many migrants, especially those in irregular situations.

Basic freedoms
Applying these fundamental rights to migrant workers and members of their families, the Convention provides for their right to leave and enter the State of origin (Art. I). The inhumane living and working conditions and physical (and sexual) abuse that many migrant workers must endure are covered by the reaffirmation of their "right to life" (Art. 9) and prohibition against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment (Art. 10) as well as slavery or servitude and forced or compulsory labour (Art. 11). Migrant workers are also entitled to basic freedoms like the freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Art. 12), and the right to hold and express opinions (Art. 13). Their property should not be confiscated arbitrarily (Art. 15).
Due process
The Convention then goes on to explain in detail the need to ensure due process for migrant workers and members of their families (Art. 16 - 20). Investigations, arrests and detentions are to be carried out in accordance with established procedures. Their right to equality with nationals of the State before the courts and tribunals must be respected. They must be provided with necessary legal assistance, interpreters and information in a language understood by them. When imposing a sentence, humanitarian considerations regarding the person's migrant status should be taken into account. The arbitrary expulsion of migrant workers is prohibited (Art. 22).
Right to privacy
A migrant worker is entitled to his or her honour and reputation and also to privacy, which extends to one's home, family and all communications (Art. 14).
Equality with nationals
Migrant workers are to be treated as equal to the nationals of the host country in respect of remuneration and conditions of work [overtime, hours of work, weekly rest, holidays with pay, safety, health, termination of work contract, minimum age, restrictions on home work, etc. (Art. 25)]. Equality with nationals extends also to social security benefits (Art. 27) and emergency medical care (Art. 28).
Transfer of earnings
On completion of their term of employment, migrant workers have the right to transfer their earnings and savings as well as their personal effects and belongings (Art. 32).
Right to information
They have the right to be informed by the States concerned about their rights arising from the present Convention as well as the conditions of their admission, and their rights and obligations in those States. Such information should be made available to migrant workers free of charge and in a language understood by them (Art. 33).

2. Other rights of migrant workers and members of their families

Providing additional rights for migrant workers and members of their families in a regular situation, the Convention seeks to discourage illegal labour migration, as human problems are worse in the case of irregular migration.

Right to be temporarily absent
Migrant workers should be allowed to be temporarily absent, for reasons of family needs and obligations, without effect on their authorization to stay or work.
Freedom of movement
They should have the right to move freely in the territory of the State of employment and they should also be free to choose where they wish to reside (Art. 39).
Equality with nationals
for access to educational, vocational and social services In addition to the areas mentioned in Article 25, migrant workers and members of their families shall enjoy equality with nationals of the State of employment in the following areas: access to education, vocational guidance and placement services, vocational training, retraining, housing including social housing schemes, protection against exploitation in respect of rents, social and health services, co-operatives and self-managed enterprises, access to and participation in cultural life (Art. 43). Members of the families of migrant workers also shall enjoy equality with national of States of employment in having access to these services (Art. 45). Migrant workers shall enjoy equality of treatment in respect of protection against dismissal, unemployment benefits, access to public work schemes intended to combat unemployment and access to alternative employment in the event of loss of work or termination of other remunerated activity (Art. 54).
Employment contract violations
When work contracts are violated by the employer, the migrant worker should have the right to address his or her case to the competent authorities in the State of employment (Art. 54 (d)). They shall have the right to equal treatment with nationals and be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law (Art. 18.1).
Rights of undocumented ('illegal') workers
The Convention recognizes that "the human problems involved in migration are even more serious in the case of irregular migration" and the need to encourage appropriate action "to prevent and eliminate clandestine movements and trafficking in migrant workers, while at the same time assuring the protection of their fundamental rights" (Preamble). As measures for preventing and eliminating illegal labour migration, the Convention proposes that the States concerned should collaborate in taking appropriate actions against the dissemination of misleading information relating to emigration and immigration, to detect and eradicate illegal or clandestine movements of migrant workers and impose sanctions on those who are responsible for organising and operating such movements as well as employers of illegal migrant workers (Art. 68). However, the fundamental rights of undocumented migrant workers are protected by the Convention (Art. 8 - 35).

UN Elects Judges to International Court of Justice

November 10, 2017 3:26 AM Harun Maruf


The United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council elected four judges Thursday to the International Court of Justice, the main judicial organization of the world body.

In separate, but simultaneous voting, the Assembly and the Council re-elected Ronny Abraham of France and Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf of Somalia. Two new justices, Antonio Augusto Cancado Trindade of Brazil and Nawaf Salam of Lebanon, were also elected.

All were elected to nine-year terms, starting in February next year.

Fifth judge delayed

Established in 1945, by the U.N. Charter, the ICJ is the U.N.’s main judicial body. Its mission, in accordance with international law, is to settle the disputes brought by states and to give advisory opinions on legal questions raised by the U.N. bodies and specialized institutions.

Candidates vying for the ICJ chamber were required to win at least 97 votes from the General Assembly and eight from the Security Council. The voting went into five rounds as each country had more than one vote, which complicated the voting process according to observers.

The election of a fifth judge was postponed until Monday after the two competing candidates, Christopher Greenwood of Britain and Dalveer Bhandari of India, deadlocked. Greenwood got a majority votes from the U.N. Security Council but did not receive required votes from the General Assembly. Bhandari of India got his majority from the General Assembly but failed to get enough from Security Council. The two countries are engaged in frantic diplomatic maneuvers at the U.N., diplomats say.

‘Victory for the Somalis’

Somali diplomats at the United Nations were elated to have their candidate win support from a majority of the General Assembly and Security Council. Yusuf was first elected to the chamber in November 2008. During the last three years he served as the vice president of the court.

Somali Ambassador to the U.N. Abukar Osman told VOA Somali that Yusuf’s re-election is a “victory” for Somalis around the world.

“To see a Somali judge being elected for a second time is a big victory for the Somalis, we are grateful to the support from other brothers in Africa — Djibouti, Gabon and others,” Osman said.

Ambassador Osman said Yusuf won support from around the world with a majority of his support coming from Africa, the Caribbean, Asia and Europe.

“The standing and position of Somalia in the international community is returning, that has lifted our spirit, we are very happy to see the revival of Somalia. It’s a good feeling.”

Yusuf, 69, was born in the Somali town of Eyl in the northeast. Formerly he taught International Law at the former Somali University and later on at the University of Geneva. He also worked as a legal adviser to a number of U.N. agencies including UNESCO.

International Court of Justice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"World Court" redirects here. For other uses, see World Court (disambiguation).
Not to be confused with International Criminal Court or International Commission of Jurists.

The International Court of Justice (abbreviated ICJ; commonly referred to as the World Court) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It settles legal disputes between member states and gives advisory opinions to authorized UN organs and specialized agencies. It comprises a panel of 15 judges elected by the General Assembly and Security Council for nine-year terms. It is seated in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands.

Good job, except the U.N. was created in 1945 after WW2. Its predecessor, the League of Nations was abolished in 1946..

Hey, hi W,

 Yep, most of it started around 1945, but back around 1917 the Lefty Nuts wrote a book on how to bring in a United Nations Government, you know One World Government. And the UN Courts would be our boss, fancy that.

 Anyway President Trump exposed their crap.

Thank you for coming by.


I see that you two have been busy, and Hank, you should of waited for Tif, there was no hurry about exposing the UN.

The United Nations Immigration Policies are being challenged also in South America, they want more then they tell the leaders of nations.

I will read all of this in time, there is a lot to read.

I find it strange that the UN is not listed in California, the World Court Establishment by the UN in 1945 is well posted. Great job Tif and Hank, here is some more information.



 United States  New York City

Washington, D.C.

Thank you Tom.


Charter of the United Nations | United Nations

The UN Charter. The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and came into force on 24 October 1945. The Statute of the International Court of Justice is an integral part of the Charter.

The UN Charter

The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and came into force on 24 October 1945. The Statute of the International Court of Justice is an integral part of the Charter. Visit the UN Dag Hammarskjöld Library's collection of translations of the UN Charter.




Political Cartoons by Chip BokPolitical Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by AF Branco


Joe Biden Vows: Give Taxpayer-Funded Obamacare To All Illegal Aliens In U.S.

Former Vice President and 2020 Democrat presidential primary candidate Joe Biden is vowing to give Obamacare, funded by American taxpayers, to all 11 to 22 million illegal aliens living in the United States.

During an interview with Telemundo’s Jose Diaz-Balart, Biden forgot that Obamacare technically bans illegal aliens from enrolling in healthcare plans — although illegal aliens are still able to obtain subsidized and free healthcare at Americans’ expense — and promised that under his plan, all 11 to 22 million illegal aliens would be able to get Obamacare.

The exchange went as follows:

DIAZ-BALART: When I … NBC moderated that first debate with you, I didn’t … I don’t recall a clear answer, under your plan should … would the 11, 12 million undocumented immigrants that live in the United States, that have been here many for generations, would they have access …


DIAZ-BALART: — to health insurance.

BIDEN: Yes, they … if they can buy into the system like everybody else.

DIAZ-BALART: Because you know, in [Obamacare] they can’t.

BIDEN: Yeah. Yeah, I know. Well they can, that’s my point. They continue to be able to do that.

DIAN-BALART: They cannot under the ObamaCare.

BIDEN: Well and that’s my point, they will though. They will be able to buy into … [illegal aliens] would be able to buy in, just like anyone else could.

Biden joins Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg — among other 2020 Democrats — in committing to forcing American taxpayers to pay for healthcare for illegal aliens who arrive in the U.S.

Already, due to loopholes, American taxpayers are spending nearly $20 billion every year to provide illegal aliens with subsidized healthcare, emergency room visits, and other health services.

Under the 2020 Democrats’ plan to provide taxpayer-funded healthcare to all illegal aliens living in the U.S., Americans would be billed potentially $660 billion every decade just to cover the costs. Other research has found that the plan would cost Americans at least $23 billion every year.

As Breitbart News has reported, experts have said that giving taxpayer-funded healthcare to effectively all foreign nationals who can make it to America’s borders would drive “strong incentives for people with serious health problems to enter the country or remain longer than their visas allow in order to get government-funded care.”

Despite 2020 Democrats’ continued push for taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal aliens, American voters are overwhelmingly opposed to the plan. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey revealed that the healthcare-for-illegal-aliens plan is the least popular policy position, with opposition from 62 percent of U.S. voters.

Similarly, a CNN poll from July discovered that 63 percent of likely swing voters oppose providing healthcare to illegal aliens, along with nearly 6-in-10 of all likely U.S. voters and 61 percent of moderates. A Rasmussen Reports survey also found that likely voters, by a majority of 55 percent, oppose giving healthcare to even the most low-income illegal aliens.

Infantilization of Popular Culture

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service