Abstract
State sovereignty, it has been argued, is starting to be found more and more in a multiplicity of arenas, but the State no longer plays the only role in the reallocation of this sovereignty. Globalization has pushed states to accept giving up some powers, and it seems that as a result they strongly assert others that are mostly uncontested. Immigration law seems to have become the last bastion of a state’s ability to unilaterally impose its sovereign powers, this much more so when it comes to its response to irregular migration. The dynamic between the forces of globalization and the reaction of the State to those forces pushes irregular migrants into a grey area where their claim to fundamental rights is not met with the proper protections expected from a state with a strong rule of law. Mexico, as this book has made clear, faces significant challenges in rethinking and rebuilding its relationship with citizens and non-citizens alike. Shining a light on the experiences of the latter group is a key aspect of designing a better institutional framework that guarantees the access and protection of human rights. This chapter provides a review of the interlinked understandings of sovereignty, globalization and the rule of law, then uses data collected through the Documentation Network of Migrant Advocacy Organizations (REDODEM) and other civil society organizations to illustrate the difficulties migrants encounter in their transit and stay in Mexico, and ends with a series of reflections for the long journey ahead.
M. Olivares-Méndez, Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, Querétaro, Mexico. Email: mauricio.olivares@uaq.mx; R. M. Triculescu, Early Stage Researcher under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie actions, Horizon 2020 of the E.U., University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands. Email: r.triculescu@utwente.nl.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This is not to say that irregular migrants are the only victims of weak rule of law application in Mexico. According to the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index (2018), Mexico is ranked 92nd out of 113 countries in terms of rule of law application. The country scores below average in all categories, including security, fundamental rights, and criminal justice.
- 2.
Mexican Supreme Court of Justice, 2011: Contradicción de Tesis 293/2011; at: http://www2.scjn.gob.mx/asuntosrelevantes/pagina/seguimientoasuntosrelevantespub.aspx?id=129659&seguimientoid=556.
- 3.
The importance of this opinion is that, on interpretation, a judge may find that a person – especially one belonging to a group in a situation of vulnerability – falls within one of the constitutional exceptions, preventing them from receiving the protection of international instruments and curtailing their right to access justice.
- 4.
This interpretation was added in the same amendment process to the article that defines who is a foreign national, the controversial Article 33. This article has been the basis for extra-judicial detentions and deportations since its origins in Mexico’s post-revolutionary panic and xenophobia. It says in its third paragraph: “Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country”, causing a sense of alienation and uncertainty in some migrants. For a detailed historical study on this matter, see Yankelevich (2011).
- 5.
Before 2011, Mexico didn’t have a Migration Law but had migratory dispositions within the General Population Law of 1974 whereby entering and leaving the country without proper documentation was considered a felony. The 2008 reform to this statute made it possible to treat irregular migration as a misdemeanor.
- 6.
On the right to a free education the Mexican government has published the “Standards of School Control related to Registration, Re-enrollment, Accreditation, Promotion, Regularization and Certification in Basic Education” that define the procedures for the incorporation of migrant children and teenagers into the national school system regardless of their migratory status.
- 7.
In addition to these changes, other advancements were possible due to the publication of the Law on Refugees and Complementary Protection (2011), the General Law to prevent, sanction and eradicate crimes related to trafficking in persons and for the protection and assistance of victims of these crimes (2012), the General Law on the rights of children and adolescents (2014), and the creation of the Investigation Unit for Crimes Against Migrants (2015) (Claderón Chelius 2012).
- 8.
For an in-depth review on the constitutionality of the Migration Act see Castilla Juárez (2014).
- 9.
Auditoría Superior de la Federación (2014) Auditoría de Desempeño: 14-0-04K00-07-0060; at: https://www.asf.gob.mx/Trans/Informes/IR2014i/Documentos/Auditorias/2014_0060_a.pdf.
- 10.
Presidencia de la República (2014): “Pone en marcha el Presidente Enrique Peña Nieto el Programa Frontera Sur”; at: https://www.gob.mx/presidencia/prensa/pone-en-marcha-el-presidente-enrique-pena-nieto-el-programa-frontera-sur.
- 11.
“Resalta la Segob contención migratoria”, in: Reforma (2 November 2015).
- 12.
In fact, Mr. Johnson, then Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, released a statement that in part read: “We are also pleased that the Mexican government has itself taken a number of important steps to interdict the flow of illegal migrants from Central America bound for the United States.” Department of Homeland Security (2014): “Statement by Secretary Johnson About the Situation Along the Southwest Border”. Available at: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2014/09/08/statement-secretary-johnson-about-situation-along-southwest-border.
- 13.
Kovic/Kelly (2017) posit that “the violations of economic rights of transmigrants within their sending communities are practically invisible as they attempt to make the journey north. These violations – created by global capitalism and neoliberal reforms promoted by international financial agencies – are the very reasons that migrants leave their homes and communities.”
- 14.
2017 saw 93,846 migrants with an irregular status detained and processed through the INM.
- 15.
Another 38,000 people from those countries have been subject to ‘voluntary return’ policies between January and June 2018. In addition to these numbers, another 3,000 non-nationals were given a letter of exit that allows them to leave the detention facilities to start their regularization process or leave the country without being deported (Unidad de Política Migratoria).
- 16.
Adolescentes en el camino et al. (2016): “Petition for interim and permanent measures regarding systematic violations of the American Convention on Human Rights and other international covenants against Central American migrants in Mexico”; at: https://www.centerforhumanrights.org/PDFs/IACHR_PFS_Petition.pdf.
- 17.
The Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA) (2015): “Mexico Now Detains More Central American Migrants than the United States”; at: https://www.wola.org/2015/06/mexico-now-detains-more-central-american-migrants-than-the-united-states/.
- 18.
The INM uses the word ‘alojar’, which means ‘host’ or ‘accommodate’, a word legislators decided would describe their policies better than detaining or incarcerating. It doesn’t.
- 19.
It is important to note that the data collected by the REDODEM has limitations. The information collected conveys the experiences of migrants who actually get to one of the twenty-three different affiliates, naturally leaving outside of its scope migrants who are apprehended or deported before reaching a shelter or those who use different routes or means of transportation that would make them undetectable to the centers participating in the network. It is a reality that migrants are looking for new paths to make their way through Mexico, but it is also known by them that aid is provided throughout the usual routes, providing incentives for migrants to use them and hence making the network’s database more relevant.
References
Agnew, J. (2009). Globalization and Sovereignty (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield).
Anaya Muñoz, A.; Díaz de León, A. (2012). “El activismo transnacional alrededor de los derechos humanos de los migrantes en tránsito por México”, in: Heredia Zubieta, C.; Velázquez Flores, R. (Eds.), Perspectivas migratorias II: La agenda pendiente de la migración (Mexico City: CIDE).
Atak, I. (2018). “An international human rights framework for migration in a globalizing world”, in: Triandafyllidou, A, Handbook of Migration and Globalization (Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing).
Beeson, M. (2003). “Sovereignty under siege: Globalization and the State in Southeast Asia”, in: Third World Quarterly, 24,2: 357–374.
Bingham, T. (2007). “The Rule of Law”, in: The Cambridge Law Journal, 66,1: 67–85.
Blanton, R.; Blanton, S.L. (2016). “Globalization and Collective Labor Rights”, in: Sociological Forum, 31,1: 181–202.
Calderón Chelius, L. (2012). “Cambios en la agenda migratoria: entre el nuevo marco jurídico y las nuevas formas de migración en México”, in: Ramírez, T.; Castillo, M.A. (Eds.), El estado de la migración: México ante los recientes desafíos de la migración internacional (Mexico City: CONAPO).
Castilla Juárez, K.A. (2014). “Ley de Migración mexicana: Algunas de sus inconstitucionalidades”, in: Migración y desarrollo 11,23: 151–183.
CCINM (Consejo Ciudadano del Instituto Nacional de Migración). (2017). Personas en detención migratoria en México: Misión de Monitoreo de Estaciones Migratorias y Estancias Provisionales del Instituto Nacional de Migración (Mexico City: INM).
Cohen, J.L. (2012). Globalization and Sovereignty: Rethinking Legality, Legitimacy, and Constitutionalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Correa Cabrera, G. (2014). “Seguridad y migración en las fronteras de México: diagnóstico y recomendaciones de política y cooperación regional”, in: Migración y desarrollo, 12,22: 147–171.
Crépeau, F.; Atak, I. (2006). “Global migration governance: Avoiding commitments on Human Rights, yet tracing a course for cooperation”, in: Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 34,2: 113–146.
Dale, R. (1999). “Specifying globalization effects on national policy: a focus on the mechanisms”, in: Journal of Education Policy, 14,1: 1–17.
Dauvergne, C. (2004). “Sovereignty, Migration and the Rule of Law in Global Times”, in: The Modern Law Review, 67,4: 588–615.
Davis, D.E. (2006). “Undermining the Rule of Law: Democratization and the Dark Side of Police Reform in Mexico”, in: Latin American Politics and Society, 48,1: 55–86.
Diamond, L. (1999). Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press).
Dunoff, J. (2013). “Is Sovereign Equality Obsolete? Understanding Twenty-First Century International Organizations”, in: Nijman, J.; Werner, W. (Eds.), Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2012: Legal Equality and the International Rule of Law: Essays in Honour of P.H. Kooijmans (The Hague: Springer).
Foster, M. (2015). “Research Handbook on International Law and Migration” (Book Review), in: International Journal of Refugee Law, 27,2: 392–394.
Ginsburg, T. (2017). “Introduction”, in: Castagnola, A.; López-Noriega, S. (Eds.), Judicial Politics in Mexico: The Supreme Court and the Transition to Democracy (New York: Routledge): 1–7.
Khan, H.A. (2016). “Globalization and the Quality of Government: an Analysis of the Relationship”, in: Public Organization Review, 17: 209–224.
Kovic, C.; Kelly, P. (2017). “Migrant bodies as targets of security policies: Central Americans crossing Mexico’s vertical border”, in: Dialectical Anthropology, 41,1: 1–11.
Martin, S.; Abimourched, R. (2009). “Migrant rights: International law and national action”, in: International Migration, 47,5: 115–138.
May, R.A. (2007). “Human Rights NGOs and the role of civil society in democratization”, in: May, R.A; Milton, A.K. (Eds.), Uncivil Societies: Human Rights and Democratic Transitions in Eastern Europe and Latin America (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books): 1–10.
Meyer, J.W. (2000). “Globalization: Sources and Effects on National States and Societies”, in: International Sociology, 15,2: 233–248.
Money, J.; Lockhart, S.; Western, S. (2016). “Why migrant rights are different than human rights”, in Freeman, G.P.; Mirilovic, N. (Eds.), Handbook on Migration and Social Policy (Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing).
Narváez Medécigo, A. (2015). Rule of Law and Fundamental Rights: Critical comparative analysis of constitutional review in the United States, Germany and Mexico (Berlin: Springer).
Neild, R. (2001). “Democratic policing”, in: Reychler, L; Paffenholz, T. (Eds.), Peacebuilding: A field guide (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers): 416–427.
Nijman, J.; Werner, W. (2013). “Legal Equality and the International Rule of Law”, in: Nijman, J.; Werner, W. (Eds.), Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 2012: Legal Equality and the International Rule of Law: Essays in Honour of P.H. Kooijmans (The Hague: Springer).
Parker, G. (1985). Western Geopolitical Thought in the Twentieth Century (Abingdon: Routledge).
Pozas-Loyo, A.; Ríos-Figueroa, J. (2017). “The transformations of the role of the Mexican Supreme Court), in: Castagnola, Andrea; López-Noriega”, Saul, Judicial Politics in Mexico: The Supreme Court and the Transition to Democracy (New York: Routledge): 8–40.
REDODEM (Red de Documentación de las Organizaciones Defensoras de Migrantes). (2018). El estado indolente: recuento de la violencia en las rutas migratorias y perfiles de movilidad en México (Mexico City: REDODEM).
Sarabia, H. (2018). “Citizenship in the Global South Policing Irregular Migrants and Eroding Citizenship Rights in Mexico”, in: Latin American Perspectives: 1–14.
Sassen, S. (1996). Losing Control? Sovereignty in the Age of Globalization (New York: Columbia University Press).
SPT (United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment). (2017). Visita a México del 12 al 21 de diciembre de 2016 observaciones y recomendaciones dirigidas al Estado parte. CAT/OP/MEX/R.2.
Stein, R. (2009). “Rule of Law: What Does It Mean?”, in: Minnesota Journal of International Law, 18,2: 293–303.
Uildriks, N. (2010). Mexico’s UnRule of Law: Implementing Human Rights in Police and Judicial Reform under Democratization (Lanham: Lexington Books).
UN Human Rights Council (2013). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants: Note of the Secretary General, A/68/283; at: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/SRMigrants/A-68-283.pdf.
World Justice Project (2018). Rule of Law Index 2017–2018 (Washington, D.C.: WJP); at: https://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/documents/WJP_ROLI_2017-18_Online-Edition.pdf.
Yankelevich, P. (2011). ¿Deseables o inconvenientes? Las fronteras de la extranjería en el México posrevolucionario (Mexico: Bonilla Artigas Editores).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Olivares-Méndez, M., Triculescu, RM. (2020). Human Rights and Unreliable Institutions in a Globalized World: The Case of Irregular Migrants in Mexico. In: Le Clercq, J., Abreu Sacramento, J. (eds) Rebuilding the State Institutions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31314-2_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31314-2_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-31313-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-31314-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)