Open Access
Restricting emigration for their protection? : exit controls and the protection of (women) migrant workers
Loading...
Files
RSC 2021_62.pdf (344.33 KB)
Full-text in Open Access
License
Attribution 4.0 International
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
1028-3625
Issue Date
Type of Publication
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
EUI RSC; 2021/62; Migration Policy Centre
Cite
LENARD, Patti Tamara, Restricting emigration for their protection? : exit controls and the protection of (women) migrant workers, EUI RSC, 2021/62, Migration Policy Centre - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/72061
Abstract
Abuse and exploitation of migrant workers in Gulf States is common and well-documented, and women domestic workers are at special risk. Sending states – often relatively poorer South Asian states – are limited in the ways that they can protect the rights of their citizens when they are labouring abroad. One strategy that sending states have deployed is the adoption of “emigration bans” or “emigration conditions.” Emigration bans restrict citizens from taking up temporary labour market contracts, usually in specific states, but sometimes in general. “Emigration conditions” require would-be migrants to meet specific requirements in order to be permitted, by the sending state, to take up a labour market contract abroad. In this article, I examine whether it is morally permissible for source countries to prohibit migration to countries where they risk being exploited or abused. I examine the reasons states give to justify emigration bans and conditions: the “structured vulnerability” reason; the “gendered structured vulnerability” reason; and the “gendered paternalism” reason. Overall, I agree that the reasons motivating the bans and conditions are good ones – though I offer some criticism of the reason I describe as “gendered paternalism”. But, since there is only limited evidence of the effectiveness of bans and conditions in achieving substantive benefit for labour migrants, and on the contrary evidence of the real harm they can sometimes generate, I argue that, absent positive evidence of their success in achieving their objectives, they ought to be rejected in practice even if they are permissible in principle.