Open Access
Debating restrictions on emigration
Loading...
Files
RSC_2024_45.pdf (573.64 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; Working Paper; 2024/45; DILEMMAS
Cite
BAUBÖCK, Rainer, MOURAO PERMOSER, Julia, RUHS, Martin, SCHMID, Lukas Nepomuk (editor/s), Debating restrictions on emigration, EUI, RSC, Working Paper, 2024/45, DILEMMAS - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/77430
Abstract
This working paper combines Patti Tamara Lenard’s article “Restricting emigration for their protection?” with a set of critical responses and concludes with a rejoinder by the author. Migrant workers, particularly women domestic workers, are subjected to significant abuse and exploitation in Gulf States. Sending states, often poorer South Asian countries, struggle to protect their citizens working abroad. Some sending states implement emigration bans or conditions to restrict or regulate migration to countries where workers are at risk. While these measures have good intentions, Lenard argues that due to insufficient evidence of their effectiveness and some evidence for their potential harm, they should be rejected in practice despite being morally permissible in principle. Amy Reed-Sandoval claims that while Lenard’s analysis is valuable, such bans risk reinforcing patriarchal norms and giving excessive power to states. She suggests to tackle instead root causes of gender inequality as a better approach for transnational feminist efforts. Igor Bosc and Neha Wadhawan criticize the prevailing narrative regarding the abuse of migrant women. They emphasize that women’s labor migration also brings significant benefits, calling into question the rationale for imposing exit bans. By placing exit controls within the broader context of societal norms and policies that limit women’s autonomy and rights in their home countries, they challenge the moral basis for such controls. Bosc and Wadhawan argue that emigration bans are ineffective and are primarily driven by patriarchal concerns to uphold traditional gender roles rather than by genuine efforts to manage migration or protect women. Michael Blake argues that there is an inherent asymmetry between the rights to exit and enter a country, making even temporary exit bans unjustifiable, as they harm a fundamental human right. Countries dependent on remittances are unlikely to act impartially in protecting migrant rights, often prioritizing economic benefits over genuine protection. Upasana Khadka highlights the significance of taking into account migrant aspirations, as bans may increase vulnerabilities by pushing migrants to resort to illegal means to work abroad. She claims that alternative approaches such as improved diplomatic relations and collective negotiation might be more successful in safeguarding the rights of migrant workers without infringing upon their right to exit. This working paper concludes with a rejoinder from Patti Tamara Lenard, who responds to her colleagues’ concerns and acknowledges the need to consider the rights of women at home and abroad, and to suggest alternative measures to protect migrant workers without a violation of their right to exit.