Verified Document

Migration Schuster, L. & Solomos, Book Report

C. (1991). The new convention from the perspective of a country of employment: The U.S. Case. IMR 25(4). Helton (1991) shows how the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families intersects with existing American immigration, labor, and civil rights law. In short, the United States has not become party to the Convention. The author argues that the Convention would significantly improve the legal protections offered to migrant workers: undocumented or not. However, American domestic legislation must also change in order to enforce the humanitarian protections offered by the Convention.

The most vulnerable migrant worker group is obviously those who have no citizenship or permanent resident status in the United States. Undocumented workers are therefore paralyzed when it comes to exercising their rights, or may be unaware that those rights exist in the first place. For example, an undocumented worker who wants to make a claim of employee abuse, sexual harassment, or poor working...

Parts of this document are hidden

View Full Document
svg-one

The employer could report the undocumented worker and have him/her and the entire family deported. The rights of the individual in this case are usurped, and the Convention attempts to rectify that situation.
However, American law is slow to change. Although the United States does offer some protection to all human beings as a matter of course, domestic labor, civil rights, and immigration law exclude certain parties on the basis of their immigration or labor status.

The Helton (1991) article raises several questions that are highly relevant given the recent political debate over "illegal immigration." How clear are the rights of the individual in the United States? To what extent do migrant workers willingly sacrifice their rights by violating American immigration law? Should the violation of American immigration law automatically exclude an individual from access to legal protection or social services? Should American law trump international human rights doctrine or vice-versa?

Sources used in this document:
The most vulnerable migrant worker group is obviously those who have no citizenship or permanent resident status in the United States. Undocumented workers are therefore paralyzed when it comes to exercising their rights, or may be unaware that those rights exist in the first place. For example, an undocumented worker who wants to make a claim of employee abuse, sexual harassment, or poor working conditions might be threatened by the employer. The employer could report the undocumented worker and have him/her and the entire family deported. The rights of the individual in this case are usurped, and the Convention attempts to rectify that situation.

However, American law is slow to change. Although the United States does offer some protection to all human beings as a matter of course, domestic labor, civil rights, and immigration law exclude certain parties on the basis of their immigration or labor status.

The Helton (1991) article raises several questions that are highly relevant given the recent political debate over "illegal immigration." How clear are the rights of the individual in the United States? To what extent do migrant workers willingly sacrifice their rights by violating American immigration law? Should the violation of American immigration law automatically exclude an individual from access to legal protection or social services? Should American law trump international human rights doctrine or vice-versa?
Cite this Document:
Copy Bibliography Citation

Sign Up for Unlimited Study Help

Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.

Get Started Now