Kofi Annan Says Migration Needs International Regime

After being introduced by one of the world's foremost advocates of free trade, the Secretary-General of the United Nations called for lower national barriers to global labor migration in a speech at the Law School on Friday.

But he then stressed that industrial nations should provide immigrant workers with legal status, urging for the creation of a new international regulatory regime. "The basic fairness and decency of any society," Annan said, "can best be measured by its treatment of the weak and the vulnerable."

Annan gave the first annual Emma Lazarus Lecture on the International Flow of Humanity, which was sponsored by the Law School's Program on International Migration: Economics, Ethics and Law. Following an introduction by University President Lee Bollinger and University Professor Jagdish Bhagwati, Annan extolled the economic virtues of migration and criticized countries that set up barriers against migrants.

Annan said in his speech that migration is of great economic importance to the world--for both the countries migrants travel from and the countries migrants travel to--and that it is more widespread today than ever. He urged countries to respect the human rights of migrants and to be as accommodating to migrants as possible.

Immigrants often do jobs that others in society are unable to or unwilling to do, Annan said, and often send home money to their countries of origin. They provide valuable economic stimuli to those countries and, by leaving, help alleviate unemployment in their countries of origin.

But Annan said that he fears that wealthy countries often reap the benefits of migrant labor without paying the costs. "Up to now, rich countries have been far too comfortable with the policy framework that allows them to benefit from immigrant labors while denying immigrants the dignity and rights of legal status. That is not good enough."

Although he said that migration can threaten jobs and notions of identity in their countries of destination, he criticized countries that try to exclude migrants. "Stronger borders are not necessarily smarter ones--and [the problems that migrants face] show that [stronger borders] can create new problems of law enforcement and lead inevitably, almost inevitably, to human rights violations," Annan said.

He also voiced specific concern about the United States' immigration policies. "While I understand this nation's need to ensure that those who come here are not a threat to homeland security," Annan said, "it would be a tragedy if this diverse country were to deprive itself of the enrichment of many students and workers and family members from particular parts of the world ... or if the human rights of those who would migrate here were compromised."

Annan said that he sees immigration as a moral issue for the most prosperous countries. "Above all, we must approach this issue with a strong ethical compass," Annan said.

He said that migrants are usually not "free riders looking for an easy life," but that they often migrate under duress and face harsh conditions after they migrate.

He argued that the existing international organizations are not strong enough to protect the rights of migrants, and urged the creation of a new international body that would do this. He praised countries, especially those in the European Union, that are trying to coordinate their immigration politics, but said that the efforts need to be global. He commended the recently-founded Global Commission on International Migration and said that he hopes it will further international cooperation on immigration.

While the speech was not publicized at all to the general student population, the student turnout was high enough to drawn Annan's praise. "I'm extremely pleased to see so many young students here, taking interest in this important issue," he said. "You are the leaders of the 21st century and I'm glad you've taken keen interest in an issue that is going to confront your generation much forcefully than it is today."

In his introduction, Bollinger said of Annan, "There are some individuals in the world at any given point in time who seem to capture for our minds the best that we have in humanity to offer. Secretary-General Annan is one such person."

Bhagwati emphasized the role of ethics in questions of migration and said that Annan, along with Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela, is one of the three "most remarkable men of our time".

Annan closed his speech by discussing the role immigration has played in American history. He said that the United States is "a nation built by immigration, a land where constant renewal and regeneration are essential elements of the national character--that character must never be lost."

Opinion: Employment, Smoking & Human Rights
Monday, 24 November 2003, 12:47 pm
Press Release: Institute for Liberal Values

The HRC, Smoking & Human Rights

by Jim Peron
The Human Rights Commission says that smoking is not a human right. Therefore employers may discriminate against smokers. The conclusion is right, the reasons given entirely wrong. But the decision does reflect something important about the Human Rights Commission and other similar bodies.

Such agencies know nothing about human rights. They are vehicles meant to promote specific politcally-correct agendas. They define ³rights² according to chic PC ideology and at the moment smoking is viewed in an unfavourable way.

The HRC says that since smoking is not a right then it¹s fine to discriminate. Liberals would argue that discrimination itself is a form of voluntary association. People must be free to associate, or not to associate, according to whatever preferences they may have including smoking habits.

Now many of us, myself included, would find some such discrimination repugnant. Discriminating on the basis of race, for instance, is reprehensible.

Of course if you call that discrimination affirmative action then the HRC applauds you. Consistency is not a trait of PC political bodies.

I would argue that smoking, another activity I find repulsive, is a right. You can ingest any substance you want since you are the sole owner of your body.

But it is a right limited by the equal rights of other. Just don¹t do it on my property since that violates my property rights.

And as an employer if I don¹t want to hire you because of that habit I have every right to discriminate.

What employers do with their property is their business. It doesn¹t belong to the PC platoon. If the PC elite want to set employment policy then let them pay the salaries.

Instead they want the right to control hiring policies while employers suffer the consequences.

In this case they say employers may discriminate because the PC don¹t like smoking. But they have long lists of other instances where employers are not free to discriminate.

They recently said that a business must accommodate employees who have religious sabbaths that conflict with normal working hours. Of course some people have a sabbath on Friday, some on Saturday, some on Sunday.

But the HRC supports what the PC call multi-culturalism so ordering employers to accommodate a Seventh Day Adventist on Saturday or a Muslim on Friday is fine. On the other hand employers can openly discriminate against smokers.

Smoking is a right because each individual should have sovereignty over his or her own body. That means her or she may care for it well or abuse it according to his or her own values.

Equally employers should be free to make non smoking, or smoking, a condition for employment.

Now the political Left wants all of us to subsidise health care so that when individuals abuse their body we pay the costs collectively.

One result of such socialised health care is that the State then assumes that since the consequences of such decisions are born collectively then our bodies belong to the collective as well.

The State, they argue, is the embodiment of the collective and thus free to control what we do with our bodies. This is one reason we¹ll see a plethora of legislation controlling eating habits over the next few years. This is just the beginning of the trend.

Recent anti-smoking legislation stripped bar owners, and the like, of the right to determine smoking policies on their own private property. Here the HRC allows such rights in employment practices.

The PC platoon only allow us property rights if we our property in accordance with their values.

It¹s all part of the politicisation of every aspect of human existence. Everything is political and therefore everything is subject to bureaucratic management. Inevitably such regulations are determined according to the PC agenda of the special interests that make up the power base of the government.

The one common theme in all PC legislation is that it transfers power from the individual to the politicians or their appointed bureaucratic agents.

They pretend to believe in free speech but they have censorship boards and ban speech they ³deem² hate speech. Of course they get to define what is hate. We can discriminate against groups they don¹t like but not against groups that are part of their coalition. We can use our property as we wish provided we ask, and receive, their permission first.

Once people demanded that the State bear the consequences for their bad choices through socialised health care, welfare and other such programs it was only a matter of time before the State started controlling what they did with their life.

After all, if the collective pays for the consequences of individual actions then surely it should control those actions as well. It¹s absurd to demand the one without having the other. If you don¹t like the results then check your premises.

Why do they get to vote

INEQUITABLE STAFFINGFifteen of the United Nations' 185-member states control more than half the 12,998 staff positions at the Secretariat In New York, even though most pay only a tiny fraction of U.N. costs.

Countries with a (+) have a higher percentage of U.N. staff positions than their contributions. Countries with a (-) have less staff positions than their share of U.N. costs.

-w :--'--" 1[- '-dumber of Per^W-T--U.N. Secretariat of U.N. costs Country employees assessed

United States (-) 1,652(12.7%) 25.000%

France (-) 807(6.2%) 6.494%

Philippines (+) 627 ( 4.8%) 0.077%

Kenya (+) 613(4.7%) 0.077%

United Kingdom (-) 540(4.2%) 5.076%

Thailand (+) 433(3.3%) 0.158%

Ethiopia (+) 430(3.3%) 0.007%

Russian Federation (+) 408(3.1%) 2.873%

India (+) . 341 ( 2.6%) 0.305%

Chile (+) 321 ( 2.5%) 0.113%

China (+) 270(2.1%) 0.901% Cyprus (+J 269(2.1%) 0.034%

Lebanon (+) 228 ( 1.8%) -0.016%

Austria (+) 222 ( T.7%) 0.935%

Canada (-) 218 ( 1.7%) 2.825%Source: U.N. Secretarial .

The Washington Times

WHO RUNS THE UNITED NATIONS?Although the United States pays more than any other country for the costs of the United Nations, only one American holds a policy-making role in the U.N. bureaucracy. Here's Who runs the world body: - Secretary-General: Kofi Annan, Ghana General Assembly Affairs and Conference Services: Yongjian Jin, China

Political Affairs: Kieran Prendergast, United Kingdom

Peacekeeping Operations: Bernard Miyet, France

Disarmament Affairs: Jayantha Dhanapala, Sri Lanka

Economic and Social Affairs: Nitin Desai, India

Legal Affairs: Hans A.V. Corel), Sweden

Administration: Joseph E.Connor, United States

Conference on Trade and Development: Rubens Ricupero, Brazil

Environment Program: Klaus Topfer, Germany

Center for Human Developments: Klaus Topfer, Germany

Center for International Crime Prevention: Eduardo Vetere, Italy

International Drug Control Program: Giuseppe Arlacchi, Italy

Center for Human Rights: Mary Robinson, Ireland

Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs: Sergio Vieira de Mello, Brazil

Public Information: Kensaku Hogen, JapanSource: U.N. Secretariat

The Washington Time*

This is real

The World Bank ISIBH street N.W. (202)477-1234

INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT Washington, D.C. 20433 Cable Address: INTBAFRAD

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION U.S.A. Cable Address: INDEVAS

Verification of Employment

August 16, 1999 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

The information listed below certifies the employment status of the indicated World

Bank Group staff member as recorded in official records. The staff member is exempt from U.S. Federal and State taxes as provided in the By-Laws and Regulations

of the World Bank Group inasmuch as World Bank Group income is concerned.

Name: xxxx

Title: Operations Officer

Organization: IBRD

Department: Africa Region Resident Missions

Duty Station: ACCRA, Ghana

Appointment Type: Local Fixed Term

Date of Appointment: 3/2/95

Sector Manager, Finance

Africa Region

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

The UN Secretary-General urged the creation of a new international group to focus on immigration issues.