Experts of the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families Congratulate Mexico on its Global Pro-Migration Stance, Raise Questions on the Treatment of Unaccompanied Minors and Assistance for Mexicans Abroad in the United States
The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families today concluded its consideration of the fourth periodic report of Mexico, with Committee Experts congratulating the State on its pro-migration stance taken around the world, while raising questions on the treatment of unaccompanied minors and assistance provided to Mexicans abroad in the United States.
Fatimata Diallo, Committee Chair and Co-Rapporteur for Mexico, congratulated Mexico on its pro-migration stance taken around the world, including its key role in the Global Compact for Safe and Orderly Migration. The Committee appreciated that legislation and a support system were in place for migrants across all states of Mexico, and congratulated the State on the adoption of a law on enforced disappearances, and the enactment of specific measures to provide support to migrant children and adolescents.
Mohammed Charef, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Mexico, asked if the delegation could share statistical information following the reform of the migration act in 2022, including the number of children released from holding facilities and the number of children still in these facilities? What tools and measures had been put in place at the border level to ensure there could be a review on children and adolescents before any return was taken? How many cases of refoulment had been avoided due to the risk analysis which should be carried out on every child?
Pablo Ceriani Cernadas, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Mexico, asked what Mexico was doing at the foreign policy and foreign relations level to push for regularisation for people who had been working in the agricultural sector in the United States for years? With the closure of the CBP 1 by Trump, some people had their asylum process for the United States interrupted; what was happening to them?
Ms. Diallo said the “United States Remain in Mexico policy” required migrants to remain at the border while the United States Government processed their cases; what had the Mexican State done to provide for these migrants who were forced to remain in Mexico in the hazardous border areas?
Regarding unaccompanied children and adolescents, the delegation said there was a specific standalone procedure in place to ensure migrants were duly identified, so they could be protected by the child protection system. The National Institute of Migration could be advised to carry out an assisted return of the child or adolescent to their country of origin, if regular migration status was not possible. No deportation order would be given to a child or adolescent. There were more than 120 shelters and reception centres spread across the country for minor migrants. It was here that they would be held with their families until issues regarding their migration status were resolved; 84,927 minors were handled via this process in 2024.
The delegation said since the new United States administration took office on 20 January 2025, there had been a harshening of migration policies and Mexico had strengthened its consular assistance in response. Mexico had been mapping the detention of migrants by the United States’ authorities and was able to immediately respond to them. The 10 repatriation centres which had been set up on the southern border with the United States provided health care services, nutrition, food and education to those who had been repatriated. The Mexican Government had pursued meaningful efforts to promote the regularisation of Mexican migrants in the United States.
Presenting the report, Jennifer Feller, Director General of Human Rights and Democracy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, said Mexico’s geographical position and proximity made it a country of origin, transit, destination and return for migrants, which represented a challenge for authorities. Between January and May 2024 alone, the National Institute of Migration identified 1,393,683 foreigners in an irregular situation. In 2019, the Ministry of Health published the comprehensive health care plan for the migrant population to promote health care under a context of equality and non-discrimination. In compliance with the March 2023 ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation on the unconstitutionality of the detention of migrants, the necessary measures were adopted to ensure that the detention of migrants did not exceed 36 hours.
In concluding remarks, Mr. Ceriani Cernadas thanked Mexico for the constructive dialogue. The Committee was fully aware of the complexity of human movement in Mexico as a phenomenon, due to the location, the sheer number of migrants, and the voluntary or forced returns of Mexican compatriots, coupled with drug trafficking and the fact that Mexico was a neighbour of the world’s largest drug consumer. Mexico had taken some positive steps, and the Committee looked forward to working collaboratively to find solutions to the challenges.
Francisca E. Méndez Escobar, Permanent Representative of Mexico to the United Nations Office at Geneva and Head of the Delegation, in concluding remarks, said Mexico continued to be committed to protecting the rights of migrants and upholding its international obligations. Mexico had made progress in protecting the rights of migrant children, adolescents, women and migrant workers, and would strengthen activities in areas where challenges remained, to ensure the full implementation of the Convention.
The delegation of Mexico was comprised of representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the Federal Judiciary Council; and the Permanent Mission of Mexico to the United Nations Office in Geneva.
The webcast of Committee meetings can be found here. All meeting summaries can be found here. Documents and reports related to the Committee’s fortieth session can be found here.
The Committee will next meet at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 8 April to begin its consideration of the second periodic report of Niger (CMW/C/NER/QPR/2).
Report
The Committee has before it the fourth periodic report of Mexico (CMW/C/MEX/4).
Presentation of Report
FRANCISCA E. MÉNDEZ ESCOBAR, Permanent Representative of Mexico to the United Nations Office at Geneva and Head of the Delegation, said Mexico had always played a leading role at the international level to advance the agenda of the human rights of migrants. It was an active promoter of the Convention, presented periodic resolutions on migration in the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, and served as a co-facilitator of the negotiation process of the Global Compact for Migration. While significant progress had been made, challenges remained. By appearing before the Committee, Mexico reaffirmed its openness to international scrutiny and constructive dialogue. Ms. Escobar then introduced the Mexican delegation.
JENNIFER FELLER, Director General of Human Rights and Democracy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, said Mexico’s geographical position and proximity made it a country of origin, transit, destination and return for migrants, which represented a challenge for authorities. In the last decade, migratory flows had grown exponentially and the transit of undocumented migrants through Mexico had grown significantly. It was estimated that 77 per cent of migratory flows through the country were carried out irregularly. Between January and May 2024 alone, the National Institute of Migration identified 1,393,683 foreigners in an irregular situation. The composition of migration flows had changed significantly, encompassing a diverse range of persons who were migrating for multiple reasons.
This scenario was aggravated by the impacts of increasingly restrictive United States immigration policies, which limited the right to seek refuge, such as the Migrant Protection Protocols, among others. Faced with this context, Mexico facilitated the entry and stay of people in health security conditions, providing them with vaccines and other support. Voluntary return was also facilitated for those who decided to do so.
In 2019, the Ministry of Health published the comprehensive health care plan for the migrant population to promote health care under a context of equality and non-discrimination. In line with the recommendations of the Committee, the law on migration was amended to prohibit the accommodation of migrant children and adolescents in migrant holding centres. In compliance with the March 2023 ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, on the unconstitutionality of the detention of migrants, the necessary measures were adopted to ensure that the detention of migrants did not exceed 36 hours.
Mexico had strengthened legal frameworks by incorporating a comprehensive gender perspective, and designed programmes to combat gender-based violence, human trafficking, and discrimination against women and girls. This included the mechanism for monitoring cases of sexual torture committed against women and the comprehensive programme to prevent, address, punish and eradicate violence against women 2021-2024, which included actions focused on migrant women at risk, campaigns against sexual harassment and harassment, and strategies to encourage reporting.
FÁTIMA RÍOS, Director General of Human Mobility and Development of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said Mexico continued to strengthen the capacities of the authorities to combat the smuggling of migrants, from a perspective of shared responsibility, international and regional cooperation, and respect for the human rights of migrants, with the involvement of migration authorities, prosecutors' offices, victims' commissions, international organizations, and civil society.
Although there was no specific law on the smuggling of migrants, Mexico was a party to the Palermo Protocols and had a solid regulatory base. In 2023, the national strategy to combat migrant smuggling with a gender perspective was presented to strengthen inter-institutional coordination to prevent, combat and address the crime with a comprehensive approach. The migration law established aggravated penalties when it involved children and adolescents, or the participation of public servants.
To coordinate migration policies and programmes among more than 20 agencies, the Inter-Ministerial Commission for Comprehensive Attention in Migration Matters was created in 2019. In March 2025, the multi-service centre for inclusion and development, designed in collaboration with international organizations, began operating in the city of Tapachula. This centre aimed to bring those international protection needs closer to the services provided by the Mexican State, including documentation, employment, and health services, among others. In the face of the tightening of migration policies and the criminalisation of irregular migration in the United States, the inter-institutional strategy for comprehensive care for repatriated and returning Mexican families was reinforced in January 2025, guaranteeing their social and economic reintegration in the country. Mexico had spearheaded numerous actions to address migration, including integrating civil society into the debate, and was committed to overcoming the challenges which remained.
Questions by Committee Experts
PABLO CERIANI CERNADAS, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Mexico, said the Committee was aware that Mexico was currently facing a complex situation in terms of human movement, which made this dialogue even more important. The fact that the national guard reported to the army gave rise to concern. Why had Mexico chosen to deploy the armed forces to play a role in monitoring and verifying migrants? Had the deployment of the national guard and army had any impact on the migration flow? Had this impact been assessed? Six migrants had been killed when the national guard opened fire, and there had been other similar cases. What had been the response of the Mexican Government to these cases? How were the perpetrators identified and punished and what was done to ensure non-repetition?
What had been done to promote regular migration in Mexico? What measures had been enacted to eradicate the automatic recourse to detention and migration? What non-custodial measures were being taken for asylum seekers in a vulnerable position, including pregnant women, to replace detention? There had been a fire in a holding centre at the Mexican border which killed over 30 migrants. Who had the political responsibility for this holding centre and the conditions it was in? What measures would be taken to ensure it did not happen again?
The Committee had received reports that people intercepted in different parts of the territory were sent to the southern border and left there. Could the delegation comment on these practices? Expulsions reportedly occurred from Mexico City and other airports. What remedies were available to these people in airports after a decision to expel them? There had been cases where many migrants were killed by organized crime syndicates. There was a high level of impunity with many cases being unresolved. What measures was the State taking to resolve these cases through investigations, trials and convictions?
What measures were being taken to address the complex matter of enforced disappearance in general and in the context of migration? Was the act on enforced disappearance being regulated? How had the guidelines for providing support to Mexicans abroad being strengthened? What relationship was there between the forensic authorities in Mexico and those in other countries, to identity Mexicans who had died and inform their family members? Was the Mexican consulate still receiving reports from El Salvador on citizens who had disappeared?
Was data still being collected on irregular migrants? Would the way in which data was collected be changed? Which authorities had a say when it came to separating families? Why were families separated? The Committee had received information that in October 2023, the humanitarian grounds permits were suspended. The documentation which replaced them did not have the same value as a resident permit and did not help with social, financial and employment services. Why had the humanitarian permit been suspended? What measures had Mexico taken in response to the suspension of CBP 1? What protective measures were being taken in this regard? Were there any initiatives towards signing a bilateral agreement? What was the latest situation regarding the relationship with the United States?
MOHAMMED CHAREF, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Mexico, said Mexico always strove to ensure respect for the rights of migrants and had led the fight in the Group of 77 for the rights of migrants since the start of the 1970’s, which was appreciated. The State was also one of the champions of the implementation of the Marrakech Compact and had enacted a plethora of laws to improve protection for unaccompanied women and minors, which deserved credit. Nevertheless, according to information received by the Committee, despite international commitments and the legal arsenal, there were still violations of the rights of migrants, particularly those in an irregular situation. Mexico shared an emblematic border with the United States which was over 3,500 kilometres long. This was the deadliest land border, with around 10,000 deaths recorded per year.
According to information gathered, many migrants disappeared without a trace; they were abducted, killed, or robbed and thrown out of high-speed trains. Many of those blocked on routes to the United States were highly vulnerable. Were migrants subjected to a detention order by a judge? How long did they stay in centres on average? How did these detention centres function? Who managed them? How many people worked for the “Better Groups”? Were they present throughout the territory? Was their role to provide migrants with advice on their rights? According to information collected, there were huge needs in healthcare, particularly in mental health. Was anything being done for migrants’ mental health? Could information on the deadly fire be provided? The Committee would like more information about the trends and the places migrants went through? Did the State have reliable data on enforced disappearances? Was disaggregated data on nationality, age, sex and type of migration available? How did Mexico manage migration during the COVID-19 period?
FATIMATA DIALLO, Committee Chair and Co-Rapporteur for Mexico, congratulated Mexico on its pro-migration stance taken around the world, including its key role in the Global Compact for Safe and Orderly Migration. The Committee appreciated that legislation and a support system were in place for migrants across all states of Mexico, and congratulated the State on the adoption of a law on enforced disappearances, and the enactment of specific measures to provide support to migrant children and adolescents.
Regarding the ruling by the Supreme Court of Justice on the unconstitutional nature of some of the provisions of the migration act, what steps had been taken to ensure this jurisprudence was present in national legislation? Could the delegation share statistical information following the reform of the migration act in 2022, including the number of children released from holding facilities and the number of children still in these facilities? A unique identification code was provided to migrant children; what was the purpose of this code? What tools and measures had been put in place at the border level to ensure there could be a review on children and adolescents before any return was taken? How many cases of refoulment had been avoided due to the risk analysis which should be carried out on every child? Why did so many children and adolescents abandon the administrative process halfway through it was meant to be an alternative to irregular migration?
How was it ensured that the bilateral agreements with Canada did not leave migrant workers vulnerable? Thirty per cent of women interviewed said they had been subjected to sexual harassment by the national migration guard in detention facilities. What measures had been enacted to prevent this? Had there been investigations and punishment of perpetrators? What concrete measures had been enacted for the protection of domestic workers, particularly migrant domestic workers? The Nicaraguan migration route enabled migrants in sub–Saharan Africa to try and access the United States and there had been several disappearances on this route. Did this also affect Mexico and how was the State dealing with this?
A Committee Expert congratulated Mexico on its ratification of the core International Labour Organization Conventions. Why had Mexico not ratified International Labour Organization Conventions 197 and 143? How many staff were working in the labour inspectorate in Mexico? Did they cover the entirety of Mexico? Did they have the human and financial resources they needed to carry out their duties? Did they have a status which ensured their independence was upheld?
Another Committee Expert said the bilateral agreements, for example between Mexico and Canada, should be examined.
A Committee Expert said the Committee appreciated Mexico’s efforts and its delicate position with the United States and other countries. What type of capacity did Mexico need to bolster its stance on migration?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the National Institute of Migration was charged with implementing the Government’s migration policy. It had overviews of migration checks at land and air border crossings. The institute implemented the protocol for checking migration status. Staff were required to be properly identified as a result of the Supreme Court ruling. Once a person had been identified in a migration check, migration staff could instigate the administrative procedure. It would not be a court which decided, but rather the migration entity, which conducted the migration proceedings.
Migrants were taken to a holding centre and provided all the necessary information to authorities. Due to the ruling of the 36-hour time limit for holding migrants in these centres, the National Institute of Migration completed the administrative procedures within the timeframe. If the individual in question had a genuine immigration status, they would be released quickly; however, if they did not, they would either be provided with a regular migration status if they met the conditions of the law, otherwise they would be returned or deported. This was clearly provided for in the migration act.
Regarding unaccompanied children and adolescents, there was a specific standalone procedure in place to ensure migrants were duly identified, so they could be protected by the child protection system. The National Institute of Migration could be advised to carry out an assisted return of the child or adolescent to their country of origin, if regular migration status was not possible. No deportation order would be given to a child or adolescent. There were more than 120 shelters and reception centres spread across the country for minor migrants. It was here that they would be held with their families until issues regarding their migration status were resolved; 84,927 minors were handled via this process in 2024. It was hoped that up to date data for decision making would be available in April.
Migrants’ caravans, which entered the country via the southern border, had been met by groups providing humanitarian assistance. This was one of the functions played by the “Better Groups”, whose main role was to provide humanitarian support and advice to migrant workers.
The centre for assistance and information for migrant workers had been strengthened to provide assistance to all Mexican residents in the United States. The consular staff had been ordered to make more visits to migration centres and prisons to review cases of Mexican migrants, and to ensure their rights were being upheld and the necessary processes were being followed. A unit monitored how executive orders were impacting the migrant community.
In Mexico, all persons had access to free health care, regardless of their social status. A plan was in place to guarantee that migrants had access to high quality medical health care. Mexico was one of the few countries which chose not to close its borders during the pandemic, which meant that individuals living abroad who could not return to their home countries had remained in Mexico, and benefited from healthcare services and coverage. A system was in place for alternative care models for unaccompanied migrants and adolescents. A handbook on the alternative care options intended to raise awareness on these options. Work was being done to renovate shelters in key hotspots along the migration route.
In 2024, around 439,000 requests for asylum or refugee status were granted, with the vast majority being women. To improve coordination between the authorities at different levels, capacity building workshops had been made available, and work had been carried out with counterparts in Ecuador and in Brazil, among other countries. The Domestic Labour and Social Security Code had been strengthened to uphold the rights of domestic workers. International Labour Organization Convention 189 was ratified in 2020.
The act on enforced disappearance had a system in place which provided relatives of migrant persons with the possibility of submitting requests for action on disappeared persons who could not be found in Mexico. The Mexican consulates abroad were responsible for the implementation of this system.
The intervention of the national guard in public security had not been adopted alone, but in conjunction with other entities. The Constitution was reformed so the national guard would fall under the Ministry of National Defence. The armed forces were involved because Mexico was trying to strengthen the national guard as a security force.
Mexico did not have a systematic practice of enforced disappearance by the State. There was a palpable commitment to tackling the challenges being faced by the country. Regarding the tragic events of the first of October, where a pickup travelling at highspeed was fired on by members of the armed forces, nationals from many countries had been the victims. The majority of the victims decided to return to their countries of origin, but had been informed of compensation processes. Around 32 victims had been affected by the incident.
If a person was deprived of liberty, this was considered detention. The right of all migrants to have a public defender was recognised. This had led to 43 people becoming specialised to allow the federal judiciary to enter the migration centres. Public defenders’ coverage was now better, and there had been Amparo proceedings in cases where the 36-hour holding deadline was exceeded. A humanitarian grounds permit needed to be issued until Amparo proceedings were completed.
Questions by Committee Experts
PABLO CERIANI CERNADAS, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Mexico, asked about the rulings from the Supreme Court; they had not mentioned anything about the Committee. Each year it seemed there was no solution being found to regularise migration; how effective was the State’s response? What happened to persons with disabilities travelling through Mexico? Were resident permits automatically provided to parents of children in Mexico? Migrant children often worked selling sweets or in coffee production; what progress had been made in this regard? What was being done to ensure that the women’s justice centre was aware of women’s vulnerabilities throughout the migration process? How was sexual and reproductive health ensured for women on the move?
MOHAMMED CHAREF, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Mexico, asked how many rulings there had been regarding families who provided shelter to migrants? How had the Supreme Court ruling been implemented in this regard?
FATIMATA DIALLO, Committee Chair and Co-Rapporteur for Mexico, asked for statistical data on children who had left migration holding centres and those who still remained, but who should have been released? How many temporary permits had been issued on humanitarian grounds between 2018 and 2023? Could statistics on the family reunification of migrant workers be provided? What measures had been taken by Mexico to guarantee access to civil registration documents, particularly for unaccompanied minors? What was being done to facilitate access to education for unaccompanied minors? What measures had been taken to combat racism and xenophobia against migrants?
Over 65 per cent of Haitian migrants felt they had been impacted by racial discrimination; what was being done to eradicate this? What measures had been taken to eradicate discrimination in the labour market and combat economic exclusion of migrants? What were the views of migrants on the national guard and on migration policy?
A Committee Expert asked about the Mexican authorities’ plan to deal with the repatriation of Mexican migrants from the United States? How would it be ensured that they would be returned with full respect to their rights? What measures were being taken to prevent the disappearance of migrants on routes of migration to America? What was being done to reduce the smuggling and trafficking of migrants? What steps were being taken to reduce bureaucratic procedures and ensure better access to financial resources for migrants? Approximately how long were migrants detained during the asylum procedure? How could this time period be reduced? Why were the number of claims for asylum in Mexico increasing? Could more information about the conditions in detention centres be provided?
Another Expert asked about reports of abuse of migrants in bilateral agreements with Canada; what was the State doing to combat this?
A Committee Expert said many people from Latin American countries were travelling to the United States, using Mexico as a transit country. Could information about accidents with regard to the national guard be provided? What was being done to improve this situation?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said there were two Amparo rulings from 2022, regarding Haitian migrants who had had their migration status checked and revised when trying to board buses. The ruling found the actions of the bus company and the government migration body were unconstitutional. The Convention had been cited in various court rulings, although not many. Mexico would ensure there was judicial training on the provisions of the Convention to ensure it could be cited more frequently moving forward. The State was aiming to adopt a different approach to human trafficking to focus on those who facilitated the human trafficking, rather than those carrying out the trafficking. There had been 95 cases involving enforced disappearances where a search order was enacted. Data gathering efforts in this regard had been improved, thanks to a ruling from the courts.
The State had spent the last three years working on a project to ensure that all international recommendations related to enforced disappearance could be implemented and crafted into policies at the State and federal levels. A decision had been taken in 2011 to ensure decisions on mass graves could be shared with the relatives. The Victims’ Commission sat alongside the court and had dealt with various cases, including the mass grave case, where the remains of 72 persons were found.
Regarding the fire in the migration holding centre, the Federal Public Prosecutor had intervened in real time, offering services to the victims. This fire took place a few weeks after the Supreme Court’s ruling that migration detention could not exceed 36 hours. Those who were in need of medical care had been sent to hospitals and the Victims’ Commission was supporting those seeking compensation. Close work had been done with consular officials to identify those who had died in the event.
The National Institute of Migration had begun to introduce a range of infrastructure improvements to migration centres, including medical clinic facilities, real-time simultaneous interpretation services, enhancements to the physical environment, and the additions of rescue and first aid kits and smoke detectors. Around 2,935 staff had been trained in migration holding centres on civil protection. There were three multiservice centres in the border areas with the United States. Mexico had added 10 centres to provide support for Mexicans who had been repatriated from the United States, which could accommodate 2,500 people each.
The State had seen a fall in the number of humanitarian permits being issued; there should be more mechanisms which were an alternative to requesting asylum or a stay on humanitarian grounds. This would enable more migrants to regularise their situation. A programme was being designed for regularising the situation of migrants, which would help to reduce delays in the asylum system. Mexico was also seeking other channels with third countries to ensure those who reached Mexico did so with a regularised status.
Mexico had been working with third countries, who recognised it was Mexico’s prerogative to admit foreign nationals onto their territory. Mexico had ratified certain procedures in airports and tried to improve the facilities of holding centres. The majority of refusals for entry into the country were due to inconsistency in entry interviews.
Since January this year, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs could issue identity documents to refugees, stateless persons and those who did not have a consular office in Mexico. This would allow more documents to be provided to migrants. A memorandum had been signed in 2023 to try and foster family reunification, which was currently being revised, to see if it could be continued with the current United States administration. There was permanent communication between Mexico and the Canadian Government and there was an annual review of the bilateral agreements to bring about improvements. Mexico would review the information provided by civil society to raise any problems.
Mexico had not and would never enter into an agreement about the refoulment of third-party nationals. These expulsions were unilateral, and Mexico would respect the Supreme Court’s rulings on guidelines for receiving and supporting these people. A dialogue had been held with civil society organizations in the United States to step up the support provided by Mexico through its consular network. Since 2010, justice centres had been vital to providing services to women victims of violence transiting through Mexico. Between 2019 and 2023, a budget of 400 million pesos was provided to these centres to improve the facilities and training.
Last year, the Ministry of Labour established a platform which provided services for job seekers in Mexico who were from other countries. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees had been working with the Mexican Government to implement local integration programmes, which had provided 50,000 jobs for refugees so far in Mexico. All programmes supported the issuance of necessary documents, such as banking services. The Government had been working with the banking association to ensure they would provide services to refugees and migrants.
Mexico recognised that education was a vital pillar for development, and there were programmes allowing the continuation of studies, including for those who had been repatriated back to Mexico. Vocational courses were provided for returnee and repatriated Mexicans. A raft of educational material had been designed, including handbooks which focused on the needs of migrant children and looked at ways to encourage them to pursue education. The process for granting refugee status to Haitian migrants had been accelerated.
Questions by Committee Experts
PABLO CERIANI CERNADAS, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Mexico, asked what mechanisms and tools existed to ensure the recommendations of the treaty bodies were implemented? What authorities were involved in migration checks and verifications? Had the recommendation to create a register of detained migrants been followed up on? What was being done to follow up on the Amparo court ruling regarding the maximum detention period of 36 hours?
The Committee had heard that in some cases people were held for up to 15 days before their migration cases were reviewed. What resources were made available to detainees during the 36-hour time frame? How were the cases of children heard and deferred? How was the child protection office in Mexico coordinating with its counterparts abroad in Honduras, Haiti and the United States to better serve children and make a decision on their case?
What was being done to promote the registration of the births of Mexicans abroad? Did they automatically have the right to Mexican nationality? What consular support services were in place for Mexicans who had been detained on migration grounds? What was Mexico doing at the foreign policy and foreign relations level to push for regularisation for people who had been working in the agricultural sector in the United States for years? With the closure of the CBP 1 by Trump, some people had their asylum process for the United States interrupted; what was happening to them? Were the centres for comprehensive support and advice intended to replace the holding facilities, or would they sit alongside them?
MOHAMMED CHAREF, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Mexico, asked what resources were made available to the national human rights institution and the Better Group? What was being done to plug gaps with regard to data and statistics? The number of seasonal workers in Canada was constantly increasing; these workers had to pay their own tickets to Canada and their own rent. Were the long-term health impacts of the work on these workers taken into account, due to the handling of pesticides etc?
FATIMATA DIALLO, Committee Chair and Co-Rapporteur for Mexico, noted that the “United States Remain in Mexico policy”, required migrants to remain at the border while the United States Governments processed their cases; what had the Mexican State done to provide for these migrants who were forced to remain in Mexico in the hazardous border areas?
A Committee Expert said Mexico was at the very heart of migration and was a migration champion, which was honourable. The country’s geographic location placed it at the heart of migration to the United States, which was not a State party to the Convention. What would Mexico do to encourage the United States to regularise Mexican migrants in the United States?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said a register had been established for children and adolescents who were being processed by the migration authorities. There was a register for adults held in migration holding centres. The Ministry of Home Affairs was working on migration regularisation on family reunification grounds. The migration holding centres were established and improved to address the needs of those people who had been identified by the National Migration Institute as being in an irregular status. They had been taken there to be processed within 36 hours. The multiservice centres, on the other hand, had been designed for people who were on the move and had international protection needs. People on the move were provided with shelter, health services, and the opportunity to take up job offers.
Since the new United States administration took office on 20 January 2025 and there had been a harshening of migration policies, Mexico had strengthened its consular assistance in response. More than 5,000 legal advice meetings had been held under this programme, bolstered through the services of legal aid officers and partnerships with civil society organizations, who could provide services to Mexicans abroad. All the consular offices in the United States were linked to the electronic case management system; more than 1,600 cases were still active and were being followed through to their conclusion. An app was available which had direct interaction, as well as the Mexican Assistance and Support Office, which operated 24/7.
Consular visits to places of deprivation of liberty had also been bolstered under the new strategy, and in the first quarter of the year there had been an average of 30 visits per day. Mexico had been mapping the detention of migrants by the United States authorities and was able to immediately respond to them. Advice was being given to Mexican compatriots abroad, so they could stay informed and ensure they had the proper legal protections. The 10 repatriation centres which had been set up on the southern border with the United States provided health care services, nutrition, food and education to those who had been repatriated.
Mexico had pursued actions to simplify the number of hoops which had to be jumped through to ensure that the birth of a Mexican abroad could be registered. Mexico had amended the national civil status code to ensure statelessness could be avoided. There had been an investigation into the fire at the migration centre and various State institutions had been held responsible for failings. There had been a 70 per cent increase in the number of Americans migrating to Mexico in recent years, partially due to the lower cost of living.
The Mexican Government had pursued meaningful efforts to promote the regularisation of Mexican migrants in the United States. This included contributing to the Dreamers Programme, and forging partnerships and alliances with members of Congress and State officials to promote recognition of the positive impact of migrants.
The recommendations of human rights treaty bodies were channelled by a variety of thematic working groups. Mexico had played a key role in championing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Mexico had learned that tolerance and inclusion could be an effective response to a crisis like COVID-19.
Closing Remarks
PABLO CERIANI CERNADAS, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Mexico, thanked Mexico for the constructive dialogue. The Committee was fully aware of the complexity of human movement in Mexico as a phenomenon, due to the location, the sheer number of migrants, and the voluntary or forced returns of Mexican compatriots, coupled with drug trafficking and the fact that Mexico was a neighbour of the world’s largest drug consumer. Mexico had taken some positive steps, and the Committee looked forward to working collaboratively to find solutions to the challenges.
MOHAMMED CHAREF, Committee Expert and Co-Rapporteur for Mexico, said Mexico was one of the champions of migration around the world. The State was in a challenging situation due to being an origin, transit and destination country. It was hoped that Mexico would be a key promoter of general comment no. 6 and that it would continue to champion the Convention. Mr. Charef wished the State every success in delivering on migrants’ rights.
FRANCISCA E. MÉNDEZ ESCOBAR, Permanent Representative of Mexico to the United Nations Office at Geneva and Head of the Delegation, said Mexico continued to be committed to protecting the rights of migrants and upholding its international obligations. Mobility involved challenges, and the State should have a responsible attitude based on rights which adapted to a changing context. Mexico had made progress in protecting the rights of migrant children, adolescents, women and migrant workers, and would strengthen activities in areas where challenges remained to ensure the full implementation of the Convention. There were several ways in which the Committee could assist Mexico, including for the Committee to keep note of a compendium of best practices within the recommendations provided.
___________
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CMW25.002E