 Ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank IOM and the organizers of this dialogue for inviting me to share my views with you and help kickstart a debate. I regret that due to other commitments, I cannot participate in your discussions in person. I will start by emphasizing that human rights are not reserved for citizens. Except for two, the right to vote and be elected and the right to enter and stay in the country, all human rights benefit everyone who is on a state's territory or within its jurisdiction, without discrimination, whatever their administrative status and circumstances. While states have the power to admit, deny entry, or return migrants, they equally have an obligation to respect the human rights of all migrants in the process. Families migrate due to the push factors in their countries of origin, which may include war, conflict, natural disasters, persecution, extreme poverty, among others. But they also migrate in response to pull factors, such as the unrecognized needs in the labor markets of countries of destination. Migrants are often willing to do the dirty, difficult, and dangerous jobs that nationals will not at the exploitative wages that unscrupulous employers will offer, including in the construction, agriculture, hospitality, fishing, extraction, and caregiving sectors, to name a few. One also migrates with the express purpose of reuniting with family members. My presentation today will focus on the issue of families migrating irregularly, as I feel that this is an area in which there is grave need for human rights protection. While it may constitute a small administrative offense, irregular migration is not a crime. Neither against persons, nor against property, nor against the security of the state, as the vast majority of irregular migrants are harmless and hardworking. Irregular migrants are not criminals per se and should not be treated as such. Families that migrate irregularly risk their very lives in order to reach their country of destination. Migrants don't believe that they're doing anything wrong, they believe, and rightly so in my mind, that they're only doing it to find either protection against violence or a job to support their family or to reunite with family members. Migration is a survival strategy, one of the best we've ever invented, to protect one's spouse or children from further harm or indeed to give a family the opportunity for a better standard of living. We don't have the moral high ground here. So my first point is that in order to ensure sound, equitable, humane, lawful conditions for international migration, states must open regular migration channels, including for low-wage workers who are much needed. Currently, migrants and their families, very frequently with the help of smugglers, are often crossing borders regardless of state policies. They see no other option but to migrate irregularly due to a lack of regular migration channels, particularly for asylum seekers and low-wage migrant workers. With time, continued restriction of irregular migration is counterproductive as it drives migrants further underground, thereby empowering smuggling rings and creating conditions of alienation and marginalization that foster human rights violations such as discrimination and violence against migrants. Restrictive policies without regular migration channels for asylum seekers and much needed low-wage migrants only entrench smuggling operations in underground labor markets where mafias and unscrupulous employers exploit undocumented migrants. Restrictive policies increase the precariousness of the migrant situation by disempowering them, resulting in more deaths at sea and more human rights violations. If we are to witness a significant reduction of human suffering at borders, including tragedies at sea, states must bank not on strict closure and repression, but on regulated openness and mobility. It is paradoxical that in the name of securing borders states are actually losing control over their borders as smuggling rings will most often be ahead of the game. States need less repression of survival migration and more harm reduction policies taking as a central concern the well-being of migrants. States must bank on mobility in both directions and within their territory as a dynamic factor of economic and social development. Only through regulated openness will the business model of smuggling rings which thrives at bypassing controls and fences be significantly reduced. Opening over a period of time safe legal channels for migration and mobility on a much bigger scale would allow for example for the registration of all migrants for identification of protection needs for the provision of information on labor markets or the risks of irregular migration. This would mean that most migrants would find legal ways to enter countries which would those countries would therefore reclaim the control of border crossings from the smuggling rings. My second point is that when we talk about migrant families our response to the protection of their human rights should be based on four main principles the best interest of the child family unity non-refoulement and non-discrimination. A family's right to live together is protected in both international human rights law and humanitarian law instruments. What constitutes a family is discussed but for the purposes of this meeting I shall focus on a family being one in which there are children involved. Whenever wherever children are involved states are compelled by international and national laws to always act in the best interests of the child. Protection challenges for migrant families can only be better addressed if we focus on the best interests of the child. Every immigration policy law program or decision made about the family unit unaccompanied or separated minors and pregnant women must be made in light of that principle. Children should always be treated as children first and foremost and the principle of best interest of the child should always guide all decisions regarding children whatever their administrative status and circumstances. I cannot stress enough the need for extra vigilance to protect children on the move especially unaccompanied or separated children. Children are exposed to gross physical psychological and sexual violence throughout the migration process. The impact of such violence on these children can reverberate during their whole development process and for generations to come. Using the principle of the best interest of the child allows us to ensure that upon arrival in a country of destination families are properly assessed and while their status is being determined are offered shelter. This means that a proper best interest of the child determination procedure by a competent child care authority which should be utterly disconnected from immigration authorities should be conducted every time the authorities are faced with a decision concerning a migrant child. In my many country visits I have never seen a proper system of best interest of the child determination procedure put in place in favor of migrant children be they accompanied or not. My third point is that the committee on the rights of the child has determined in 2012 that administrative detention of a child for reasons of her administrative or migration status or that of her parents can never ever be in her best interest not even as a measure of last resort. Children in immigration detention will almost always be traumatized and won't understand why they are being punished despite having committed no crime. The violence of detention creates profound and lasting scars in children and must be avoided at all costs. Alternatives to detention must be developed to ensure the adequate protection of children. Placement with foster families creation of shelters for children and families the solutions we use for the protection of our own children in the national child protection system should be applied to protect migrant children. Migrant children are sometimes detained together with their parents when the latter are found to be in an irregular situation and this is justified on the basis of maintaining family unity. Not only does this violate the principle of the best interest of the child but it may also violate their right not to be punished for the acts of others in this case their parents who, let's say it again, have themselves committed no crime. This does not mean that the best interest of the child are served through splitting up the family by detaining the parents and transferring their children to the alternative care system. The detention of their parents has also a detrimental effect on children and may violate the children's rights not to be separated from their parents against their will as well as the right to the protection of the family unit. Migrant families should therefore always benefit from alternatives to detention. I always visit detention centers when I conduct country visits. In many of my visits I have encountered men who are separated from their spouses and children or adolescent boys who are detained with other men or with unaccompanied minors away from their other family members. In one case in Greece the father was in one part of the prison the adolescent boy in another and the mother daughter and baby in a third. That situation was unacceptable. Children should not be separated from their parents against their will except when such separation is necessary for the best interest of the child. States are therefore required to provide living quarters that are suitable for children and families in an open environment with adequate counsel and care and to provide adequate access to education play and leisure facilities. My fourth point is that unaccompanied children should be appointed a legal guardian and trusted with the duty to care for the child. Children can also make migratory journeys on their own sometimes having been separated from their parents or other adult relatives. These unaccompanied or separated children are vulnerable to becoming victims of human rights violations such as sexual and economic exploitation and trafficking. States should appoint a guardian as soon as the unaccompanied or separated child is identified and maintain such guardianship arrangements until the child has either reached the age of majority or has permanently left the jurisdiction of the state. This guardianship will take care to ensure that every unaccompanied or separated child is properly represented by legal counsel in all procedures concerning such child including in refugee determination procedures for children seeking refugee status. My next point is that the special situation of migrant women in detention deserves special consideration. States must ensure separate facilities for men and women unless they form a family and ensure the provision of gender specific health care services and also provide for the specific needs of pregnant women breastfeeding mothers and mothers with young children. States should avoid detaining women migrants in the final months of their pregnancy or after birth since it would imply detaining their children. Again, alternatives to detention must be developed. The United Nations rules for the treatment of women prisoners and non custodial measures for women offenders called the Bangkok rules could provide a useful inspiration by analogy for states in these situations. Migrant families should receive the required state support to ensure an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families and states should consider allowing migrants access to the labor market. This makes sense in order to respect the dignity of such migrants but also because of cost effectiveness reasons implementing policies that will guarantee that families will be free but destitute is not an appropriate response. The right to equality and the principle of non-discrimination is key. Human rights are applicable to all as such states are under an obligation to ensure that migrant families regardless of their migration status are able to access their rights and seek protection from human rights violations. The principle of non-discrimination is extremely important. States must ensure that the principle is upheld in law and in practice. For example, laws that require proof of legal migration status before allowing migrants and their families access to public services such as education and healthcare may be discriminatory if the distinction is not properly justified. States should establish firewalls between public services and immigration enforcement in order to ensure that such public services can accomplish their mission without undue interference from extraneous considerations. Public health, labor inspections and local policing to name only a few will only be better served if they can count on the trust and cooperation of the full community. This would allow all migrants regardless of their status to enjoy their rights to education, housing, health and other social policies. It would also greatly contribute to empowering migrants to fight for their rights through reducing the fear of being detected, detained or deported while interacting with public authorities be they regular or irregular. States must also fight racism and xenophobia and adopt an inclusive discourse. States are also under an obligation to legislate against and prosecute and punish violence, threats or intimidation against migrant families. This includes a variety of xenophobic acts such as hate speech or labor exploitation. Criminalization of irregular migration is often linked to the anti-immigrant sentiments and to inappropriate language. There is thus a need for a political counter discourse that would emphasize the benefits that migration brings to both countries of origin and destination. However, this counter discourse will have difficulty emerging as long as migrants do not have access to the political stage through voting. They cannot voice their concerns and fight stereotypes. They cannot provide the politicians who would defend their rights with an electoral incentive. Until migrants are given a voice in the political debates on migration policies, states must fight much more vigorously racism, xenophobia and hate crime, consolidating the common human rights culture that is now framing the evolution of all traditions and celebrating the diversity of cultures and religions as an enrichment for everyone, citizens and foreigners alike. States must also favor access to justice for migrants in general but especially when they are victims of xenophobia. I would like to conclude by saying that yes indeed migrant families enrich a country's culture and our agents for development that can serve the economic needs of a country for generations but we must change the starting point of the discussion and go beyond the utilitarian argument. Migrants, whatever their status, are already part of the we as we are sharing the space of our communities, our cities, our workplaces, our schools or our hospitals. We are all in the same boat. Their rights are our rights and threats to their rights are threats to our rights. Migrants should be considered first and foremost as human beings, mothers, fathers, children, families just like us, human beings who have rights just like us. Many thanks for your kind attention.