Tara Urekar 250567740 Geography 3415G Prof.

Levine April 15/13 Are the Rights of Migrant Workers Children Protected in the United States?

On November 20 1989, the United Nations passed a series of universal rights to recognize the rights of children and enable all children to receive equal opportunities to adequate food and shelter, right to life, and freedom of expression, freedom from exploitation, and freedom from negligence (Human Rights, Ch. 4.11, United Nations, 2013). While most countries signed and ratified the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC) treaty, the United States thus far has only signed but not ratified to the agreements of the treaty. Currently only Somolia and the United States have failed to ratify the treaty, making the United States the only First World or developed nation to not recognize the rights of a child (Why should the United States ratify the convention on the rights of the child?,2010). The United States did not agree to this policy because it claimed the document will undermine the role of the family unit and weaken the sovereignty of the United States (Killbourne, 2006). This statement on sovereignty, however, brings up the issue

whether or not non-citizen children living in the United States are entitled to the same rights as children citizens. This essay will explore the research question Are the rights of migrant children protected in the United States? using the topics of child labour and educational rights, and comparing these rights to migrant children living in the United States and migrant children from other First World countries.

The United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families defined a migrant worker as a person who is engaged or has been engaged in a remunerated activity in a State of which he or she is not a national ("United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families", United Nations, 1990). Most countries in the European Union, as well as Canada and the United States have not recognized or signed the Migrant Workers treaty ("United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, United Nations, 1990). The failure to sign the Migrant Workers treaty, however, does not mean the migrant workers children are unprotected by law. The Convention on the Right of the Child treaty, where signed and ratified, overrules any national laws applicable in

the country and guarantees the rights to all children living in the particular country. The international laws guarantee that children under the age of 18 do not suffer from abuse, exploitation, or be the subject of intense physical labour that is often found in the workplace of migrant workers (Human Rights, Ch. 4.11, United Nations, 2013). All countries have signed the treaty, however, the United States and Somalia are so far the only countries that have not ratified the treaty to make it law within their borders (Human Rights, Ch. 4.11, United Nations, 2013). The United States have yet to ratify the treaty due to conservative groups claiming the treaty goes against democratic policies and does not take into consideration the policies of religious groups (Killbourne, 2006).

It is estimated that the majority of agricultural workers on large-scale American farms are migrant workers (BOCES Geneseo Migrant Center, 2013). These workers work in inadequate situations on farms and factories, and are subjected to long working days and intense physical labour. Their boarding conditions are sub-par to the typical American citizen and typically live without proper sanitation and bathing facilities (BOCES Geneseo Migrant Center, 2013). The approximate annual salary an individual migrant worker earned was between $12500-

14999 while the average migrant family income was $17000-19000. This is considered to be at or below the line of poverty in the United States (BOCES Geneseo Migrant Center, 2013) (United States Census Bureau, Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division: Poverty, 2013). In order for families to earn more income, often they recruit their children into the labour force as well. The United States, having not ratified the CRC treaty, makes this process legal for illegal children. In many cases, the children do not even receive a wage from the employer, stating that the child is working for their travel, room and boarding fees (Bowe, 2007). This type of employment is classified as exploitation and negligence by both the employer and parents under the CRC treaty, which states: States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child. Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and

for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement. (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2011)

The fact that migrant children are entitled to work in the United States for little to no pay is indicative that migrant children have no rights. Since they are not legal citizens of the United States, the children can be exploited in this manner, for the state cannot remove children from parents who have no legal citizen status (Bowe, 2007). It seems that the poor wages and child exploitation is necessary in the United States in order to maintain profitable and affordable agricultural resources; the agricultural industry in the United States is worth $28 billion dollars, over twenty thousand times the price of one single migrant worker (National Center for Farmworkers Health, 2012).

While being subjected to intense labour conditions, migrant children also find themselves in the hands of sex traffickers and child pornographers, for they are forced into

the industry in order to receive money for their family (Katsulis, 2010). While these actions of child prostitution and child sales are not law under the CRC, an optional protocol was added to the treaty in 2002, the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, which prohibits these actions. 163 countries have signed and ratified the protocol thus far, including the United States (Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, United Nations, 2002). The United States not ratifying the CRC treaty however enables these deviants in society to say they are the undeclared guardians of the children, saying the parents left them in their care (Bowe, 2007). Migrant children or children who are illegally in the

country are even more susceptible to be the victims of sex crimes, for the parents are unable to report the incident or missing child without risking the possibility of deportation (Bowe, 2007). The fact that authorities cannot protect migrant childrens well-being without disrupting their families lifestyle is proof that a migrant workers child does not have the same rights as any other child living in the United States.

In comparison, countries within the European Union have declared that it is illegal for any child to be indebted to

servitude or forced labour (Human Rights, Ch. 4.11, United Nations, 2013). This policy enables children to receive an education and not be subjected to the intense labour conditions that migrant workers live with. It guarantees that children are not seen as possessions or chattels. The CRC treaty also ensures children are able to express their opinions and have civil rights; therefore they cannot be forced into labour by their parents without their parents committing an international offence (Human Rights, Ch. 4.11, United Nations, 2013). One can conclude that the well-being of children of illegal workers is of more value than ensuring economic profit of the agricultural industry within the European Union.

One of the reasons why the United States was opposed to ratifying the CRC treaty was because the Home School Legal Defense Association claimed the treaty would limit a parents right to homeschooling their children, or providing the education that they believed was best suited for their child (Why should the United States ratify the convention on the rights of the child?, 2010). The United States has one of the largest homeschooling populations in the world, with an estimated 1.5 million children being homeschooled as of 2007(United States Department of Education, 2008). The failure

to enact upon the treaty in order to protect the rights of homeschooled children, however, enables the country to have the situation where children can end up not receiving an education. This issue is especially true for migrant workers children. Being illegally in the country means the children are not required to attend school to meet social welfare requirements, depending on the educational laws of the individual state (Soltero, 2006). If the children are attending public school, transportation is an issue as most labour and boarding locations are in rural, limited access locations (National Center for Farmworkers Health, 2012). Migrant children are also more likely to leave or frequently switch public schools due to their familys semi-nomadic lifestyle of switching locations based upon the agricultural season of different states. If the children remain in school, they can end up repeating lessons based upon the different counties or states curriculum, resulting in them doing poorly in future grade levels (Dusen, B. V., 1954).

While homeschooling in the United States is an option, migrant workers work in long and intense physical conditions, resulting in them being too exhausted to educate their children after working hours. The majority of migrant workers also have

only received an education only to the 8th grade or less, which means their children will not receive the full education that United States children could receive (National Center for Farmworkers Health, 2012). Since the migrant workers are illegal citizens of the United States, they are also not obligatory to report their childrens homeschooling grades or test results to the board of education, unlike legal citizens who homeschool their children. This means that even if the children received a full homeschooled education up to grade 12, it would be undocumented and therefore the children would be considered uneducated. Reporting the homeschool test results of illegal citizens could lead to the deportation of the entire family due to the legal documents of parents work status to be submitted with the (Soltero, 2006).Even if the children of migrant workers who received a full homeschooled education are able to leave their lifestyle and apply for immigrant statuses in the United States, they will be unable to compete with United States citizens who have received a full education despite living in the same country. The lack of requirements for children to receive an education in the United States is conclusive with the theory that migrant workers children do not have the same rights as other children within the United States.

The European Union, which signed and ratified the CRC treaty, recognizes the education of a child as a human right. To further ensure children in Europe receive an education, it was added into the protocols of the European Convention of Humans Rights (ECHR) (European Convention on Humans Rights, 1990). All children living in the country cannot be denied an education, as it is stated in the ECHR treaty: No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philsophical convicts (European Convention on Human Rights, 1998)

The age of which children are required to stay in school until varies in each country, but up until that age, they must stay in school (Kowalczyk, 2011). While the quality of education is not required to reach a mandatory level, in most European countries, homeschooling is illegal or heavily restricted to what can be taught in order to ensure every child is on par with their peers (Blok and Karsten, 2011). While this policy may seem strict, the European Union is ensuring that by following the CRC

and EUCHR treaties, all children in the country receive the same social, civil, and cultural rights.

In comparison to the United States migrant children, children of migrant workers living in European countries are reported to have better emotional, mental, physical and social health as a result of being required to receive an education. The children feel less isolated and find they have an easier time assimilating themselves into their countrys lifestyle (Fangen, Johansson, and Hammaren, 2012). As a result of receiving education in their working country, the children are able to speak the official languages of the country and therefore argue with their families employers for better living conditions and adequate wages (Kowalczyk, 2011). Just by enabling the migrant children to receive an education makes the civil and economic rights of migrant children as a whole better than migrant children in the United States.

In conclusion, it is evident that children of migrant workers living in the United States do not receive the same civil, economic, or social rights as migrant children abroad. By not ratifying the Convention of the Right of the Child treaty in

order to protect the rights of a few conservative groups, the United States in putting millions of children at risk for exploitation and negligence. Due to the fear of deportation, families cannot report crimes against their children in the United States or seek social services to alleviate them of their poor economic and social living conditions (Bowe, 2007). In comparison to European countries, it seems that the United States government is more concerned about maintaining the support of conservative groups, border security, and an economic profit, rather than ensuring the well-being of children living in the country, illegally or legally.

References

Blok, H., & Karsten, S. (2011). Inspection of home education in european countries. European Journal of Education, 46(1), 138-152. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3435.2010.01464.x

BOCES Geneseo Migrant Center. (2013, January 1). Migrant Farmers in the United States. BOCES Geneseo Migrant Center . Retrieved April 10, 2013, from http://www.migrant.net/pdf/farmworkerfacts.pdf

Bowe, J. (2007). Nobodies:Modern American slave labor and the dark side of the new global economy (1st ed.). New York: Random House.

Committee on The Rights of the Child. "Convention on the Rights of the Child Treaty." General Comment No. 13: The right of the child to freedom from all forms of violence. Geneva: Committee on The Rights of the Child, 2011. 3. Print.

Dusen, B. V. (1954). Adequate Education for Migrant Children. The Elementary School Journal, 55(1), 57. Fangen, K., Johansson, T., & Hammaren, N. (2012). Young migrants :Exclusion and belonging in Europe. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire ;; New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Katsulis, Y. (2010). Six: Youth sex workers on the U.S.-mexico Border1. Wagadu: A Journal of Transnational Women's and Gender Studies, 8, 115-143. Retrieved from https://www.lib.uwo.ca/cgibin/ezpauthn.cgi/docview/864734581?accountid=15115

Kilbourne, S. (2006). Placing the convention on the rights of the child in an American context. In J. Todres, M. Wojcik, & C. Revaz (Eds.), The UN convention on the rights of the child: An analysis of treaty provisions of U.S. ratification (p. 6). New York: Transnational Publishers.

Kowalczyk, J. (2011). "The Immigration Problem" and European Education Reforms: From the Education of Migrants' Children to Intercultural Education. European Education, 42(4), 5-24.

National Center for Farmworkers Health. (2012, August 1). Farmworker Health Factsheet. National Center for Farmworkers Health. Retrieved April 5, 2013, from www.ncfh.org/docs/fsFacts%20about%20Farmworkers.pdf

Outline: European Convention on Humans Rights, Protocol 11. (1998, November 1). European Convention on Humans Rights. Retrieved April 13, 2013, from www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B4575C9014916D7A/0/Convention_ENG.pdf

Soltero, Carlos R. (2006). "Plyler v. Doe (1982) and educating children of illegal aliens". Latinos and American Law: Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. pp. 118 132

UNTC: Convention on the Rights of the Child Treaty. (1989, November 20). United Nations Treaty Collection. Retrieved April 14, 2013, from http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=IV11&chapter=4&lang=en

UNTC: International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families. (1990, December 18). United Nations Treaty Collection. Retrieved April 14, 2013, from

http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?mtdsg_no=IV13&chapter=4&lang=en

U.S. Census Bureau. (2013 Social, Economic, and Housing Statistics Division: Poverty. 2013. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/threshld/

Why should the United States ratify the convention on the rights of the child? (2010). Child Welfare, 89(5), 7-13. Retrieved from https://www.lib.uwo.ca/cgibin/ezpauthn.cgi/docview/866205856?accountid=15115