Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All

Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families

Fortieth session

Summary record of the 593rd meeting

Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva, on Tuesday, 8 April 2025, at 10 a.m.

Chair:Ms. Diallo

Contents

Consideration of reports submitted by States Parties under article 73 of the Convention (continued)

Fourth periodic report of Mexico (continued)

The meeting was called to order at 10 a.m.

Consideration of reports submitted by States Parties under article 73 of the Convention (continued)

Fourth periodic report of Mexico (continued) (CMW/C/MEX/4; CMW/C/MEX/QPR/4)

In accordance with rule 12 (1) of the Committee ’ s rules of procedur e, Mr. Corzo Sosa withdrew during the consideration of the fourth periodic report of Mexico.

At the invitation of the Chair, the delegation of Mexico joined the meeting.

The Chair (Country Rapporteur) said that she would appreciate statistical data on the number of children released from migrant holding centres and the number of those who remained, as well as the number of unaccompanied minors who had temporary permits on humanitarian grounds or had been granted asylum between 2018 and 2023. Additional statistical information on efforts to facilitate family reunification and mechanisms in place to prevent family separation would be welcome. She would be interested to hear about action taken by Mexico to ensure access to civil status documents. It would be useful to learn what measures had been adopted to facilitate access to education for unaccompanied minors, particularly in circumstances where their parents lacked documentation. Further information on the mechanisms in place to ensure access to economic, social and cultural rights for migrant workers, without discrimination, would be useful.

She would like to know what measures had been adopted to combat xenophobia and racism with regard to migrants in Mexico, in particular Haitian migrants. Reports indicated that over 65 per cent of Haitian migrants considered that they had experienced discrimination, with more than 50 per cent citing skin colour as a contributing factor. She wished to know what measures were being implemented to eliminate discrimination, particularly in the context of employment. She would also appreciate hearing about efforts to eliminate xenophobia and racism among the Mexican people in general. She wished to know whether the migrant population had been included in a recent survey that had indicated a high level of public trust in the National Guard. Such trust did not exonerate the Government of Mexico from focusing its attention on violations committed by officers involved in immigration control activities.

Ms. Dzumhur said that she would be interested in hearing about the strategies and plans in place to deal with the current crisis of Mexican migrant workers returning from the United States of America. She wondered what measures had been implemented to ensure that the rights of those returning, including children, were upheld. She would be interested to hear how migrants from third countries who entered the United States through Mexico were being handled and what measures had been taken to prevent their disappearance. Further information on the efforts made to stop trafficking in persons for sexual or labour exploitation or smuggling of migrants on their journey to countries in North America would be useful. She wondered how the Government ensured that children returning to the country without identity papers, including unaccompanied minors and children separated from their families, were provided with the necessary documentation. The Committee had received reports that migrants had been requested to provide documentation at bus stations and that the process of seeking asylum was very slow. She wondered whether any measures had been adopted to expedite and streamline that process. Further information on efforts to ensure better access to financial resources and coordination between the banking system, government authorities and employers with respect to migrant workers would be helpful.

She would appreciate learning about the causes of migration from Mexico, beyond the economic context, and about working conditions for Mexican workers, including length of the workday and time off. Further information regarding the national register of detained migrants would be helpful. She wished to know the average length of the procedure for detaining migrants and whether efforts were being made to improve the migrant detention process. She would welcome an update on action taken to accede to the relevant International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions. She wondered whether Mexico was considering entering into bilateral agreements with countries of origin of asylum-seekers in Mexico. Additional information on conditions in the migrant reception centres would also be welcome.

Mr. Kariyawasam said that he wished to know whether it was true that there were 1 million United States citizens in Mexico and that most of them were migrant workers. If so, he wondered how their enjoyment of the rights enshrined in the Convention compared to that of Mexican migrant workers in the United States. There had been reports that Mexican workers were being exploited under the bilateral employment agreement between Mexico and Canada, including wage theft, excessive working hours, unsafe working conditions, serious injuries, lack of medical care, inadequate housing and racist, psychological and physical abuse. If those reports were true, what measures were being taken to address that situation and ensure that the terms of the bilateral agreement were aligned with the standards set out in the Convention?

Mr. Taghi-Zada, noting that many persons from Latin American countries used Mexico as a country of transit to migrate to the United States, said that one of the biggest problems was ensuring the protection of the rights of such migrants. He wondered what measures were being taken to prevent violations by the National Guard and to improve the situation of migrant workers transiting through Mexico.

The meeting was suspended at 10.20 a.m. and resumed at 10.35 a.m .

A representative of Mexico said that the decision of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court in amparo review No. 275/2019 stated that checks and controls must be carried out at designated points of entry, with those conducted elsewhere requiring justification. Furthermore, it had ruled that practices like racial profiling were unconstitutional and subject to review by the judicial authorities. In two other cases, amparo reviews Nos. 400/2022 and 298/2022, involving Haitian nationals who had been subject to identity checks while boarding buses, the collegiate circuit courts had ruled that the policy of verifying immigration status at bus stations was unconstitutional.

With regard to the question raised concerning specific references by the Supreme Court to the Convention and the Committee’s jurisprudence, the Convention had been cited at the collegiate circuit court level and in the protocol for assisting migrants and persons in receipt of international protection. However, it was true that there was a need for wider discussion of the Committee’s general comments, for example at the Centre for Constitutional Studies and among judicial authorities.

With regard to intersectional approaches, amparo review No. 7/2020 had emphasized that any programme or policy must take into account the impact it had on children, women and, specifically, persons with disabilities. That had prompted a dialogue with civil society on implementing such approaches within the judiciary, leading to proposals for a national policy involving consultations with various groups, including older persons, migrants, Mexican Indigenous persons, members of the LGBTQ+ community and persons with disabilities.

Measures were being implemented to prevent individuals from incurring criminal liability for defending or assisting migrants. There were also protocols in place that adopted a gender perspective and recognized that victims of trafficking in persons could wrongly be considered offenders. Between 2019 and 2025, there had been 53 cases of crimes against migrants, resulting in 43 convictions for trafficking in persons. The Government had taken steps to address the issue of enforced disappearance, including a project to incorporate international recommendations into judicial policy and to develop specific indicators to track the judiciary’s institutional sentencing policy. The project was scheduled for launch in June 2025.

The decision of the National Institute for Transparency, Access to Information and Protection of Personal Data that information concerning the mass graves discovered in Cadereyta and San Fernando should remain classified had been challenged by relatives of the victims. In amparo reviews No. 661/2014 and No. 453/2013, the Supreme Court had ruled that such restrictions on access to information were not applicable in cases of serious human rights violations and crimes against humanity, and the information had been declassified. In addition, amparo proceedings had improved the effectiveness of the support provided by the Executive Commission for Victim Support. In a case where the Commission had denied support to a Guatemalan national because of a lack of Mexican identity documents, an administrative court had ruled in amparo review No. 17/2016 that the individual’s identity documents should be considered valid, regardless of whether or not they were issued in Mexico.

There were other cases in which relatives had been denied recognition as indirect victims because they had not proved their kinship with their loved ones, who had been found in the clandestine graves in San Fernando. In amparo review No. 382/2015, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court had ruled in favour of those relatives and recognized the standing of organizations and groups involved in such proceedings.

The Commission had provided data on the 2010 case in San Fernando: 72 people had been found in the clandestine graves in San Fernando; 65 direct victims and 132 indirect victims had been registered in the National Register of Victims; funeral and repatriation expenses had been covered in 28 cases; 5 families had received legal assistance in proceedings before the Attorney General’s Office; and 16 reparation cases were pending. In the 2011 case, 358 individuals had been registered in the National Register, including 64 direct victims and 294 indirect victims; funeral and repatriation expenses had been covered in 35 cases; and no reparations had yet been granted in those cases.

The investigation of the Cadereyta case had commenced in 2012 but it had not been until 2021 that the case – which concerned four individuals accused of organized crime and homicide involving 49 victims – had been formally presented to the judicial authorities. The case was currently at the pretrial investigation stage. The Executive Commission for Victim Assistance had registered 89 victims related to the case, including 19 direct victims and 70 indirect victims; 49 victims involved in the case were receiving legal assistance; and reparation had been provided to 5 individuals, while other cases were pending.

In response to the conflagration at the migrant detention centre in Ciudad Juárez, the Federal Public Defender Institute had offered legal services to the victims and filed a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission. The incident had occurred shortly after the Supreme Court had issued a ruling that immigration detention could not exceed 36 hours. The Institute provided assistance to victims by offering Indigenous language interpretation services, and it had been representing two Venezuelan nationals accused of responsibility for the fire. There were five criminal cases related to the incident, which were currently suspended following a request by the victims for an indirect amparo. The Executive Commission for Victim Assistance had registered 115 victims (69 direct and 46 indirect) in the National Register of Victims; all family members had received visitor cards on humanitarian grounds; the remains of two deceased had been repatriated; the injured had been transferred to hospitals in Ciudad Juárez and El Paso, Texas; and financial reparation had already been provided to 281 indirect victims. Lastly, the investigation into the incidents in Camargo had initially been conducted locally but had since become the subject of a federal investigation conducted by the Attorney General’s Office.

A representative of Mexico said that the National Institute of Migration had worked with the Mexican Agency for International Development Cooperation and various civil society organizations to make infrastructural improvements to migrant holding centres and equip them to offer medical and interpretation services. Steps had been taken to review and update the centres’ civil protection protocols and ensure that they had functioning fire extinguishers, signage, first aid kits and smoke detection systems. Locks and bars had been removed from doors. From the second half of 2023 to 2025, thousands of public officials working at the centres had been trained on topics including civil protection, human rights, the identification of victims of trafficking, first aid and professional skills and standards. The operation of various migrant holding centres had been suspended following an assessment by the National Human Rights Commission, resulting in a fall in the number of operational centres from 52 to 27.

The Migration Act had been amended to guarantee the referral of migrant children and adolescents to social assistance centres. Many of the 106 centres that were able to house children, adolescents and their families were newly built or had recently been refurbished. Altogether, they had a daily capacity of more than 9,300 persons. Migrants in transit could receive support at one of the three migrant integration centres at the northern border, which had a total capacity of 1,900 persons. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs had signed a technical assistance agreement with the United Nations Office for Project Services to enhance support for those centres and to drive the expansion of multi-service centres for the inclusion and development of the migrant population. Ten centres, each with a capacity of 2,500 persons, had been established to house Mexican nationals who had been repatriated from the United States of America.

There were a number of channels through which migrants could regularize their migration status. Such channels were open to migrants who had travelled to Mexico for humanitarian reasons, who had family in the country, whose residence permit had expired or who were performing activities other than those for which their stay in the country had initially been authorized. The Ministry of the Interior had conducted an analysis of the reasons behind the fall in the number of regularization processes carried out on humanitarian grounds. Based on the findings of that study, the Ministry was working to develop a specific regularization programme, separate from the asylum system, that would offer temporary residence permits to migrants. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was working with the International Organization for Migration to establish mobile offices that would provide migrants with information on the regularization process and support their integration into the labour market. Her Government continued to attach great importance to labour mobility and was beginning to implement programmes with a view to creating more regular channels through which foreign nationals could come to the country and facilitating the labour market integration of Mexicans abroad.

The National Institute of Migration and the Ministry of the Interior were working to improve the treatment of foreign nationals who had been refused entry to the country after arriving by air and to ensure that the same procedures were followed at all airports. The Government was also collaborating with airport authorities to improve the facilities in which foreign nationals awaiting an entry decision were processed. While individuals who were refused entry were returned to their country of origin, such returns did not constitute deportations or involve the imposition of penalties. The individuals concerned were free to reattempt to enter Mexico at any point. The Government was working closely with the Colombian authorities to address the fact that a significant proportion of the foreign nationals refused entry to Mexico came from Colombia. The two countries had established a standing committee to examine specific cases and identify ways of improving the treatment of the Colombian nationals affected. The increase in the number of foreign nationals who had been refused entry was directly linked to the rise in individuals travelling to Mexico with a view to illegally crossing into the United States.

Families who had been identified as being in an irregular migration situation were provided with a temporary document granting them visitor status on humanitarian grounds. Many families chose not to complete the administrative migration procedure, preferring instead to continue their journey northwards. Nonetheless, the Government had introduced reforms to make the procedure more flexible in cases involving children, and it worked with the authorities from the migrants’ country of origin to obtain any relevant documentation and verify the relationship between child migrants and the adults accompanying them.

Between 2019 and 2024, the Commission on Assistance for Refugees had granted refugee status to 41,610 unaccompanied children and adolescents. The Commission was working with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to simplify the procedures for determining refugee status, including through the introduction of a digital platform, which had enabled it to increase its capacity to handle applications by 39 per cent. In 2024, for example, decisions had been made on some 34,300 applications. In January 2025, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had begun issuing identity documents to refugees, stateless persons and persons who did not have consular representation in Mexico.

The Mexican consular network in the United States had established an online platform to help detect, monitor and resolve cases in which Mexican children and adolescents had been separated from their families. The offices belonging to that network worked with the United States authorities to facilitate the reunification of the families concerned, which usually occurred in Mexico. An agreement on family reunification had been signed by the Governments of Mexico and the United States in 2023, and the Mexican authorities were waiting to see whether it would continue to be upheld following the change of administration in the United States.

The situation and working conditions of Mexican workers participating in the Mexico‑Canada Seasonal Agricultural Worker Programme were closely monitored by the Mexican consular offices and embassy in Canada. Participants were recruited by the National Employment Service, thus guaranteeing compliance with ethical recruitment standards. Her Government, which was in constant communication with its Canadian counterpart, conducted an annual review of the Programme and was happy to discuss any concerns in that regard with the civil society organizations that had raised them.

With regard to the return by the Government of the United States of non-Mexican nationals to Mexico, President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo had been very clear that her Government would not enter into an agreement on that matter. The Government of the United States had been carrying out such returns on a unilateral basis while the Mexican authorities, for their part, had received the non-nationals concerned on humanitarian grounds and made every effort to comply with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court on their care and reception. The new migration policy had been presented to civil society organizations at the first session of the Advisory Council on Migration Policy in 2025. Efforts were also made to raise awareness among civil society organizations in the United States about the migration programmes run by the Mexican Government.

A representative of Mexico said that women’s justice centres had been operational since 2010. They provided free medical, legal and psychological support services for women victims of violence who lived in or were transiting through the country and informed them of the government programmes and services available. Between 2019 and 2023, 400 million pesos had been earmarked for efforts to improve the facilities offered by the women’s justice centres, while staff working in the centres had been trained on providing care with a gender-based approach.

All individuals in Mexico, including those without social security, enjoyed guaranteed access to healthcare and the right to receive treatment and any necessary medication or medical supplies free of charge. Article 27 of the Migration Act established the obligation of the Ministry of Health to promote the provision of health services to all foreign nationals, regardless of their migration status. In cases involving sexual violence, the health authorities were able to provide post-exposure prophylaxis, emergency contraception or, where requested, abortion services. In January 2025, the Government had launched a campaign to promote the rights of migrant women, as part of which migrant women, adolescents and girls had been invited to talks and workshops to provide them with information on their rights, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health.

The employment of migrant workers in sectors affected by labour shortages helped strengthen the national economy. While the Government currently had no plans to amend article 7 of the Labour Act, it continued to view labour mobility programmes as an effective way to promote fair competition in the labour market, reduce irregular migration and exploitation, including trafficking in persons, and ensure that migrants enjoyed optimal working conditions. In 2024, the National Employment Service had launched an online job placement platform for Mexican and foreign workers. The platform offered a register of migrant workers, guidance for employers on promoting their vacancies and information on the requirements for obtaining access to formal employment in Mexico and the support available from international organizations, civil society and the federal and state authorities.

The Refugees, Complementary Protection and Political Asylum Act recognized the right of refugees and individuals entitled to complementary protection to receive support from public institutions in the exercise of their rights. Accordingly, the Government was working with UNHCR to implement the Local Integration Programme, under which a large network of national and international companies willing to provide jobs to refugees had been established. The 50,000 beneficiaries of the programme had also received support in obtaining access to housing, education, banking and other services that would help them begin a new life. Steps had been taken to raise awareness among banks of the need to provide migrants and refugees with access to financial services. The Government was conscious of the need to offer training to bank employees who dealt directly with the public in order to overcome existing challenges.

The Government recognized education as a fundamental pillar of development. A wide range of programmes and services were available to migrants and returnees who wished to start, continue or complete their studies. The Ministry of Public Education had worked with the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) to develop a project for the inclusion of migrant children and adolescents in basic education and a protocol to simplify regulations with a view to eliminating the barriers that prevented such children and adolescents from obtaining access to education.

Discrimination was criminalized at the federal level and in 28 states as either an autonomous crime or an aggravating circumstance. All individuals were entitled to report acts of discrimination to the competent authorities. The Federal Act to Prevent and Eliminate Discrimination was intended to protect all persons, including migrants, and to promote equal opportunities and treatment. The rate of acceptance of refugee applications from Haitian nationals had more than doubled since July 2024, when the Commission on Assistance for Refugees had begun to apply the expanded definition of the term “refugee”, as contained in the Cartagena Declaration on Refugees, in cases involving refugees from Haiti.

Mr. Ceriani Cernadas (Country Rapporteur) said that he would like to know whether a federal mechanism had been established to monitor implementation of the recommendations of regional and international human rights bodies and, if so, whether one of its responsibilities was to evaluate and propose changes to public policy.

Regarding the fire that had occurred in the migrant holding centre in Ciudad Juárez, it was not clear which authorities were responsible for the detention of the migrants affected or why families, including children, had been held there. He would appreciate an update on the establishment of a national register of persons detained in the context of migration; details of the current Government’s position on the subject would also be welcome. He would be grateful for additional information on the regularization programmes led by the Ministry of the Interior, including whether they were permanent.

It would be useful to learn what steps were being taken to align legislation, according to which the processing of migrants could last up to 15 days, with the Supreme Court’s decision stipulating that immigration detention must not exceed 36 hours, and how the Court’s decision was applied in practice, given that migrants in detention must have access to legal assistance and other resources, regardless of the duration of detention.

He would welcome additional information on the National System for the Comprehensive Protection of Children and Adolescents, including on how it coordinated its work with other, similar systems in the countries of origin of migrant children in Mexico. It was not clear how the system could be consistently taking into account the best interests of the child if only 578 of the 110,000 children and adolescents processed by the migration authorities in 2024 had been regularized. Did that mean that it had been decided that, in the majority of cases, it was in their best interests to be returned to their country of origin?

He would appreciate an update on the follow-up given to the recommendation issued by the national human rights institution regarding the case of a Haitian child who had been unable to gain access to health services and had died as a result. He wished to know how migrants’ family members could seek access to the Mexican justice system through the justice system in their own countries of origin and, more specifically, what steps were being taken to strengthen coordination between the Attorney General’s Office and the national search commissions in other countries. He also would like to know what consular assistance was available to facilitate the birth registration of children born to Mexicans living in the United States of America, so that they obtained not only United States nationality, but also Mexican nationality.

It would be interesting to learn what measures the State Party had adopted, with regard not only to its consular network, but also in terms of foreign policy, to encourage the United States to regularize the large numbers of Mexicans in an irregular migration situation who were working in that country, rather than persecuting them and politicizing the presence of such persons, who had in reality been members of American society for many years. Furthermore, since the recent revocation of the legal status of migrants who had entered the United States using the CBP One application, he understood that many migrants were now in limbo; were they requesting asylum in Mexico?

He would appreciate more information on the multi-service centres for inclusion and development, and their purpose. While any State could refuse entry to anyone on its territory, it was important to uphold every person’s rights, including to due process and non‑discrimination. In reference to his previous question regarding the reception by Mexico of third-party nationals deported by the United States, he understood that the deportations were a unilateral decision by the United States, but it was the Mexican Government’s prerogative whether or not to accept it and to receive such deportees.

Mr. Charef (Country Rapporteur) said that he would like more information about the mobile phone application recently rolled out by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that allowed Mexican migrants living in the United States to alert family members and local consulates if they believed they were about to be detained by the United States immigration authorities. Were any statistics available on its use? It would be interesting to learn whether the Mexican authorities, in their interactions with their Canadian and other national counterparts, discussed the potentially harmful effects of pesticides on seasonal farmworkers, among other difficult working conditions.

The Committee would welcome information on the results of the various programmes undertaken by the State Party to promote development based on the revenue flowing into the country from migrant workers abroad, in large part via remittances. More broadly, it would be interesting to learn whether and, if so, how migrants were involved in the design of the Government’s development policies. In reference to the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, he wondered what contributions the State Party had made to the adoption of a subregional strategy for the human rights-based good governance of migration issues.

The Chair, noting that the “Remain in Mexico” initiative had recently been reinstated by the Government of the United States, said that she would like to know what measures were being taken by the State Party to uphold the rights of and provide support to the migrants waiting at the border until their asylum or immigration applications were processed in the United States. She would also like to know what lessons the State Party had drawn from its experience during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, during which it had been one of the few countries not to have closed its borders, and how those lessons influenced current migration and health policy.

Mr. Oumaria, noting that only a small percentage of Mexican migrant workers in the United States had been regularized, despite making up a significant percentage of the workforce, asked whether the Mexican community in the United States might play a role in lobbying, through civil society organizations, universities or even entrepreneurs, for the further regularization of Mexican migrant workers.

The meeting was suspended at 12.05 p.m. and resumed at 12.20 p.m.

A representative of Mexico said that there was a system in place to record data on every foreign national who was admitted to a migrant holding centre. Based on a recommendation of the Supreme Court concerning the implementation of the General Act on the Rights of Children and Adolescents, a register had been created for children and adolescents who were processed by the migration authorities and referred to social assistance centres. The information contained in that register was shared with the National Institute for Migration, the National System for the Comprehensive Development of the Family and the Commission on Assistance for Refugees.

The Ministry of the Interior was currently working with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to develop a programme that would make it possible, inter alia, to regularize a migrant’s situation if he or she had received a job offer; it was expected that the programme would facilitate the regularization of a number of migrants who were currently in Mexico as a result of the revocation of their CBP One legal status.

Multi-service centres for inclusion and development were not intended to replace migrant holding centres. The latter were used to accommodate migrants who had been identified as being in an irregular situation, while their files were processed. Although migration law had not yet been amended to establish a maximum processing time of 36 hours as ordered by the Supreme Court, that time limit was respected in practice. The purpose of multi-service centres, on the other hand, was to bring State services closer to migrants, including those in an irregular situation or in need of international protection. There were plans to expand the services provided in the migrant integration centres on the northern border to match those provided in multi-service centres.

The provision of consular assistance to Mexicans in the United States of America had been stepped up since the new Government of that country had taken office. Between 20 January and 4 April 2025, legal advice had been provided in 5,991 cases, of which 5,639 remained active in the case management system and would be seen through to their conclusion. The consular support mobile application had been downloaded over 260,000 times and had over 50,000 registered users. The application could be used to find the nearest consulate, contact the information and assistance centre for Mexicans in the United States and Canada, and send messages to family members who had been identified as emergency contacts.

Between January and April 2025, consular staff had conducted over 2,200 visits to detention centres in the United States where migrants were being held and had recorded over 70 operations carried out by the United States immigration authorities in which Mexican migrants had been placed in detention. The information and assistance centre for Mexicans in the United States and Canada received an average of 778 calls per day. Between January and April 2025, over 5,500 awareness-raising events had been held by consular staff to keep Mexican migrants informed about their rights and any new measures that would affect them. An online platform had been set up in cooperation with the National Autonomous University of Mexico to provide psychological support, legal advice and continuing education services to Mexicans in the United States. As part of the “Mexico Embraces You” (México te abraza) programme, 10 centres had been set up to provide services to returning migrants, including health, education, food and accommodation.

The consular procedure for birth registration had been simplified to ensure that children born to Mexican parents in the United States were able to exercise their right to dual nationality. As a result, the number of birth certificates issued by consulates had increased by 80 per cent between February 2024 and February 2025.

A representative of Mexico said that the victims of the fire at the migrant facility in Ciudad Juárez had all been men. The National Human Rights Commission had issued a recommendation in which it had found violations of the rights of the victims by several national authorities, namely the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the National Institute of Migration. The number of United States citizens living in Mexico had increased by 70 per cent between 2019 and 2022 and was now estimated at 1.6 million. The reasons for that migration included the lower cost of living in Mexico and the proximity of the country to the United States. The majority of those migrants were young and lived in the northern border states.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs had worked to promote the regularization of the migration status of Mexicans in the United States, not only in the context of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals programme but also through alliances with state governments that recognized the contribution Mexicans abroad made to the national economy. In several places, the role played by Mexican migrants had been brought into relief by the COVID-19 pandemic. Embassies and consulates helped to ensure coordination between the National System for the Comprehensive Protection of Children and Adolescents and equivalent systems in other countries in the region. The Government had launched a series of initiatives to further institutionalize regional cooperation in the area of migration and was pushing for migration to be identified as a major issue on the agenda of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States. It was about to sign a migration cooperation agreement with the Government of Guatemala.

The treaty body reporting process and follow-up to concluding observations were overseen by the Directorate General of Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There were working groups that followed up on treaty body recommendations in specific areas, including groups focusing on the rights of women and on racial discrimination. Mexico had long championed the rights of persons with disabilities and had played an active role in promoting the drafting and adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Since 2007, it had received almost 200 recommendations relating to the rights of persons with disabilities, most of which had been implemented. Guidance for various national authorities, including the National Institute of Migration and the National Guard, on treating persons with disabilities with empathy and respect had been published.

The 2x1 Programme and the 3x1 Programme, which had been designed to help migrants abroad contribute to the development of their communities of origin, no longer existed but their impact continued to be felt. Migration had been mainstreamed into development programmes to promote access to healthcare, employment and other services. As the pandemic had made clear, it was not possible to achieve progress and build a culture of mutual respect through border closures or discrimination against migrants. Mexico had chosen to promote tolerance and to adopt fully inclusive policies.

Mr. Ceriani Cernadas, thanking the delegation for the constructive dialogue, said that the Committee was aware that human mobility in Mexico was an extremely complex issue, not only because of the sheer number of migrants involved but also on account of the related structural problems, such as drug trafficking and organized crime. He hoped that the dialogue would serve not only as a means of fulfilling a reporting obligation but also as an exercise in technical cooperation and that the Committee’s recommendations would help the Government to find new solutions to better protect human rights. He would like to encourage the Government to reflect on both the positive and negative impacts of its decision to adopt a more security-focused approach to migration.

Mr. Charef said that Mexico had long been a champion of the rights of migrant workers, and the Committee was counting on its support for the upcoming launch of its general comment No. 6 (2024) on the convergent protection of the rights of migrant workers and members of their families through the Convention and the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. The State Party was in a complex situation insofar as it was a country of origin, transit and destination and must therefore strive to protect the rights of both migrants in its territory and Mexican migrants abroad. The Committee’s role was to support the State Party’s efforts through constructive criticism.

A representative of Mexico, thanking the Committee for the constructive dialogue and reaffirming her Government’s commitment to protecting the rights of migrants, said that international migration was a historical constant that had accompanied the development of societies, boosting economies and enriching the social fabric. Nevertheless, it brought challenges that must be managed through a flexible approach based on human rights and shared responsibility. Her Government had made significant progress through measures to protect migrant children, provide differentiated support to women migrants, defend the labour rights of migrant workers and strengthen consular protection mechanisms for Mexicans abroad. To better support Mexico in its efforts to implement the Convention, the Committee could provide a compilation of good practices alongside its recommendations; encourage other States Parties to work together with Mexico to address specific challenges, such as the management of migrants in transit; and work closely with other treaty bodies to avoid duplication of recommendations.

The Chair said that she wished to thank the delegation for the constructive dialogue, which had helped the Committee to better understand the situation of migrant workers in Mexico and Mexican migrant workers abroad.

The meeting rose at 1.05 p.m.