Introduction

Mexico is undergoing complex and rapidly evolving migration dynamics, driven by the goal of thousands of people to reach the southern border of the United States and by the influence the U.S. government exerts on Mexican migration policy. The year 2023 was characterized by an increase in migration from South America, led by migrants from Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia, Peru, and Brazil. This complexity also reflects substantial changes such as the decrease in the proportion of events linked to Central American migrants, which plummeted from 97% in 2021 to 28% in 2023. Many of these individuals are in vulnerable situations, such as pregnant women, children, adolescents, and people with disabilities (^{International Organization for Migration [IOM], 2022}).

During 2023, 782 176 events involving people in an irregular migration situation were recorded in Mexico, a figure considerably higher from that of 2019 (182 940 events). In this context, the word “event” means that a person has been presented or channeled by immigration authorities. Presentation is a measure through which accommodation is arranged for a migrant while their stay in the country is regularized or they are assisted in their return; channeling refers to children, adolescents, and their companions who are sent to the shelters of the National System for Integral Family Development. (DIF, acronym in Spanish for Sistema Nacional para el Desarrollo Integral de la Familia) (Ministry of the Interior [SEGOB, acronym in Spanish for Secretaría de Gobernación], n.d.). Given this scenario, the protection of migrants' human rights represents stands as a difficult and growing challenge for Mexican authorities.

Article 2 of the Migration Law sets forth as an obligation of the Mexican State to guarantee the human rights of all migrants, regardless of their origin, legal status, nationality, gender, ethnicity, or age, particularly so when they belong to vulnerable groups, such as minors, women, indigenous people, and older adults, as well as those who have been victimized (^{Ley de Migración, 2011}).

Furthermore, the National Human Rights Commission (^{CNDH, n.d.}) describes the human rights of people on the move as follows: the right to non-discrimination, nationality, personal integrity and freedom from violence, freedom of transit, protection from arbitrary detention, consular assistance, due process, health, access to a translator or interpreter, education, refuge and asylum, family reunification, the right not to be returned if there is a risk of persecution or torture, to work, and to dignified treatment during their stay or detention.

Taking the above into account, this descriptive study aimed at conducting a documentary analysis of the recommendations issued by the CNDH in terms of migration during 2023. The purpose of the analysis was to identify the most frequently violated human rights of migrants, the most affected nationalities, and the actions that led to these violations. The hypothesis is that such violations occur within a context of securitization of migration.

This article is organized as follows: first, a review of the literature on the topic, outlining the main theories and approaches to migration analysis; then, an explanation of the method employed. The results are then analyzed, and a conclusion is drawn in the last section.

Literature review

Migration involves the long-distance movement or change of residence of individuals for a period of time sufficiently long so as to imply carrying out daily life activities in the host country, with the prospect of settling and staying there. This movement involves the crossing of geographical and administrative boundaries and the intent to satisfy a need (^{Micolta, 2005}).

In the available literature, classifications have been defined around the phenomenon of migration based on various criteria. Some examples can be found in Table 1.

As can be seen, the migration phenomenon is both complex and multifactorial. From the various research studies on the subject, a first trend focuses on the material, sociodemographic, and economic dimensions with the aim of identifying regularities in migration. These studies tend to focus on the economic inequalities (such as those in income and employment volume) between the places of origin and those of destination to explain the phenomenon. These inequalities become pull or push factors, the combination of which leads to the decision to migrate. A second research trend focuses on the human aspects of the migration phenomenon, that is, its social, political, and cultural effects, as well as on the influence of tradition, psychology, and interpersonal relationships. It can be stated that the different migration theories make use of elements from both trends, although one generally predominates over the other (^{Micolta, 2005}).

According to the neoclassical theory, international migration is based on cost-benefit analysis, motivated by differences in wage rates between the countries of origin and destination, and is therefore understood a fundamentally economic phenomenon.

On the other hand, push-pull theory adds new features to the neoclassical perspective, introducing a series of variables called push and pull factors. Push factors include demographic pressure, lack of access to land, low wages, precariousness, lack of political freedom, and persecution, among others. Pull factors are those associated with the potential of the destination country, represented by factors opposite to those understood as push factors. Assessing these factors-plus the cost of travel, temporary support, emotional pain, and adaptation efforts-migrants choose the alternative they consider most advantageous. According to this theory, migration is rational, free, instrumental, and functional, and is also conceptualized as a form of investment (^{Micolta, 2005}; ^{Schiavon, 2022}).

Subsequently, the fragmented labor market theory understood migration as a structural phenomenon determined by unequal exchange between economies. From this perspective, it is estimated that developed countries lack sufficient labor force to fill the unstable, precarious, and low-paying jobs that migrants therefore serve to fill. As such, international labor migration stems from the needs of host societies, either due to the inability of companies to increase wages or the lack of incentives for national workers to perform precarious jobs (^{Micolta, 2005}; ^{Pino et al., 2021}).

From the perspective of the Marxist theory of capitalist accumulation, the displacement of the labor force is only understandable if one takes into account the inequality between different social classes, which in turn arises from the unbalanced development that distinguishes the industrialized central economies from the peripheral ones that provide labor and natural resources, as well as from the dynamics of imperialist exploitation existing between them. From this, natural resources and labor flow from dependent to dominant countries. This theory rejects the idea that the decision to migrate is individual and rather argues that it is due to a set of structural divergences (^{Micolta, 2005}; ^{Martín, 2023}).

On the other hand, the world-systems theory argues that large-scale migration is a direct consequence of economic globalization. This process has led to the destabilization of the lives of millions of people. Farmers, artisans, and state-owned enterprise workers, who previously enjoyed a more secure living, have been forced to leave their homes and become migrants in search of better opportunities. Consequently, neocolonialism has consolidated the power of large multinational corporations, which, in order to maximize profits, concentrate their top-level operations in a small number of global cities, while relocating production and the extraction of natural resources to countries where wages are lower and labor regulations are laxer (^{Martín, 2023}).

Still, other theories have focused on analyzing migration from its social and collective perspective, that is, as a flexible and dynamic process. For example, according to social network theory, migration is determined by the relationships between individuals, which motivate them to migrate, return, or stay. These ties can reduce the costs and risks of migration, as well as enhance its benefits. Similarly, family ties in the place of origin significantly determine the decision to return, and the new ties formed by migrants in the host country influence the decision to stay. This approach highlights the importance of (public, private, and humanitarian) institutions, which, through their activities, help maintain more stable and secure migration flows (^{Casas & Cobarrubias, 2020}).

Similarly, the cumulative causation approach posits that migration movements tend to perpetuate themselves over time, regardless of the conditions that originally triggered them. According to this view, the social, economic, and cultural changes produced by migration become so powerful that they themselves generate resistance to regulation or control (^{Micolta, 2005}; ^{Casas & Cobarrubias, 2020}).

While there is no single, all-encompassing explanation of the nature of migratory flows, these and other theories contribute to a better understanding of them. Likewise, the nature, characteristics, and objectives of human rights have been theorized from different perspectives.

The securitization approach

As hereby seen so far, there is no single approach to studying the phenomenon of migration. A number of modern studies have introduced the issue of militarization and migration control into the academic debate, as public policies that respond to the perception that international migrants pose a danger to national security: this is what is known in contemporary literature as securitization (^{Buzan et al., 1998}; ^{Huysmans, 2000}; ^{Menjívar, 2014}).

For ^{Buzan et al. (1998}), the term “securitization” refers to a political movement that promotes security policies at an extreme priority level for nation States, militarizing and imposing radical measures to contain international immigration.

^{Gabrielli (2014}) examines the term “securitization” and how it relates to the human rights of immigrants in the European Union (EU), from a migration perspective. The author points out that the concept of securitization, as understood thus far, appears to be the only lens through which it is possible to focus on migration phenomena linked to the events of September 11, 2001, in the United States. The specialist pays close attention to the link between the concept of securitization, migration, and the significant consequences this causes on the Euro-African border, that is, a progressive militarization of the external border and multiple violations of the human rights of African migrants (Gabrielli, 2014).

According to this approach, once something is identified as a threat to national security, extraordinary means can be used to defend against such socially constructed threat. As long as a population is labeled as a threat to national security, it immediately becomes a priority for the State (^{Vermeulen, 2018}).

^{Huysmans (2000)} contributes to the analysis of this approach to securitization in the study of migration by studying the case of the EU, where containment policies were justified by the aim of bringing greater security to border countries and developing what is known as Fortress Europe.

This stream of theoretical analysis is important because it is based on understanding the securitization of migration as a process involving multiple political, religious, and academic actors, as well as journalists and experts, who attempt to influence society with the idea that immigrants are a threat and, therefore, a priority for national governments. The objective of these actors is to enable and justify authorities in designing actions to stop this threat, even when these provisions violate the law, the Constitution, and international human rights standards (^{Treviño, 2016}).

In turn, ^{Varela (2015)} states that, as a concept applied to migration, securitization seeks to illustrate the notion of national security as a pillar of national sovereignty, even going beyond police powers of public order.

In an analysis of the recommendations made by jurisdictional authorities in this area, such as the CNDH, regarding human rights violations in migration processes, it was deemed necessary to take into account the securitization approach, as it is closely linked to the factors of vulnerability and adversity endured by migrants, such as abuse of authority, acts of violence, discrimination, and serious violations of the rule of law. Most importantly, in a context in which immigration restrictions on the southern border have led to these scenarios of insecurity and violations of universal rights.

Human rights

Human rights are a set of fundamental guarantees and freedoms that belong to all people, regardless of their nationality, place of residence, sex, ethnic origin, religion, language, or any other condition. These rights are inherent to all human beings from birth and seek to ensure the dignity and respect of every individual. These rights are interdependent, indivisible, universal, and inalienable; that is, they apply to all people and cannot be withdrawn except through due process (^{Human Rights Commission of the Federal District [CDHDF, acronym in Spanish for Comisión de Derechos Humanos del Distrito Federal], 2011}).

According to ^{Tünnermann (1997}), the evolution of what is known today as human rights originates from the biblical provisions of the Old and New Testaments due to their humanistic orientation, but they only took the form of legal rights in the 18th century period known as the Enlightenment, particularly in France.

A first approach for addressing this issue, the naturalist theory, holds that human rights are inherent to the nature of people. This theoretical position is rooted in the philosophy of natural law, which was developed by thinkers such as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. According to this view, human rights derive from universal moral principles that are accessible through reason and that predate the formation of political societies, and therefore must be protected by any just government (^{Díez, 2022}).

There are authors who refer to this early notion of human rights, especially Jean-Jacques Rousseau, as mentioned by ^{Montoya (1989}), arguing that the entire conception of human rights is centered around the ideals of liberty and equality. It is no coincidence that the first Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen emerged in France in 1789, which set forth the natural and inalienable rights of a person. This served as an inspiration for all nations of the worldwide (^{Villalobos, 2012}).

From the above, this led to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, after the experiences of World War II. This arose from the need to set down those rights that had been defended against fascism and Nazism. All signatory countries pledged not to allow the events that occurred in that conflict to repeat themselves and to work together toward transitional justice (^{Bernal, 2015}).

It should be noted that human rights are rights because they imply an adaptation of conduct that takes into account the demands of others, also accounting for the reciprocity inherent in the relationship. This is what ^{Ollero (2009}) argues; therefore, human rights are presented as superior to individualism within the legal framework, because they are based on the true needs or interests of individuals.

For his part, ^{Nikken (1999}) pointed out that what is established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reinforces the dignity of individuals in the face of State abuse. The author also mentioned the existence of a pair of essential characteristics to human rights: inherent because a person has them by virtue of being a person, and a person has innate human rights from birth because they are inherent. The second characteristic identified by ^{Nikken (1999)} is that human rights are affirmed before public authority because the government is responsible for enforcing, guaranteeing, or fulfilling them.

On the other hand, positivist theory posits that human rights are created by laws and social conventions, and therefore do not exist outside the legal framework. From this perspective, human rights are viewed as legal constructs that acquire validity through their acknowledgement and codification in national and international laws; that is to say, they do not have an inherent moral basis and only acquire meaning within the context of a specific legal system. Therefore, positivist theory emphasizes the importance of institutions and political processes in the creation and protection of human rights. This view emphasizes that human rights are contingent and can vary depending on the cultural and political context; therefore, they must be continually negotiated and reinterpreted through law and politics (^{Cotrina, 2020}).

The theory of human rights as a social practice defines them as practices and norms that have evolved over time in response to historical and social contexts; therefore, human rights are dynamic and constantly evolving. Consequently, social practices, struggles for justice, and political mobilization play a crucial role in the formation and recognition of these rights. This approach emphasizes that human rights are not simply granted from above by governments or international institutions, but are rather collectively achieved and redefined. It therefore criticizes universalist impositions that ignore or marginalize local or community realities (^{Díez, 2022}).

On the other hand, capability-based human rights theory focuses on what individuals are capable of doing and being. Rather than focusing exclusively on formal and legal rights, this theory emphasizes the importance of human capabilities for living a dignified and fulfilling life. Here, human rights are seen as instruments to ensure that people can fully develop their capabilities and reach their potential. These capabilities include life, health, physical integrity, meaning, emotion, practical reason, affiliation, and control over one's environment, among others (^{Díez, 2022}).

In turn, critical theory examines how structures of power and domination influence the creation and application of human rights. This theory argues that human rights reflect the interests of dominant groups and are frequently used to perpetuate inequalities, legitimize the status quo, and sustain preexisting power relations. Therefore, collective action, resistance, and struggle, are all necessary to achieve the inclusive and fair application of these rights (^{Cotrina, 2020}).

Additionally, cosmopolitan theory advocates for the idea that human rights transcend national borders and must be guaranteed globally. This view argues that the defense of human rights should be a shared responsibility among all countries of the world, as opposed to exclusivist and nationalist expressions. This theory postulates that human beings, regardless of their nationality or place of residence, are holders of fundamental rights that must be respected and protected, making it necessary to create global institutions and governance mechanisms that can effectively enforce these rights (^{De Julios, 2024}).

In the case of Mexico, certain fundamental rights were established for the first time in the national Constitution of 1917. Still, these guarantees were focused on the security of social, cultural, and economic assets. It was not until the post-war era in the mid-19th century that Mexico joined the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (^{Nikken, 2010}).

Taking into account these philosophical currents surrounding human rights, it is useful to set down what these guarantees are that an individual enjoys. The original Declaration included 30 fundamental and universal human rights, but a total of 50 universal rights can be found today, which can be read on the institutional pages of the United Nations (^{UN, 2024}). These rights, which will not be cited verbatim here for reasons of space, focus on protecting individual guarantees ranging from the right to life, gender equality and parity, freedom of expression, as well as the rights to education, health, and housing, among many others. One of the rights established in this Universal Declaration is Article 11, which establishes the right to free transit and residence. This article enshrines the freedom of any person to migrate in search of a better life.

Methodology

To achieve the stated objective, a documentary review was conducted, including frequency counting and categorization of the texts related to the recommendations issued by the CNDH on migration issues during 2023.

To select the recommendations of interest for our study, the filter provided on the CNDH website was made use of, where different terms were entered to isolate all possible recommendations related to migration matter. The result was that during 2023 the CNDH issued 42 recommendations pertaining to migration.

Frequency counts were conducted to determine the human rights violations included in the 42 recommendations. The nationalities of the affected individuals were then listed, and the actions that led to the reported violations were categorized. A tentative categorization was based on a literature review, which can be found in Table 2.

This categorization was adapted and expanded to be more consistent with the findings of the reviewed recommendations, thus resulting in a proposal for the case of Mexico, which is detailed in the section below.

Results

The context in which this research was carried out is that of a militarized southern border of Mexico under pressure from the U.S. government. During President Donald Trump's first administration in 2019, he warned that he would impose a series of tariffs on Mexican imports if irregular migration into Mexico was not halted. After a few days of negotiation, the Mexican government accepted cooperation and committed to controlling all entry through the southern border, as well as deploying 6,000 military personnel from the National Guard throughout Mexico, particularly in the south (^{Mars & Marcial, 2019}).

It was deemed important to contextualize this analysis, as most of the CNDH recommendations presented here are closely linked to this securitization of migration.

A frequency count revealed that the right most frequently violated during 2023 was the right to legal security, which appears in 40 of the 42 recommendations. Another frequently violated right was that related to personal liberty, mentioned 26 times. These were followed in importance by violations of the right to legality (18 times), the best interests of children (16 times), and due process (11 times) (see Table 3).

On the other hand, the most frequently mentioned authority in these recommendations was the INM, present in 37 of the 42 recommendations. Other institutions mentioned were the Attorney General's Office (FGR, acronym in Spanish for Fiscalía General de la República) with four mentions; the Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance (COMAR, acronym in Spanish for Comisión Mexicana de Ayuda a Refugiados) with one mention; the Attorney General’s Office of the State of Chiapas with one mention; and the governor of the state of Coahuila with one mention.

The nationality most frequently mentioned in these recommendations was Honduran, appearing 10 times. Other notable mentions were Colombian (with seven mentions); Venezuelan (with six); Salvadoran (with five); and Cuban (with five). It is noteworthy that three of the recommendations refer to human rights violations against Mexicans in Mexico, mainly due to them having been confused with people of other nationalities (see Table 4).

To continue the documentary analysis, 18 categories were identified that encompass the different actions that led to human rights violations. Table 5 lists each of them and the frequency with which they appeared in the recommendations studied, as well as a brief description of why they constitute violations.

As can be seen, the most frequent violation was irregular detention for excessive periods, followed by the detention of persons with regular residence or refugee status, and the irregular detention of minors. These violations are generally linked to others in the same recommendation.

Although the objective of this study focuses on the analysis of recommendations, those classified as Recommendations for Serious Violations (RSV) deserve special mention. Unlike the former, RSVs are specific recommendations on cases involving serious human rights violations, such as enforced disappearances, torture, extrajudicial executions, or crimes against humanity. Their purpose is to demand justice and guarantee measures to prevent such violations, as well as to promote significant institutional changes. These recommendations derive from investigations into events with significant social impact that affect multiple victims and often involve several authorities (^{Rodríguez, 2005}).

In 2023, the CNDH issued three RSVs related to immigration issues, which are described next: a) RSV 116VG/2023, dated June 30, 2023. On October 31, 2021, in Pijijiapan, Chiapas, a group of 14 people of various nationalities (Cuban, Brazilian, Ghanaian, and Mexican), three of them minors, were traveling in a van when they were attacked with gunfire from an official National Guard vehicle without warning; the shooting continued despite the victims stopping. As a result of the attack, one person died and five were injured. The victims belonged to the migrant caravan For Freedom, Dignity, and Peace (Por la Libertad, la Dignidad y la Paz). However, on that day, they had separated from the caravan to stock up on food and water. The authorities referred to in the RSV were the Secretariat of Security and Citizen Protection, and the National Guard (^{CNDH, 2024}).

b) RSV 111VG/2023, dated June 30, 2023. On March 27, 2023, a fire broke out inside the Temporary Immigration Shelter in Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua. As a result, 40 people died and 27 were injured. According to testimony recovered during the investigation, on the day of the fire, several Venezuelan nationals entered the shelter and protested the limited food, toilet paper, and water they received (at the start of the protest, it is estimated they had gone 12 hours without water), arguing with the guards. The guards attempted to deescalate the situation, but the food and drinking water had indeed run out. Attempts were made to supply the migrants with tap water, but the water came out yellowish, so they were instructed not to give it to them. The situation escalated. The inmates began banging on the cell door, piling mattresses and setting them on fire with a lighter. They then began shouting at the guards (who were employees of a private security company) for help, but neither they nor the immigration staff opened the door. Faced with this situation, the migrants ran to the restroom to take shelter. However, the area quickly filled with smoke, leading to the poisoning and death of the victims. The authorities identified in this RSV were the Ministry of the Interior (SEGOB), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the National Institute of Migration (INM) (^{CNDH, 2024}).

c) RSV 98VG/2023, dated April 18, 2023. This is a summary recommendation on cases of serious violations of the human rights to liberty, legal security, personal integrity, and dignified treatment, due to acts of illegal detention, illegal retention, acts of torture, enforced disappearance, and extrajudicial execution, as well as violations of the right to the truth and the best interests of children, during the period of political violence by the State, from 1965 to 1990. The recommendation refers to 814 victims and the following authorities: the Attorney General's Office, the Ministry of the Interior (SEGOB), the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit, the Ministry of National Defense, the Undersecretariat of Human Rights and Migration, the Commission for Access to the Truth and Historical Clarification and Justice for Serious Human Rights Violations Committed between 1965 and 1990 (COVEDH), the Executive Commission for Victim Assistance, the National Intelligence Center, the General Archive of the Nation, the Constitutional Government of the State of Guerrero, and the Boards of Directors of the Chambers of the Senate and of Deputies. The objective of this recommendation is to follow up on these cases in coordination with the COVEDH (^{CNDH, 2024}).

Conclusions and discussion

The results of this study are consistent with other recent research published on the topic. For example, ^{Jiménez and Martínez (2021}) found human rights violations against migrants related to violence, abuse, xenophobia, racism, and discrimination, as well as a lack of infrastructure and capacity on the part of the Mexican State.

^{Coporo and Morales (2020}) studied asylum (understood as refuge) as an instrument to guarantee the human rights of migrants, finding that it has become diffuse, ambiguous, and inefficient. It must therefore be redefined so as to provide it with greater scope in the current context, prioritizing its use for human rather than national security.

^{Castillo (2020}) found that human rights violations against Central American migrants in transit through Mexico display measurable characteristics related to the type of migrant population and the institution or authority incurring the violation. These violations, when perpetrated by authorities, were primarily related to the right to physical integrity and the right to seek asylum and refuge.

For ^{Henao and Hincapié (2019}), the violations of the human rights of migrants in transit through Mexico are primarily related to the State’s lack of willingness to comply with regulations. This is linked to the fact that the Mexican government's efforts have focused on expanding surveillance and increasing the presence of security forces across Mexico’s southern border; that is, aligning its immigration strategy with the requests of the United States government.

Similarly, ^{Carreón and Solís (2023}) pointed at the intensification of U.S. immigration policy as a risk factor for the human rights of migrants transiting through Mexico. This was reflected in actions by the Mexican government, such as the deployment of the National Guard in immigration containment efforts, which entail the increasing militarization of these activities.

This study successfully met the stated objectives and verified the proposed hypothesis. This type of study contributes to a better understanding of immigration issues, those of Mexico in this case, and helps identify possible courses of action and areas of opportunity for decision-makers.

The results suggest the need for closer communication with the authorities of certain countries, such as Ecuador, Honduras, Colombia, and Venezuela, whose populations have intensified their migration through Mexico in recent years, in order to establish joint measures to serve this population. Particular attention should be paid to the case of Ecuador, which ranks second in cases of people in an irregular situation and lacks an embassy or consulate for the protection of migrants.

It is essential to streamline and modernize the immigration process if the regulatory deadlines are to be complied with. It is also important to implement protocols that allow people with regular residence, of refugee status, or nationals, to verify their immigration status, even if they do not carry identification documents or are in transit outside their place of residence. It is also important to design documentation with certain characteristics so that its authenticity can be verified remotely.

It is also essential to guarantee the best interests of children and the swift transfer of detained minors to DIF facilities without delay, as well as to establish mechanisms that allow for the reporting of potential acts of corruption and cases of violence against people in migrant accommodation. This will entail allocating the necessary resources to allow for the dignified stay of migrants under detention, guaranteeing their health and safety, as well as their access to justice.

Based on the analysis of the CNDH's recommendations in migration matters, it can be concluded that irregular migration in Mexico requires reassessing the concept of “security” so that, in a broader sense, it may include protecting the integrity of people who, due to their undocumented access or transit, are victims of violence. This position goes against the tendency to classify migrant presence as unwanted and subject to the use of public force.

The ongoing fragmentation was also made evident: on the one hand, a migration policy based on national security and the control of irregular migration has been implemented, and on the other, respect and protection of the human rights of all migrants under the jurisdiction of the Mexican State is presumed.

It is essential to organize migration policies and to keep them coherent, as there is a huge gap between their design and implementation. It is evident that there is little interest in addressing irregular migration and respecting human rights, rather adhering to national security principles.

Despite the change in the partisan alignments of governments and the recurring declarations in favor of the human rights of migrants-including the issuance of national regulations and the overt sympathy for international agreements-the supposed objectives have not been achieved.

Translation: Fernando Llanas.