Results are excerpts from the referenced publication, and may not be current at the time of the search. Please also note the database is currently in its testing phase. We would welcome any feedback at [email protected]

  • Right to education for non-citizen children (multiple countries)
  • Argentina
  • The fundamental right of all children to education, regardless of their legal status, is recognized in Argentina, Belgium, Chile, Italy, Spain, Thailand, the Netherlands and Uruguay. In France, there is a ministerial circular to the same effect.

    Italy guarantees to migrant children the right to education, regardless of their status, on the same terms as Italian children. The 1998 Immigration Act integrates the right to education in national legislation. It provides for the compulsory education of migrant children, the teaching of Italian, and the promotion of the culture and language of the countries of origin of migrant children.

    Chile guarantees access to public education to migrant children and adolescents, regardless of their migration status (Ministry of Education, Ordinary Communication N°07/1008 of 2005).In 2016, a new procedure was established to facilitate the enrolment of irregular migrant children

    The US Supreme Court ruled in the landmark Plyler v. Doe case in 1982, that it was a violation of the Constitution to deny irregular migrant children free compulsory education under the same conditions as citizens and regular migrant children. The legal ruling has been complemented by guidelines, for instance those produced by the National School Boards Association and the National Education Association, regarding legal issues and specific schools. A number of States have fully implemented this ruling to include access to other school-based services, such as free and reduced-price meals and educational assistance for children with learning disabilities.

    In 2005, Thailand’s Ministry of Education instructed school directors to enrol all children, including irregular migrant children, so they could access free basic education.
  • Law
  • Minimum Standards
  • Respect of fundamental rights
  • Undocumented or irregular migrants
  • Children
  • Restrictive migration policy in Argentina
  • Argentina
  • On January 30, 2017, Argentina’s president Maruicio Macri announced an urgent decree (Decreto de Necesidad y Urgencia 70/2017) that modifies the country’s current immigration law, replacing it with a more restrictive migration policy that represents a concerning step backward in terms of international and regional human rights commitments. This change comes as part of more restrictive migration policy and practice observed generally in Argentina, including increased operations to seek out and arrest irregular migrants, along with the creation of a new immigration detention center in 2016, the first in the country. Among other changes, Decree 70/2017 increases maximum time limits for immigration detention from 30 to 60 days and establishes indefinite detention for anyone who legally challenges a removal order. The decree allows for persons to be detained at the beginning of the immigration, even before a removal order is issued, and no longer considers family reunification as criteria for limiting unnecessary detention. The result is that immigration detention in Argentina is no longer the exception, as required by international human rights law. These new regulations also seriously limit access to justice and due process, allowing for a limited three days to challenge a removal order, and only three days more to appeal an initial decision on this order. Additionally, these measures are only available to those who are able to gain access to legal representation.
  • Law
  • Liberty
  • Establish a presumption of liberty
  • Migrants
  • All
  • Respecting the right to liberty in Argentina
  • Argentina
  • Immigration detention is limited in law and practice to rare instances during deportation procedures. Deportation and detention are both decisions that can only be authorized by judicial order, with detention used only as a final resort after all other remedies are exhausted. Such an order can only be issued in two cases: (i) for a specific period of time as a precautionary measure before a final immigration decision where a risk of non-compliance with a deportation order is proven; and (ii) for a maximum of 15 days to effect deportation where the judge determines that a removal order is final. Before deportation, a person must be given the opportunity to explore all options to regularise their status, within a set deadline. In practice, migrants who have been committed to prison for criminal offences are the only immigration detainees (Article 70, Immigration Law No. 25.871; Article 70, Regulation 616/2010)
  • Law
  • Liberty
  • Establish a presumption of liberty
  • Migrants
  • All