Safeguarding the Rights of Migrant Women, Girls, and Gender-Diverse Persons
New York, NY — 22 October 2025
On the sidelines of the UN General Assembly’s 80th Session, the Women in Migration Network (WIMN), UN Women, and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants co-organized a critical side event to confront the profound and disproportionate human rights implications of migration externalization policies on women, girls, and gender-diverse persons. The event was co-sponsored by OHCHR, the UN Mission of Mexico, ACT Alliance, and Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES).
UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, Mr. Gehad Madi, together with Inkeri Von Hase, of UN Women provided opening remarks. The event panel included testimonies of Macarena Moraga and Nadia Lucero, New Immigrant Community Empowerment (NICE); Hannah Jambunathan, International Detention Coalition (IDC); Patsili Toledo Vásquez, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); Karol Arámbula, ACT Alliance; and Anna Talbot, a PhD candidate at the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law.
Download a PDF of this report (English)
Roula Seghaier, International Coordinator of WIMN, moderated the session which made clear that the growing practice of states to shift border management, asylum processing, detention and returns beyond their own territories—a practice known as externalization—carries profound and disproportionate human rights implications for women, girls, and gender-diverse people.
The central argument, laid out by Mr. Madi, is that externalization is an arrangement rooted in global inequality. “We have to remind ourselves that all externalizing states are developed countries. And all third states are developing countries or even underdeveloped,” he stated. This setup is designed to “shift the responsibility for migration governance from destination states to other states, thereby avoiding international protection obligations.”
Ms. Von Hase connected this geopolitical strategy to its human cost: “For women and girls in all their diversity and for LGBTIQ+ people, the effects are particularly severe.” She stressed that externalization is “part of a broader pattern of deterrence that narrows pathways to safety and dignity, while at the same time reinforcing inequalities.” When policies are centered on deterrence, “women bear the heaviest burden economically, physically, and emotionally.”
The panel established that externalization measures “create a high risk of systemic human rights violations,” with migrants being treated as mere pawns. As Karol Arámbula powerfully articulated, this practice turns “people on the move into bargaining chips in geopolitical negotiations.” Roula Seghaier further contextualized this reality using the words of the political philosopher Hannah Arendt, noting that a person loses all rights “in that moment precisely when somebody becomes… a human and nothing but a human,” no longer protected by a state.
Heightened vulnerability and gendered abuse
Externalization policies do not just restrict movement; they actively create and exacerbate extreme vulnerability. Mr. Madi emphasized that while all migrants are affected, women, girls, and persons with diverse SOGIESC (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Gender Expression, and Sex Characteristics) “face specific and disproportionate harm, compounding their vulnerability and restricting access to protection.”
Testimonies from the ground confirmed this grave reality:
Macarena Moraga and Nadia Lucero shared the lived experiences of those arriving in New York after traversing externalized environments. Ms. Moraga noted that migrants “risk their lives to try to make it to the U.S. and confront all sorts of situations, especially for women, children, and gender diverse people.” Ms. Lucero highlighted the extreme suffering of those waiting at the border, noting that the long period of waiting in Mexico left people victimized. She emphasized the severe conditions at the border, stating: “It’s like, no law, it’s like no human rights exist in this place.” She specified the exposure to sexual violence experienced by women and children during these unprotected periods.
The system itself is a mechanism of abuse. Hannah Jambunathan emphasized that immigration detention—a central feature of externalization—is “incompatible with women, girls and gender diverse people’s human rights.” She detailed how facilities lack gender-specific provisions, stating women and girls lack adequate access to menstrual hygiene products and clean water, which “can lead to or worsen existing health issues.”
Denial of essential care and accountability gaps
The panel focused heavily on the denial of essential health services and the systematic failure of the third states used for outsourcing: Mr. Madi noted that the health consequences of externalization are heavily gendered because “access to some essential reproductive health care can be illegal in some third states.” Professor Talbot elaborated on this, referencing Australia’s Nauru policy, where women were denied adequate care and translation, and where “pregnancy termination was illegal, and the environment was not sterile for childbirth or surgery.
Patsili Toledo Vásquez affirmed the binding legal responsibility of states, noting that CEDAW’s General Recommendation 35 affirms state responsibility for acts committed by state or private agents operating abroad. She insisted that states provide “mandatory and continuous training for all professionals” who interact with women affected by gender-based violence, using a trauma-sensitive approach.
Recommendations: re-humanizing migration governance
The recommendations from the panel converged on a unified demand to halt harmful externalization practices and re-humanize migration governance. The core message is that “Externalization cannot mean outsourcing of responsibility,“ as stated by Ms. Von Hase. States must be held accountable for all migrants, regardless of location. The way forward requires:
1. Ending Harmful Practices: Abolishing externalization models that undermine human rights.
2. Mandatory Assessments: Conducting mandatory gender-responsive human rights impact assessments before any agreement is concluded.
3. Transparency and Oversight: Ensuring full transparency and independent oversight of all agreements.
4. Access to Justice: Guaranteeing accessible complaint mechanisms for women, girls, and gender-diverse persons.
5. Rights-Based Alternatives: Investing in alternatives such as community-based protection systems and alternatives to detention.
In closing, Ms. Arámbula summarized the collective ambition: the call is to “put human dignity at the center of migration policy, not deterrence.” WIMN stands committed to ensuring this principle guides all future migration governance decisions.
As we prepare for the UN International Migration Review Forum (IMRF) in May, WIMN is committed to translating the lessons learned from this crucial event into concrete action at the highest intergovernmental level. We will advocate for the inclusion of strong language in the Progress Declaration to end externalization, guarantee access to justice, and prioritize protection over deterrence. Furthermore, we will urge all states to submit ambitious gender-responsive pledges that concretely address the vulnerabilities faced by migrant women, girls, and gender-diverse persons, ensuring that the Global Compact for Migration’s principle of gender equality is not merely acknowledged, but fully and sustainably implemented.
Ms. Talbot participated via video in the event. Her presentation can be viewed here.