A/HRC/37/51 international intergovernmental processes, such as the Global Forum on Development and Migration, actively engage in efforts to promote labour export and migrant guest worker programmes as a means of development. Viewing people on the move as an economic issue has led to a series of policies and practices that too often treat them as silent commodities to be exploited in the national labour market. People on the move are incorporated into the international labour market in a restricted manner; their capacity to exercise their labour power may be more fully engaged, as they escape unemployment or underemployment in their home regions or countries, but the terms of this engagement are circumscribed. They are, in effect, incorporated into the economy on terms not dissimilar to other inputs in the production process; their capacity to exercise their labour power is no more than a commodity. 28. An important consequence of this commodification is precariousness: policies targeting people on the move often deliberately leave them with only a temporary or uncertain status. They face conditions of uncertainty, disempowerment, vulnerability and insufficiency. They are excluded from the hard-won protections of labour and social rights because of their lack of belonging. Immigration regimes often compound and perpetuate their precarious situation; for example, the immigration status of a migrant worker is often linked to his or her employment with a single individual employer, needs to be regularly reviewed, or is made contingent upon the views of the employer as to whether that person has been a “good” worker. Receiving societies often capitalize on or engineer the fear that people on the move have of being detected, detained or deported in order to ensure that they will not complain, protest or mobilize. People on the move with an irregular status are often trapped in such a condition by the lack of opportunities to regularizes it, leading to heightened vulnerability. The prolonged precariousness experienced by many people on the move poses obstacles both for them, when they defend their own rights, and for traditional defenders acting on their behalf, such as trade unions. B. Securitization of migration 29. Migration is increasingly viewed through the lens of national security. References in discourse to “crisis” and existential threats to the community predispose States and other actors to responding with urgent or extraordinary measures. The characterization of people on the move as a security concern is a political act and serves particular interests, including by affording political legitimacy to unusual actions by the State and supporting partisan political agendas – the irony being that many individuals become people on the move in response to threats to their own security, including economic poverty, political repression and armed conflict. Some States have deliberately pursued the securitization of migration to further their own political ends; for example, the Government of Hungary prosecuted a migrant from the Syrian Arab Republic for terrorism for using a megaphone to ask the police to communicate with refugees and migrants at the border, and after throwing three solid objects at them. The prosecution both scapegoated an individual for a much larger issue and sought to depict as dangerous not only people on the move but also those who seek to defend their rights. 30. It is too often forgotten that these responses, and the related phenomena of nationalism and xenophobia, can themselves be seen as threats to the State, its interests and its values. The protection of the rights of people on the move can be an expression of core national values, a demonstration of solidarity with allies and a response to counter destructive extremist politics; thus, while security rhetoric can be used to justify a stricter migration policy, it can also be used to legitimize extraordinary actions in favour of migrants. C. Citizenship 31. Even though all human beings have human rights, some States (and private actors) all too often discriminate between citizens and non-citizens; public discourse and political debates reproduce this distinction, differentiating between deserving “locals” and undeserving “newcomers”. The international human rights movement (and often its 9