A/68/283 to limit immigration due to economic interests, even though there are labour needs in their countries that remain unmet and often unrecognized. In addition, perceived security interests often trump States’ human rights considerations despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of migrants, including those crossing borders irregularly, pose no security threat. The Special Rapporteur believes that some of the underlying reasons for States not wanting to engage more in global migration governance are due to political pressure at the national level and the populist anti-immigrant discourse which is increasingly present in countries all over the world. 88. Migration benefits not only States of origin, for example in terms of remittances and the transfer of social and cultural knowledge, but also States of destination, which often have labour shortages and rely on migrant workers, both high- and low-skilled, as well as in terms of cultural diversity and knowledge exchanges, among others. If States were to agree to cooperate more on migration governance, they would be able to maximize and better redistribute these benefits. Such cooperation would not preclude States from determining the number of labour migrants, as already noted in relation to the European Union’s system. 89. Migration is one of the main manifestations of globalization, which cannot be managed unilaterally by national migration policies. International cooperation is necessary to achieve national policy goals. There is no doubt that all States will benefit from a strengthened framework on global migration governance. No State can, on its own, or even jointly with a few other States through bilateral or regional cooperation, discuss migration in a comprehensive way. The Special Rapporteur observes that States’ reluctance to strengthened migration governance seems to be based on the misconception that this will limit their sovereignty. 90. States have the power to determine who enters and stays in their territory. More governance does not mean giving up this sovereignty. On the contrary, States would have more control if there was more migration governance. More governance simply means improving the coordination and cooperation between States, leading to better-governed migration that would better respect the human rights dimension, thus further protecting States from allegations of human rights abuses against migrants. As the scope and complexities of migration continue to grow, the alternative to more robust global migration governance is a highly unregulated system with a range of uncoordinated actors, including from the private sector. More migration governance would also assist States in combating the exploitation of migrants by, inter alia, traffickers, smugglers, recruitment agencies and unscrupulous employers. 91. The Special Rapporteur is of the view that sovereignty will be more limited by insufficient global migration governance, which will in fact facilitate the role of other actors, such as exploitative migrant smugglers and employers. Currently, migrants themselves, often with the help of migrant smugglers, are crossing borders regardless of State policies. They migrate irregularly owing to a lack of legal migration channels and largely in response to unrecognized needs in the labour market, as migrants are often willing to do the “dirty, difficult and dangerous” jobs that nationals will not at the exploitative wages that unscrupulous employers will offer. If States were to recognize their labour needs, including for low-skilled work, and open up more regular migration channels, this would lead to fewer irregular border crossings, less smuggling of migrants, less loss of life at borders, less labour 13-42115 17/26