Walking the Wire: International Edition (English)

On May 25, in Pakistan, the decision to revoke passports and file First Information Reports (FIRs) against repatriated citizens is presented as an effort to safeguard national honor. This rationale suggests that these people bring shame upon their homeland when overseas, highlighting a shift towards prioritizing public image rather than crafting effective policies. However, penalizing those without influence typically does little to enhance a country’s reputation.

It’s impossible to overlook the concerning figures: In just the last 16 months, Saudi Arabia has expelled more than 5,000 Pakistani individuals who were begging. Such accounts (along with numerous others reported globally) highlight the financial hardship that pushes people towards extreme measures. While tackling this issue is indeed an appropriate objective for policies, blanket criminalization of those returning without considering their personal situations would be both unjust and unwise.

Although the Passports Act permits authorities to withdraw travel papers when matters involve national interests, using this act against vulnerable individuals facing deportation, particularly those who haven’t been convicted of crimes, challenges both legal boundaries and rational judgment. A passport signifies more than just identification; it serves as evidence of one’s citizenship. Taking away someone’s passport could leave them essentially stateless, denying them access to their fundamental rights and freedom of movement.

As a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Pakistan must ensure protection for its citizens’ freedom of movement and their identities. Broad prohibitions without thorough individual assessment contravene international standards and echo troubling worldwide patterns wherein deportees and refugees have their rights curtailed under the guise of appearances.

The impact on humans is genuine. Those who are deported frequently come back destitute—without savings, lacking a support system, and potentially without proper documentation. Charging them with crimes or adding them to blacklists merely drives more individuals towards unauthorized migration and exposes them to trafficking rings. Such measures might not stop illicit movements; instead, they could exacerbate the situation.

What is more concerning is the diversion away from addressing the underlying issues. High unemployment rates, rising inflation, and limited prospects drive individuals to migrate. Concentrating solely on those who are deported overlooks the internal shortcomings that compelled these people to seek opportunities elsewhere initially.

Pakistan requires structural reforms such as skills training, secure migration channels, and reintegration initiatives rather than superficial news stories.

The remittances sent back to Pakistan by Overseas Pakistani citizens surpass $30 billion each year. Given the nation’s frequent challenges with economic instability, such financial contributions are akin to essential support systems. Marginalizing the expatriate community or criminalizing those who could potentially contribute would be counterproductive for all involved parties. Instead, what is required is a firm commitment to target and dismantle the networks and individuals facilitating illicit operations.

Improving our reputation internationally won’t happen through penalizing the less fortunate. Instead, it will occur when we treat all of our citizens justly and put resources into understanding their departure.