Debating Expatriate Travel Restrictions in Bahrain: Human Rights vs. Economic Impact

TDT | Manama     

The Daily Tribune – www.newsofbahrain.com

Implementing the recent calls made by parliamentarians for imposing restrictions on expatriates with debts from travelling outside of Bahrain could have drastic economic consequences and violate international conventions, warn experts. Proposals recently made by the MPs include requiring expatriates to produce ‘financial obligation clearance certificates’ to travel, amending the penal code to hold expatriates in indefinite detention until their debts are cleared and to then deport them, and changing the law to allow renewal of travel bans on expats until their debts are paid or guarantors are arranged.

‘Violation of Rights’

Asked whether the implementation of the travel ban on expats with debt amounts to injustice or a violation of rights, Devin Kenney, researcher at Amnesty International’s London office, said, "Yes, if the implementation means potential incarceration. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Bahrain has signed, forbids imprisonment for failure to fulfil a contract, such as failing to pay a debt on time, without any exceptions. In addition, the right to be free to leave any country requires that any restrictions be narrowly tailored and specific.

Therefore, it’s fair to say that under international human rights law, any broad and general debt-based travel ban should be considered a violation of human rights.” Ilya Somin is a law professor at George Mason University, the B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Washington-based think tank Cato Institute, an author, and regularly writes on the topic at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, and several distinguished law journals. Mr. Somin also agreed with the view of the Amnesty International researcher.

He said, “Restricting exit merely because someone contracted a perfectly legal debt is indeed a human rights violation. Foreign workers surely have a right to enter and exit and cannot be required to remain by force if they have not committed any crime. In addition, Article 12, Section 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Bahrain is a signatory, states that ‘everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.’ This proposal strikes me as a pretty clear violation.”

‘Slippery Slope’

Shai Zamanian, who holds a doctorate in law from the University of Miami School of Law, is a US-licensed immigration attorney with over 10 years of experience. Specialised in US investor immigration, he is based in Dubai and is presently the Legal Director of The American Legal Centre.

Talking about the potential effects of a travel ban on expats, Shai said, “Understanding the difficult battle with embassies that would take place, the fallout would be that expats simply would not be able to afford debt instruments such as credit cards, car loans, and home mortgages any longer. Moreover, there is a slippery slope when it comes to this type of regulation, as apartment leases are, in a sense, contractual obligations for future payment.

Would then any tenant not be able to travel either? Immigration would be nearly nonexistent, as every industry relies on debt facilities to function. There would be mass layoffs without signs of new employment opportunities, as businesses would incorporate elsewhere.”

‘A Vicious Cycle’

While the proposals in parliament are to impose travel restrictions on expats with debts, expats say many companies and firms are not paying salaries regularly or are delaying salaries, pushing them into debt. Devin of Amnesty International says this is where the government should step in. “Business owners should be paying salaries on time, with government enforcement where necessary, as a basic matter of law and justice, independent of other considerations.

These two issues shouldn’t be linked because neither thing should be happening: the government shouldn’t be banning indebted migrants from leaving the country without strong cause, and companies also shouldn’t be failing to pay migrants on time for the labour they do,” he stated. Shai of the American Legal Centre agrees. “There should be sanctions on companies that do not pay salaries.

Short of bankruptcy, there is no excuse. Yet, even if your employer pays your salary on time, this does not negate your freedom of travel.” He further explained that banks take on the risk of default while providing loans, and the proposals for regulation would affect the autonomy of banks. “When banks provide a loan, there is a degree of profit and a calculation of risks when they extend that loan. Perhaps the free market needs to adjust per lending practices to protect the bank’s assets.

Such a regulation would strip the banks of autonomy in providing reliable financial tools that residents require,” Shai stated. MP Maryam Al Dhaen, who was the proponent of the proposal for incarceration until payment of debts, said, “We need strict laws and legislation to address the problem, and expatriates must not be allowed to travel unless they are sure that they are not in debt.” She added, “Mechanisms must be put in place to verify the absence of debts before allowing expatriates to leave and to address the problem of transferring permits from tourists or visitors to workers and then to investors.” She explained that there is a large segment that exploits this loophole to obtain financial loans easily and then escape with the money, which would cause major damage and result in instability in the financial market in the Kingdom of Bahrain.