The latest human mobility statistics demand attention. In 2024, the UN Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs estimated that there were 304 million international migrants worldwide—a number that has most likely grown significantly in this post-pandemic world. If migration wasn’t already a hot topic, its salience today is undeniable. It dominates political discourse, fuels electoral outcomes, and often triggers reactionary policymaking rather than proactive governance.
The numbers alone should lead us to two key questions: Why are people crossing borders more today than ever before? And, are the current mechanisms of migration management fit-for-purpose to meet modern-day trends?
In a recent New York Times opinion piece, journalist Lydia Polgreen examines this phenomenon as something both inevitable and extraordinary. She argues that “the figure of the migrant is deeply misunderstood” and that human movement has always been “inextricably tied with human progress.” But in contrast to historical trends, migration today is met with increasing hostility, belying the economic and social abundance it has historically yielded.
Amy Pope, writing in Foreign Affairs, sheds light on why this potential for “human progress” through mobility is being stifled. She points to a structural failing in global migration governance: the widening gap between labor visa availability and the unintended misuse of the asylum system. The inability to provide regulated pathways for migration has led to an overburdened refugee system, further fueling populist backlash. Instead of creating durable solutions, governments are retreating behind restrictive policies—policies that only escalate disorder and human suffering.
We are at a tipping point. The world urgently needs a comprehensive, modernized framework that reframes international protection beyond the outdated binary approach of the 1951 Refugee Convention, while also establishing a robust system to manage an increasingly globalized workforce. Without such a mechanism, we risk a future where states begin to indiscriminately close their borders. Unfortunately, this is already happening, as the newly transitioned administration in the United States prioritizes deterrence above all else, prompting similar restrictive policies in European countries like Hungary and Poland.
But what if a governance model already existed? One that calculated how to harness the thriving potential of human mobility, as Polgreen envisions, while simultaneously addressing the real policy gaps that Pope identifies?
The Model International Mobility Convention (MIMC): A Governance Framework for the 21st Century
In 2015, over 40 leading experts in migration, human rights, labor economics, national security, and refugee law convened for a two-year deliberation process. Their goal: to design a comprehensive legal framework for human mobility. The result was the Model International Mobility Convention (MIMC), a legal document comprising 165 articles across eight chapters that aims to modernize migration governance in a way that is both pragmatic and rights-based.
Unlike the Global Compacts for Migration and Refugees, which rely on voluntary cooperation, MIMC goes a step further. It provides a structural framework for reform, addressing migration holistically and introducing a governance mechanism that prioritizes predictability, protection, and opportunity. Three core areas demonstrate its viability:
- A New Category for Forced Migrants: While Pope highlights the increasingly questioned viability of the asylum system, which is already under immense pressure, MIMC offers a solution: a forced migrant category that ensures protection to individuals facing modern-day threats to lives—such as climate-induced disasters and food insecurity— that were not addressed by the 1951 Refugee Convention. The MIMC simultaneously reaffirms the rights of traditional refugees, preventing the conflation of economic migrants with those fleeing persecution. This will ensure that both groups receive appropriate and tailored responses.
- A Coordinated International Mechanism for Migration Management: Today’s migration policies are reactionary and fragmented. MIMC proposes a global coordination mechanism that enables structured pathways for movement. It affirms the sovereign right to control borders, but it also opens pathways for deepened international cooperation. This includes a digital labor platform that aligns workforce demand with migration flows—a concept pioneered in civil society but lacking governmental scale.
- A Distributive Labor Visa Approach: Recognizing the critical role migration plays in economic stability, MIMC offers a labor mobility system. Designed to match skills with demand, this system keeps access to livelihoods at the center while reducing irregular migration.
These are not abstract ideas. In fact, they build upon successful local and regional initiatives, demonstrating that the world already possesses the knowledge and tools to govern migration effectively. MIMC’s approach simply scales these best practices to an international level—turning fragmented innovations into a unified global response.
De-Politicizing Migration: A Call for Pragmatic Cooperation
To overcome political deadlock and help the Global North recognize migration as a structural reality integral to its prosperity, the MIMC offers a roadmap that fosters international cooperation, establishes legal pathways, and enhances economic integration—depoliticizing migration and reframing it as a matter of governance rather than crisis.
Polgreen and Pope have laid out the stakes. The question is whether policymakers will continue to react with short-term restrictions or finally embrace a solution that matches the scale of human mobility in the 21st century. The time for a crisis-driven approach has passed. The world needs a viable governance system—and MIMC is the mechanism to get us there.
Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs is an independent and nonpartisan nonprofit. The views expressed within this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Carnegie Council.
