security of poor classes. The immigrant-migrant divide must be seen in this respect. Open borders may be a happy prospect for rich immigrants settling in new countries, but are not such a welcome prospect for other poor classes such as migrant workers and refugees.
States have also been interested in perpetuating their interests of security. In this respect, they have benefited from labour flows and capital flows that the processes of globalisation make possible. Both the host country (hosting refugees and migrant workers) as well as the country of origin benefit from such capital and labour flows. Migrants from Kerala working as white collared labour in countries in Gulf, migrants from Sri Lanka who work as housemaids or domestic help in countries like Lebanon and other countries in West Asia have helped both the host country and the country of origin benefit from remittances sent home by migrants.
States have even attempted to provide for the security of industrial employers. For instance, America has made it possible for employers to hire paperless Mexican workers that exempt the employers from providing any protection and allow these employers to give them low wages. 
States have also attempted, in the interests of globalisation, to ensure security of spaces. This they have attempted to do, by ridding local spaces of slum squalor. They have attempted to wipe out illegality and traces of squalor in carrying out beautification, commercialisation projects that advertise erstwhile slum localities to be tourist destinations. 
States have on the other hand, not attempted to provide for security of livelihood. They have not gone out of the way to enquire into loss of various entitlements that result out of displacement and migration. Bhutanese refugees in Nepal, Chechen IDPs in the Russian Federation have all suffered from the apathy of the respective countries they migrated to. They have on the contrary taken away these rights in the context of 

such instances such as the Gujarat riots. In this regard, it was noted by the participants that there is overwhelming global support for terrorist, militant and fundamentalist activities. On the other hand, there has been a tendency to associate the categories of migrant and terrorist, using terrorist rhetoric to systematically cut off migrants from human rights. Thus, states have not recognized the need to pay attention to vulnerability and have not heeded the call of human security in their global concerns.
At the end of the discussions, the participants made the following recommendations to the plenary. While acknowledging the right of asylum countries to introduce citizenship exams, Participants noted that these countries also have a duty to provide refugees with proper language/legal support so they have a better chance of passing the citizenship exams and to integrate in their countries of asylum. It was noted that there is a general need for generating awareness campaigns relating to citizenship of women IDPs’/Migrants.  The campaign should not only target women IDPs/Migrants, but should also be aimed at all other important stakeholders (legislators, government officials, host communities, etc.) Many countries seem to be dealing with citizenship issues on an ad hoc basis. Therefore participants recommended that countries in South Asia and elsewhere need to come up with proper policy/legal framework to look into the citizenship issues of the displaced persons. It was also agreed that states have also been heinously negligent of gender security. There have been no attempts to frame universal, global laws of protection for women against social, sexual and financial exploitation. The absence of legal counselling for poor immigrating women in America and other countries of the developed west as well as elsewhere is only one of the aspects of gender security that states have ignored to take note of. The participants agreed that the existing notions of globalisation, the globalisation