BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The usefulness of landmines is significantly over-represented:

In 1996, military experts from 19 countries signed on to an ICRC policy statement based on an independent study that concluded that mines were of “limited military utility”.[12] This is in part because landmines can be defused by an enemy with relative ease. And, also, they can be worked-around, with tunnels and alternative routes. Finally, as seen below, they also inhibit the movement of those that plant them, which can be particularly dangerous if a military is flanked and forced to move across the mine field.
Landmines in N. Korea are a threat to civilians

"U.S. Use of Landmines in Korea: Myths and Reality." Prepared by the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation." March, 2002: "Myth: Landmines in Korea are not a hazard to civilians. Reality: Seventy-five civilians have died from mine accidents in Korea since 1990 and the number of injuries is much higher; It is estimated that there have been over 1,000 civilian mine victims since the end of the Korean War. Landmines stockpiled for use in Korea are non-self destructing or "dumb" antipersonnel landmines that can remain active for decades."
Only thing between the gun and the bird

The mines are effectively the only things blocking the North Korean menace. Although South Korea's defenses are also formidable, it can be easily crashed by the lines of North Korean artillery and by its irregular and unconventional weaponry, which South Korea is not equipped against, as its armed forces are not suited to fight against irregular forces, which North Korea is mostly made of. That being, South Korea is vulnerable North Korea. And the only thing standing between the gun and the bird is the mines, yet the people sitting behind desks are talking about banning them...
The Mine Ban Treaty has saved many lives

"Mine Ban Advocates Denounce White House Decision to Retain Landmines and Abandon Mine Ban Treaty". US Campaign to Ban Landmines. 27 Feb. 2004: "Since the early 1990s when the mine ban movement began in earnest, the number of mine producing countries has dropped from 54 to 14. Trade of the weapon has come almost to a halt, and more than 52 million antipersonnel landmines have been destroyed from the arsenals of the world. Nations have removed millions of landmines from communities devastated by the weapon and have provided medical and rehabilitative support to victims of landmines. Most importantly, say anti-landmine advocates, casualty rates from the weapon have dropped from approximately 26,000 people per year to 15,000-20,000 per year, though millions more continue to suffer the agricultural, economic, and psychological consequences wrought by the presence of the weapon in more than 80 countries worldwide."
Landmines in Korea would slow down invasion, thin enemy ranks

"South Korea Extols Some of the Benefits of Land Mines". New York Times. 3 Sept 1997: "Every military expert is sure that the United States and South Korean forces could defeat a North Korean attack without using any land mines. But most of the experts say that to slow a North Korean invasion and hasten its end it would be helpful to lay down new mines as well as rely on existing minefields."
Landmines help defend large swaths of territory at little cost.

They permit the defense of an area without requiring large numbers of personnel. This is a legitimate aim both in warfare, when military personnel are spread too thinly to protect all civilians, and in poor countries during peacetime, who would rather invest in their infrastructure than funding the military capacity that would otherwise be required to defend the same ground. In the future, landmines may not be needed. However, whilst armies still depend on conventional weapons and movement – moving tanks and large infantry groups – and borders are weak, the defensive tactic of landmines is highly appropriate: it is cheap, affordable, and maintains borders. Their existence can slow or stop an advance, delaying or even halting conflict; they can deter invasion in the first place. By guarding wide areas from swift armed advance on civilians, they can prevent genocide.[16]
Mine Ban Treaty fails to distinguish between different kinds of mines.

The Americans have mines that can deactivate themselves and can self-destruct. America only manufactures smart mines, and since 1976 the USA has tested 32,000 mines with a successful self-destruction rate of 99.996 per cent. The ban also fails to distinguish between responsible and irresponsible users. Under American deployment, only smart mines are used, and they are used responsibly, being set and removed in a methodical manner.[22]
Landmines in the Korean DMZ do not threaten civilians

This is an important fact in defense of the United States' policies. It illustrates that the United States uses landmines only for a specific zone in a single country, rather than deploying landmines in a widespread effort. This is important because most of the costs associated with landmines relate to the broad use of them in war zones and civilian areas. The United States is certainly not doing this in Korea. US policy, therefore, is not susceptible to the many arguments against landmines.
Landmines serve a humanitarian purpose by deterring war

"South Korea Extols Some of the Benefits of Land Mines". New York Times. 3 Sept 1997 - as supporters of mines here see it, land mines in South Korea are virtually a symbol of peace and security [...] 'Many people talk about the humanitarian aspects of land mines,' said Lieut. Gen. Park Yong Ok, the Deputy Defense Minister and a fervent defender of the mines. 'Deterrence of war is more humanitarian than anything. If we fail to deter war, a tremendous number of civilians will be killed. And the use of land mines is a very effective way of deterring war.'"
"Smart mines" almost never fail to self-destruct

Richard L. Garwin. "Beyond the Ottawa treaty : On land mines, America is a humanitarian leader". 20 Mar. 2004: "Permitted mines must also be self-deactivating — that is, they must be powered by a battery which will exhaust itself in 120 days or less if self-destruction fails. But such failure is most unlikely. In more than 65,000 tests under a wide variety of conditions, no activated U.S. self-destructing mine has failed to self-destruct."
Landmines can be deployed judiciously with 0 risk to citizens

Jim Coles 3d, a civilian spokesman for the 37,000 American troops in South Korea: "The use of mines here is extensive but judicious, aimed at preventing breakthroughs and not just at blowing people up."[7] When the use of landmines is targeted and isolated in this particular way, the risks to civilians - both immediate and long-term - are minimal, while the defensive military value is very high.
Non-ratification of Migrant Workers Convention undermines state values

"Europe, It's Time to Ratify the Migrant Workers Convention." International Federation for Human Rights. June 21, 2010: "The Migrant Workers Convention is one of the nine core United Nations human rights instruments. It has now been ratified by 42 states and a further 16 have signed up and are in the process of ratification. Yet, to date, no EU Member State has signed or ratified the Convention. Non-ratification brings the core values of the EU into question. The Member States of the European Union can no longer fall behind but must demonstrate in concrete terms their willingness to be held accountable for migrants as they have done for decades in relation to international treaties protecting other vulnerable groups, such as women and children."
"Abusive" treatment of illegals is a matter of interpretation.

What constitutes "unfair treatment" or "abuse" in a nation's immigration policy is a subject for interpretation under the Migrant Workers Treaty. In the United States, for example, people can be fined or held legally liable for aiding or employing illegal immigrants. Some consider this abusive. And, the United States has created a wall on its southern border. Is this abusive? These are all matters for interpretation based on US national interests, but the concern is that the UN will deem some of these actions or policies "abusive" or "inhumane", and thereby consider them unlawful under the Migrant Workers Convention.
Migrant rights have been eroded in many states

Marie Barrel. "The United Nations Convention on Migrant’s rights, a Luxury for the European Union?" Notre Europe. December 2006: "The Erosion of Rights in Europe. [...] there is no denying the fact that the national texts have, everywhere in Europe, undergone deep modifications, restricting the rights of legal migrants. A survey of the legislation recently passed or still in preparation on the admission of immigrants and their families goes a long way to invalidate the idea that the ratification of the convention is unnecessary."
Human rights are subject to interpretation under Migrant Workers Treaty.

Some people consider access to the Internet to be a "human right". Others consider the ability to cross borders freely as a "human right". The definition of human rights is constantly expanding. It is for this reason that accepting a Migrant Workers Treaty that protects a migrant's "human rights" is risky. It could mean that these migrant's rights are interpreted by some in the UN to be broader and more inclusive than a state thinks they should be, and makes it possible that these rights only expand over time.
Compliance with migrant rights treaty could be expensive.

In order for governments to comply with the Migrant Rights Treaty, they will have to enforce it within their territories, which requires spending money and directing resources toward creating new laws and/or tweaking old laws in order to ensure compliance with the treaty, and in order to ensure employers and institutions are in compliance. Businesses must spend money to ensure they are in compliance as well. While this alone does not disqualify the treaty, it is important to recognize it as a cost and a con.
Full welfare should be reserved for the citizens of a nation.

While it may be acceptable for migrants to receive certain social services while working in a country, much of a nation's social services should be made unavailable to them. Social Security and Medicaid, for example, are based on individuals paying into the system for years, and thus having a legitimate claim to draw from the programs in their time of need. Migrant workers fall outside this equation, so should not have the same rights to these benefits as full citizens.
Migrant rights treaty protects right to enter labor unions

"Saudi Arabia/GCC States: Ratify Migrant Rights Treaty." Human Rights Watch. April 10th, 2003: "Restrictions on the right to organize and join trade unions. In all the Gulf states, laws and regulations either prohibit or restrict migrants’ participation in independent trade union activities. Article 40(1) of the convention provides for the right of migrants 'to form associations and trade unions in the State of employment for the promotion and protection of their economic, social, cultural and other interests.' Article 26 affirms the right to join such groups and freely participate in their meetings and other activities."
Massive growth of migration demands greater protections

Jason Deparle. "Global Migration: A World Ever More on the Move." New York Times. June 26th, 2010: "One reason migration seems so potent is that it arose unexpectedly. As recently as the 1970s, immigration seemed of such little importance that the United States Census Bureau decided to stop asking people where their parents were born. Now, a quarter of the residents of the United States under 18 are immigrants or immigrants’ children. The United Nations estimates that there are 214 million migrants across the globe, an increase of about 37 percent in two decades. Their ranks grew by 41 percent in Europe and 80 percent in North America. 'There’s more mobility at this moment than at any time in world history,' said Gary P. Freeman, a political scientist at the University of Texas. The most famous source countries in Europe — Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain — are suddenly migrant destinations, with Ireland electing a Nigerian-born man as its first black mayor in 2007."
Migrant Rights Convention allows for sovereign control of migration

Article 79 of The United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families provides that “[n]othing in the present Convention shall affect the right of each State Party to establish the criteria governing admission of migrant workers and members of their families”.[7] Such a broad statement allows for the robust exercise of sovereign decision-making on the criteria for immigration. Migrant-receiving states should rest assured that they will have the flexibility necessary to adjust their policies to deal with their specific migration issues.
Increasing migrant rights can cause international tensions

Stanley Pignal. "EU faces threat to migration principle." Financial Times. September 28 2010: "Viviane Reding, the EU’s justice commissioner, is looking to reprimand a clutch of member states, perhaps as many as a dozen, for failing to implement fully the 2004 European law guaranteeing free movement for citizens, but on technical grounds – such as for failing to ensure full legal rights for migrants – rather than for fundamental breaches. In dealing with this dossier, there are worries that Brussels may open a Pandora’s box as it seeks to enhance the working of the rules in favour of migrants. These are turbulent political waters for the European Commission, which as an unelected supranational body has steered clear of immigration issues, among the most sensitive topics in any of its 27 member states. Indeed, officials worry her actions could spark an adverse reaction from some member states, for example by tying intra-EU migration with the more contentious debate regarding new arrivals from outside the EU. 'If the European Commission pushes too hard on this, and rubs member states the wrong way, you could easily see a politicisation of the internal migration debate, which has so far benefited hugely from not being a political debate at all,' said one national diplomat."
Migrant remittances are growing and need greater protections

Jason Deparle. "Global Migration: A World Ever More on the Move." New York Times. June 26th, 2010: "the money involved, which not only sustains the families left behind but props up national economies. Migrants sent home $317 billion last year — three times the world’s total foreign aid. In at least seven countries, remittances account for more than a quarter of the gross domestic product." These remittances need greater protections.
Migrant rights treaty can conflict with immigration control policies.

While it appears logical to confer more "rights" onto migrants under international law, some of these "rights" can run directly contrary to the national interests of a country. For example, the Migrant Workers Convention highlights family reunification as, essentially, a right that signatories must recognize and facilitate. For some countries that are crowded, and that already have significant immigrant populations, facilitating this provision of the treaty could result in significant "reunifications", greater overpopulation, and the worsening of standards of living for other citizens. So, ultimately, what might be "important" to a migrant worker might be harmful to a host country and its population. This is why countries like the UK resist signing the Migrant Workers Convention on the basis that the UK's policies already strike the “right balance between the need for immigration control and the protection of the interests and rights of migrant workers and their families”.[1]
Migrant Workers Convention protects sovereignty on family reunification

UNESCO: "The Migrant Workers Convention in Europe: Obstacles to Ratification." 2007: "Article 79 of the treaty provides that '[n]othing in the present Convention shall affect the right of each State Party to establish the criteria governing admission of migrant workers and members of their families'; whereas state’s responsibilities in terms of family reunification under Article 44 are limited to taking such measures 'as they deem appropriate to facilitate the reunification of migrant workers with their spouses… as well with their minor dependent unmarried children.' In language as heavily qualified as this, leaving such a wide discretion open to states, it is difficult to see any obligation of any sort, let alone one that could present a serious obstacle to ratification."[4]
Expanding migrant rights can damage national identity

Maintaining an original ethnic and cultural structure, government, and overall citizenship is the base argument of many opponents of immigration and expanding migrant rights. This ethno-cultural type of thinking is an accepted practice in many countries that are populated by one ethnic group. Is Israel, for example, wrong to term itself a "Jewish state"? Is there something inherently wrong with its efforts to maintain this identity? Probably not, and it certainly constrains how far migrant rights can be expanded with a treaty that forbids discrimination against migrant workers on the basis of race, religion, etc; sometimes such "discrimination" or selectivity can be legitimate.
Migrants are flourishing economically; greater protections unnecessary

Jason Deparle. "Global Migration: A World Ever More on the Move." New York Times. June 26th, 2010: "rich, aging countries need workers. People in poor countries need jobs. And the rise in global inequality means that migrants have more than ever to gain by landing work abroad. Migration networks are hard to shut down. Even the worst economy in 70 years has only slowed, not stopped, the growth in migration. And it is likely to grow, in numbers and consequence." If migrants are gaining so much from the most open borders in world history, why is it that they need more protections?
International migration treaty limits sovereign migration policy.

The United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families would limit the sovereign rights of states to decide upon who can enter their territory and for how long they can remain. While this might not be a problem for countries of origin of migrants, it is certainly a central concern for migrant-receiving nations like the United States, Australia, in Europe, India, and Indonesia. Every state has its own set of issues to deal with as they relate to migration (ie, overpopulation, crime, deficits, national identity, etc.), and many believe they must have the independent flexibility to tailor their immigration policies to meet these issues. That's why an international treaty is seen as a potential liability to states that feel immigration policy must be fully within their own control.
Family reunification right is obstacle to migrant rights treaty.

States have leveled as an argument against the Migrant Workers Convention, and against other possible international migrant treaties, concerns about a robust right of family reunification to all migrant workers present in migrant-receiving countries. This could offer family members a right to migrate into the state in question, resulting in large increases in population size. And, there is no doubt that the text of the Migrant Workers Convention aims to create a "right" to family reunification. Even if it provides flexibility on how a nation attempts to facilitate re-unification, it still requires that states reunite families in some way. Under this treaty, therefore, any migrant could sue the state for not allowing their family (and perhaps extended family) to immigrate as well. In overpopulated and strained migrant-receiving countries - particularly in Wester Europe - such a proposition is untenable, which is why so many migrant-receiving nations oppose the treaty. And, even if one goes so far as to call the text of the treaty as merely "aspirational" on family reunification, placing no legally binding obligations on states, such "aspirational" language still provides migrant-receiving nations with reason to pause; why should a nation sign an international agreement that contains "aspirations" not shared by the nation?
Global migration is a problem; solution: reduce migration

Victor Davis Hanson. "The Global Immigration Problem." Real Clear Politics. May 31, 2007: "In Germany, Turkish workers - both legal and illegal - are desperate to find either permanent residence or citizenship. 'Londonstan' is slang for a new London of thousands of unassimilated Pakistani nationals. In France, there were riots in 2005 because many children of North African immigrants are unemployed - and unhappy. Albanians flock to Greece to do farm work, and then are regularly deported for doing so illegally. The list could go on. [...] The lasting solution is not the status quo - or even walls, fines, deportation, amnesty or guest-worker programs. Instead, failed societies in Latin America, Africa and much of the Middle East must encourage family planning and get smarter about using their plentiful natural wealth to keep more of their own people home."
Myths about migrants aim to dehumanize them

"Fact-checking the Israeli government’s incitement against migrants and refugees." Migrant Rights. October 1st, 2010: "The most common myth about migrant workers and especially refugees is that they are prone to criminality (whether because of their culture/race or due to want).[...] A second common myth that is aggressively promoted by the Israeli government is that migrant workers take jobs from Israelis [...] All these myths rob migrant workers and refugees of their humanity, and are aimed at portraying them as less deserving of our sympathy and help. Incitement against migrants exists in all societies, and myths that portray them as outsiders coming to exploit the resources of the state and threats are often promoted by politicians."
Migrant workers treaty gives illegals fewer rights/protections.

The treaty recognizes that illegal aliens cannot be treated in the same way as legal migrant workers; that such legal workers have more rights and protections. But, it ensures that these illegal aliens are treated humanely, legally, and responsibly by host governments, whether it be in finding them, arresting them, deporting them, or in integrating them into society with some kind of a path to citizenship. National laws already demand such humane action, so the migrant workers treaty hardly does anything new that Western governments should find objectionable in this regard.
Migrants don't need protecting; our jobs need protecting

"Economic costs of legal and illegal immigration." Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform: "FAIR research suggests that between 40 and 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled Americans is due to the immigration of low-skilled workers. Some native workers lose not just wages but their jobs through immigrant competition. An estimated 1,880,000 American workers are displaced from their jobs every year by immigration." So, why are migrants deserving of "protection"? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Don't the national workers of a state deserve protection from migrant workers and the jobs they are taking?
Failure to ratify migrant workers convention draws rebukes from UN.

"Human Rights Abuses in Plain Sight: Migrant Workers in the US." Huffington Post. December 18, 2009: "The failure of the U.S. to address human rights violations facing migrant workers has drawn sharp rebukes from the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Migrants, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, and the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination."