• Je vais mettre ici quelques informations et documents que j’ai trouvé concernant la question de la prise d’ #empreintes_digitales de demandeurs d’asile, notamment de la part de l’#Italie et de la #Grèce, en vue de leur #enregistrement et #identification dans la base de données #Eurodac.
    C’est pour la préparation d’un chapitre de livre que je suis en train d’écrire, mais je me dis qu’il s’agit d’informations qu’il est bien garder quelque part, sachant que pas tout va in fine rentrer dans le chapitre...

    NB : Il y a déjà des informations sur ce sujet sur seenthis :
    https://seenthis.net/recherche?recherche=%23r%C3%A9fugi%C3%A9s+%23empreintes_digitales

    Les informations compilées ici n’ont pas un vrai ordre chronologique ou logique. L’ordre est dicté par l’avancée de mes recherches... chaotiques...

    cc @isskein

    • Hotspots and Relocation Schemes: the right therapy for the Common European Asylum System?

      The arrivals observed throughout 2015 have been concentrated in both Greece – accounting for more than 800,000 in 2015 alone – and Italy. These two “frontline” states, have been faced with the formidable logistical challenge of organising the first reception and identification of migrants. A full implementation of Dublin and EURODAC would have made the challenges even more difficult. Frontline states would have been responsible for fingerprinting all arriving persons, receiving their claims, and in most cases – given that Dublin assigns responsibility primarily to the state of first entry – processing them as well as organizing long-term reception or return.

      Many of these responsibilities have remained virtual. A large number of those who arrived on Greek shores in particular have moved on to other Member States via the “Balkan route” without filing a claim or even being identified there. Failed identification in the first state of entry raised security concerns and rendered the Dublin system practically inapplicable vis-à-vis the frontline states – nothing new in respect of Greece, already “excised” from the Dublin system by the European Court of Human Rights in 2011. Destination and transit states reacted with a flurry of unilateral responses ranging from the temporary reintroduction of checks at internal borders, to the erection of barbed wire fences, to the announcement of national ‘caps’ on the number of persons who would be admitted to claim asylum.

      http://eumigrationlawblog.eu/hotspots-and-relocation-schemes-the-right-therapy-for-the-common-
      #hotspots #relocalisation

    • The Reform of Dublin III regulation

      Another salient criterion is irregular entry (Art . 13 DRIII). Its effective operation would shift responsibility to States located at the Southern and Eastern borders of the Union – to an unmanageable extent in Greece in 2015 . This has not happened owing to the extreme i nefficiency of the Dublin system ( see below). Also, as acknowledged by the Commission , the fear of incurring overwhelming responsibilit ies has motivated border States not to register arriving persons – before, and more visibly during the “crisis” of 2015 – undermining the effective operation of the criterion.

      A ce paragraphe est ajoutée une note :

      See in particular April 2016 Communication (footnote 2 ), p. 4. See also European Commission (2007). Dublin II Evaluation (footnote 11 ), p. 9. The Commission has launched infringement proceedings against i.a. Italy and Greece for their alleged failure to systematically fingerprint irregular arrivals: see European Commission (2015). Managing the refugee crisis: State of play of the im plementation of the priority actions under the European Agenda on Migration, COM (2015) 510, 14 October 2015, p. 11 and Annex 6. Available from: http://www.refworld.org/docid/563201fc4.html .

      http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/571360/IPOL_STU(2016)571360_EN.pdf

    • Managing the Refugee Crisis: State of Play of the Implementation of the Priority Actions under the European Agenda on Migration (14.10.2015)

      Effectively managing the pressure of migratory flows on some parts of the shared external Schengen border accompanied by steps to prevent secondary movements and the immediate return to the country of relocation of relocated persons found in another Member State. The other essential component is action to secure swift return, voluntary or forced, of people not in need of international protection and who do not therefore qualify for relocation. The p riority actions set out by the Commission focused heavily on the operational working of the se measures .requires both responsibility and solidarity on the part of all Member States. The rapid roll - out of the ’hotspot’ approach is providing support to the most affected Member States to ensure the proper reception, identification and processing of arrivals. In parallel, the measures proposed by the Commission and adopted by the Council to relocate 160,000 people in clear need of international protection . This will allow for a significant, if partial, reduction of the pressure on the most affected Member States. It is of crucial importance that the se parallel measures will now be fully implemented, with the fingerprinting of all migrants, the prompt selection and relocation of asylum applicants and adequate reception capacities,

      http://www.refworld.org/docid/563201fc4.html

    • Et voilà le résultat avec la mise sur pied des hotspots :

      COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the State of Play of Implementation of the Priority Actions under the European Agenda on Migration (10.02.1016)

      With strong, dedicated EU support, Greece and Italy started to set up – and in some cases completed – hotspots 3 to ensure screening, identifi cation and fingerprinting of third country nationals arriving irregularly at the external EU border. Registration is a crucial first step in the control and management of the flows. The hotspots are designed to ensure integrated teams of border agents operate in dedicated facilities, 24 hours a day and seven days a week. Everyone arriving in the external borders should be registered, fingerprinted and have their documents checked against national and international security databases. Third country nationa ls arriving irregularly should then be channelled into one of three processes: the national asylum syst em, the European relocation system or the return system. The proportion of migrants whose fingerpri nts are included in th e Eurodac database has risen in Greece from 8% in September 2015 to 78 % in January 2016, and in Italy from 36% to 87% over the same period 4 . These figures are expected to improve further as the hotspots become more fully operational.

      The rules on registration, identification, fi ngerprinting and security screening of arrivals need to be applied effectively and systematically.

      Par rapport à la Grèce :

      Reception capacities should be increased, supporting both humanita rian needs and better management of inflows – with EU funding already in place to help to achie ve swiftly the 50,000 target agreed at the Western Balkans Leaders’ Meeting. Standardised procedures for all stages of the process should be applied and full deployment of Eurodac fingerprinting machines completed. There must also be no gaps in EU support: the agencies should be present on all islands.

      Et par rapport à l’Italie :

      The Commission is ready to organise an innovative mobile hotspot team (with agents from Frontex and EASO) in Eastern Sicily to support the identification, fingerprinting and provision of information to migrants who cannot be disembarked in the designated hotspot ports, to help plug gaps in the fingerprinting and registration of migrants beyond the hotspots.

      Both Greece and Italy have faced the problem of a refusal by migrants to be fingerprinted. National legislation will have to be amended as a matter of priority an d all operational steps taken to ensure that all migrants are finge rprinted – including as a last resort through a proportionate use of coercion – and all secondary movements of unidentif ied and unregistered migrants are avoided. Progress has been made, but this should be accelerated to ensure full 100% coverage of identification and registration of all entries by the March Eur opean Council.

      To help manage the refugee crisis effectively, leaders at the February European Council should commit to: • The urgent completion of the set-up of hotspots in Greece and Italy to ensure the registration of and support to migrants and refugees in line with the principle that no one should arrive in the EU without having been properly registered and fingerprinted, with dedicated EU support to secure increased reception capacity and fully functioning asylum and return procedures;

      https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-85-EN-F1-1.PDF

    • Connais-tu les travaux du projet de recherche « Processing Citizenship », et notamment les contributions de Annalisa Pelliza ?

      https://processingcitizenship.eu/team/annalisa-pelizza

      https://easst.net/article/processing-citizenship-digital-registration-of-migrants-as-co-production-of-i

      In this first stage of investigation, we are also interested in the chain of artefacts deployed at Hotspots that translate previous identities into new European-readable ones. This line of investigation is key in light of recent developments in the European migration landscape. The goal of the so called “Hotspot approach”, introduced in 2015, is to operationally support frontline Member States (i.e., Greece and Italy) in “swiftly identify[ing], register[ing] and fingerprint[ing] incoming migrants” (Commission, 2015a: 1). Hotspots are thus the first step in the procedure of sorting migrants into three alternative paths: “relocation” or “resettlement” to another Member State (for those identified as in clear need of international protection), or “return” to the country of legal residence (for those who are not deemed in need of protection). They can be conceived as “routers” that create “early entrenchments” (Star and Lampland, 2009) in sorting individuals, liminal situations in which past identities are assessed and translated into proto-decisions.

      http://www.4sonline.org/blog/post/how_government_databases_create_european_readable_identities_for_migrants

      On July 20 2015 – one month before the growing number of migrants crossing the Balkans pushed some countries to declare a state of emergency – the European database containing fingerprints of asylum seekers, called Eurodac, was rendered interoperable with national police authorities’ databases Europe-wide. From that moment, Member States’ police forces could query European data sources not only to grant citizenship rights, but also to preserve order in their national territory. An almost unnoticed technical switch in the Eurodac system marked a major shift in personal data exchange policy Europe-wide.

    • Question posée le 9 avril 2018 via la mailing-list Migreurop :

      Dans le cadre de nos séances d’informations juridique pour les migrants en transit au hub Humanitaire de Bruxelles, nous entendons régulièrement que l’Italie ne mettrais pas systématiquement les empreintes prises dans le système commun mais nous ne trouvons rien de fiable sur ce sujet. Quelqu’un du réseau peut nous éclaircir sur cette pratique, svp ?

      Voici la réponse reçue via la même mailing-list (auteure de la réponse "Tata) :

      Il n’existe pas de réponse claire à cette question cruciale. Mais j’ai quelques éléments d’infos qui peuvent un peu éclairer. En l’espace de 6 mois, entre avant et après la mise en place des hotspots, le taux officiel d’identification est passé de 8 à 100%. Donc officiellement la réponse est non. Cette rumeur est donc devenue beaucoup moins vraie après la mise en place des hotspots.

      Ceci dit :

      – il y a des gens qui arrivent en petit bateau, ailleurs, ne se font pas intercepter et ne donnent pas leurs empreintes
      – il y a des gens qui réussissent d’une maniere ou d’une autre à ne pas les donner, ou elles ne sont pas lisibles
      – il y a des erreurs de la part de la police et des empreintes pas très nettes
      – Les personnes sont enregistrées en cat. 2 et s’ils acceptent de rester en italie, une deuxieme fois en cat. 1. S’ils ne sont qu’en catégorie 2 (une seule prise d’empreintes), alors il arrive que les prefectures du moins en france n’en tiennent pas compte. Il arrive aussi qu’il y ait eu un laps de temps de plus d’un an entre ce pré-enregistrement et la demande d’asile dans un autre pays. Dans ce cas là, un article du reg dublin dit que si preuve de présence de 5 mois, alors plus de procédure dublin. Mais il n’est pas très clair s’il arrive que les personnes passent en cat normale de demandeur d’asile grâce à ça. Bcp d’amis dont c’est le cas se sont retrouvés sans soucis en ce qui concerne dublin.

      Conclusion (toujours la même) : c’est une question de chance ! (mais celle-ci s’est drastiquement réduite avec les hotspots).

    • Implementing the Common European Asylum System: Commission escalates 8 infringement proceedings

      The Commission is today urging Greece, Croatia and Italy to correctly implement the Eurodac Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 603/2013), which provides for effective fingerprinting of asylum seekers and transmission of data to the Eurodac central system within 72 hours. Effective implementation of the Eurodac Regulation is essential for the functioning of the Dublin system and EU relocation schemes. The European Commission sent administrative letters to Greece, Croatia and Italy in October. Two months later, concerns have not been effectively addressed. The European Commission has therefore decided today to send Letters of Formal Notice to Greece, Croatia and Italy (the first step of an infringement procedure).

      http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-6276_EN.htm

  • Eye Scan Therefore I am: The Individualization of Humanitarian Aid

    The iris of an eye is surely one of the most individual parts of a person – a unique signifier of each one of us. Today, Syrian refugees standing at ATM machines in Jordan are being recognized by iris scanning technology so they can withdraw UN #cash that enables their families to survive another month.

    https://iow.eui.eu/2015/03/15/eye-scan-therefore-i-am-the-individualization-of-humanitarian-aid
    #aide_humanitaire #individualisation #réfugiés #asile #migrations #Jordanie #surveillance (?) #iris #aid_in_cash #cash_based_intervention #monétisation

    • Sur l’#aide_en_cash :
      Aide en cash, une analyse de Gilles Carbonnier

      Alors qu’en Suisse, le législateur et les autorités fédérales mettent tout en œuvre pour étendre au maximum l’aide « en nature » pour les demandeurs d’asile, en particulier dans la mise en place de la restructuration de la loi sur l’asile, une approche inverse a été déployée par les organisations humanitaires pour soutenir les Syriens réfugiés au Liban, en Turquie ou en Jordanie. L’expérience avait déjà été faite, mais jamais à une telle échelle et sur une telle durée, explique le Pr Gilles Carbonnier, qui consacre un chapitre de son prochain livre Humanitarian Economics aux conditions de mise en place de ce mode d’aide au Liban, où il a mené une étude fin 2014. Plus d’un million de réfugiés reçoivent aujourd’hui une aide « cash ». Chaque mois, le montant d’assistance individuel est crédité sur une carte ATM avec laquelle les réfugiés peuvent retirer de l’argent quand ils le souhaitent. Coordonné par le HCR, le programme implique tant les agences onusiennes et des ONG de terrain que des acteurs privés locaux comme des banques libanaises et quelque 400 commerces agréés pour fournir des produits alimentaires et non alimentaires (1), dispersés dans tout le pays. Interview.

      http://asile.ch/2015/08/06/laide-en-cash-une-analyse-de-gilles-carbonnier

    • LIFE IN PARADISE un film de Roman Vital / 2013 / Suisse / 78’ / Primatoni Filmverleih / VOSTF ;
      Depuis que le gouvernement suisse a installé un centre de déportation pour les demandeurs d’asile rejetés dans le village montagnard idyllique de Valzeina, une personne sur quatre au village est un #immigrant clandestin.
      Le film montre la façon dont fonctionne la #politique d’asile suisse. Il témoigne de la manière dont nous, privilégiés du monde occidental, nous occupons des demandeurs d’asile et comment nos vies sont affectées par cela. Il donne à comprendre ce que signifie vivre en tant que demandeur d’asile rejeté au « paradis »
      http://www.cineman.ch/fr/movie/2013/LifeInParadiseIllegaleInDerNac


      http://www.comptoirdudoc.org/programmations/images-de-justice

    • @cdb_77 : Le lien entre le film « Life in Paradise » et les autres billets sur l’aide humanitaire en cash est tout à fait subjectif. J’ai répondu après avoir visité le site asile.ch. C’est le .ch qui m’a rappelé le film qui se passe à Valzeina. Ce village situé entre Davos et le Liechtenstein est sur la route des migrants. A l’issue du film j’étais vaguement mal à l’aise. La neutralité de la Suisse et Henri Dumont (fondateur suisse de la croix rouge) me laisse dubitatif. Ne dit-on pas : « boire en suisse ».
      L’association Vivre Ensemble - Service d’information et de documentation sur le droit d’asile - est surement utile pour les demandeurs d’asile. Dans le film, les gestionnaires du « centre de déportation » ( dixit la présentation du documentaire ) ont un air de dame patronnesse. De là à exporter ces bons sentiments en cash humanitaire ; je propose aux suisses de balayer devant leur porte avant d’aller faire le ménage en #Syrie,#Liban,#Turquie ou en #Jordanie.
      Pour ce qui est des territoires bombardés,le drapeau de la #croix rouge flotte sur la plupart des champs de ruines. On tire même sur les ambulances !
      Par contre j’ai pas bien compris l’utilité du scanner de l’iris pour retirer de l’argent à la tirette ??
      Surement une embrouille de suisse pour tracer l’argent plus facilement !
      http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/carnet/2014-02-13-vote-suisse#nh6
      https://youtu.be/oMTLXg9bjSM


      [...]

      Humanitaire faut pas nous la faire !
      Si t’as pas de richesses, tu l’as au fond des fesses
      On bougera pas le petit doigt de pied, espèce de sous évolués
      T’avais pas remarqué, on aide que ceux qui peuvent faire de l’humanitaire pour nous !
      Pas de minerai ? Rien à piller ? Ils n’ont qu’à se démerder
      Comme dit Bernard Kouchner : « faut qu’l’humanitaire soit une bonne affaire ! »

      [...]
      Les Garçons Bouchers - Ecoute, petit frère - 1995 -Boucherie production

    • @vanderling... juste deux mots de réflexion...
      – « Ce village situé entre Davos et le Liechtenstein est sur la route des migrants. » —> non, ce village n’est pas situé sur la « route des migrants », qui d’ailleurs n’est pas UNE route, mais plusieurs...
      – Henri Dumont (fondateur suisse de la croix rouge) —> C’est Henri Dunand
      – « L’association Vivre Ensemble - Service d’information et de documentation sur le droit d’asile - est surement utile pour les demandeurs d’asile » —> L’association Vivre Ensemble, pour laquelle je travaille, ne se veut pas « utile » pour les demandeurs d’asile, c’est un service d’information et de documentation, qui vise plutôt le grand public...
      – « je propose aux suisses de balayer devant leur porte avant d’aller faire le ménage en #Syrie,#Liban,#Turquie ou en #Jordanie » —> je le propose aussi aux Français, aux Allemands, aux Anglais, etc etc. Ce n’est pas parce qu’on vient d’un pays qu’on ne peut pas en critiquer un autre, surtout si on critique aussi le sien...
      – « Par contre j’ai pas bien compris l’utilité du scanner de l’iris pour retirer de l’argent à la tirette ??
      Surement une embrouille de suisse pour tracer l’argent plus facilement ! » —> l’idée de l’ « aide en cash » et celle de l’iris ne vient pas de la Suisse...

      J’ai un peu l’impression qu’on mélange des poires et des pommes...

    • Tracking Refugees With Biometrics: More Questions than Answers

      Samira stands looking diligently at the camera. At six years old, she is being enrolled in the first countrywide implementation of biometrics by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Samira caught my eye because she is not a MAM — a military aged male — like the hundreds of Iraqis and Afghans I helped enroll in the U.S. military’s biometric efforts in those countries after 9/11.

      http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/tracking-refugees-with-biometrics-more-questions-than-answers

    • How cashless programmes to support refugees’ independence can restrict their freedoms

      The scale of 2015’s “refugee crisis” and the displacement of the Syrian population in the Middle East has led to a concerted effort to provide more practical and accessible financial support to migrants and asylum seekers along their journey to new host countries.

      To that end, humanitarian agencies are increasingly adopting technological solutions for managing refugees. In camps in Jordan and Lebanon particularly, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) is implementing technological innovations and cash transfer mechanisms to make life easier for thousands of displaced people.

      At the same time, “refugee apps” devised by the likes of Apple and aid organisations have been used by migrants to make their own way to Europe and find help in the form of shelters, food banks, first aid points and legal support.

      Journalists, academics and NGOs have been examining the opportunities and risks associated with digital technologies and financial tools, such as cashless programmes that employ prepaid cards. While these things enable migrants to improve digital connectivity, get up-to-date information and have access to funds without banking, this same technology can be also used for tracking refugees and collecting useful data.

      Critically, my research focuses on a related issue that is not addressed in the current debate – how much these digital technologies and cash assistance programmes actually enhance the ability of refugees to live more independently.

      For instance, a 2017 UNHCR report states:

      There is growing evidence that cash assistance represents a highly effective form of aid by providing recipients with the autonomy and dignity to meet their own needs.

      But how is refugee autonomy regarded by the organisations that promote these digital technologies and “techno-humanitarian” innovations? How is it actually fostered and sustained? And is it of genuine benefit to refugees?
      Financial independence

      Greece is the first EU country in which the European Commission implemented a cashless system for asylum seekers. In 2016, in cooperation with the UNHCR, the EU launched a Refugee Cash Assistance Programme. Under this system, asylum seekers are entitled to monthly financial support of between €90 and €150 per person. The UNHCR delivers the cards to the islands across all refugee camps and accommodation centres, and they can be used to get cash from ATMs.

      Cash assistance programmes grant refugees flexibility in terms of buying products and services and are designed to help people feel they have control over their lives, even if they find themselves stranded somewhere facing an uncertain future.

      But restrictions apply. Only asylum seekers who accept accommodation provided by the UNHCR or the Greek authorities are entitled to this financial support. But some asylum seekers prefer to live in the solidarity of an unofficial refugee centre such as the disused City Plaza Hotel in Athens – but this means they are excluded from the cash assistance programme as it is not recognised by the authorities.

      The UNHCR checks each month that asylum seekers who hold a pre-paid card do actually live in the camps or apartments they have been allocated. The monthly top-up of cards is also subjected to a series of disciplinary rules that migrants are requested to comply with on a daily basis in refugee camps (such as having their card blocked if they are deemed to “abuse” the electricity in their accommodation).

      In the summer of 2018, 120 asylum seekers in Athens occupied the building where UNCHR prepaid cards are distributed for more than a month, demanding “cash cards for all”. Most had been suspended or excluded from the programme because they were not living in the accommodation provided by the authorities.

      The protest over the cards was a catalyst for other claims – including a request to abolish the Skype system to book appointments for lodging an asylum application, which became compulsory in Greece in 2016. In this case, technology was an obstacle to getting access to rights. And in this way, migrants who want to live as independently as possible are excluded from financial help and support.
      Autonomy vs freedom

      Promoting refugee autonomy is seen as a temporary situation that grants flexibility and treats them as “beneficiaries”, but is actually a system that is subject to restrictions, conditions and disciplinary procedures. Pre-paid cards are seen as digital tools that improve migrants’ conditions. But the reality for many asylum seekers on the Greek islands is that they have been stranded for months – some of them more than a year – due to the “geographical restrictions” imposed by the EU-Turkey Deal.

      This deals states that migrants who land on Greek islands and claim asylum must await the response to their application and cannot transfer to mainland Greece or Turkey unless they are deemed highly vulnerable. At a refugee centre on Lesbos, an Afghani man told me: “We are all going crazy here – our mental health is as precarious as our physical health on this island”.

      The prepaid cards are of course beneficial to migrants stuck on the Greek islands, but these are extremely vulnerable people whose protracted time there and lack of appropriate psychological and medical support continues to exacerbate their vulnerability – ironically, the one way they can be transferred to the mainland.

      A growing debate points to the need to enhance and support refugees’ self-reliance through financial aid and technological access. But the current set-up ensures that refugees can only become autonomous by accepting the restrictions imposed on them.

      This kind of temporary inclusion cannot be a substitution for rights and legal protection, nor can claims to foster autonomy be separated from the struggle to end refugees’ containment on islands such as Lesbos.

      The drive for autonomy needs to dispense with the inequalities between individuals – between “saviours” and “saved”, those free to move and those stuck in limbo – that underpin humanitarian interventions. If we want to support refugees’ independent living, we cannot separate autonomy from freedom, which supports choice, dignity, mobility and a sense of control over their own lives.

      https://theconversation.com/how-cashless-programmes-to-support-refugees-independence-can-restri
      #autonomie #liberté #indépendance_financière #Grèce
      #Martina_Tazzioli