https://apnews.com

Migrants en Libye : « Je sais qu’il y a une chance sur deux de mourir »

A Tripoli, les exilés africains qui espèrent rejoindre l’Europe sont pris en tenaille entre les institutions – voies légales mais lentes -, les réseaux de passeurs - option coûteuse et dangereuse - et les centres de détention des autorités locales.

Ils sont plusieurs centaines de milliers d’exilés à être pris au piège en Libye. Leur geôle a quatre murs, contre lesquels ils se fracassent tour à tour. D’abord la Méditerranée, cette mer qui les sépare de l’Europe, surveillée par les gardes-côtes. Puis le Département de lutte contre la migration illégale et ses centres de détention aux mains des milices. Il y a aussi le réseau des passeurs et des trafiquants qui représentent à la fois leur pire cauchemar et l’espoir, jamais éteint, d’un ticket de sortie de l’enfer. Le dernier mur, enfin, est celui du Haut Commissariat aux réfugiés des Nations unies (HCR). Une issue de secours légale, mais bouchée (lire page 9). Les quotas de réinstallation dans des pays d’accueil, ridiculement bas par rapport aux besoins, ne permettant pas d’évacuer les réfugiés à un rythme suffisant.

Michel Vumbi Mogambi a presque 70 ans. Quand il est arrivé en Libye, voilà vingt ans, il n’avait aucune intention de poursuivre sa route jusqu’en Europe. Le Congolais fuyait les combats dans son pays : la riche Libye de Kadhafi offrait à l’époque du travail et un bon salaire. Aujourd’hui, ruiné et rattrapé par la guerre, il prie pour sortir d’ici, silhouette voûtée parmi les fidèles de l’église San Francesco de Tripoli. A la sortie de la messe, le vieil homme est agité, sa chemise tachée de sang. La nuit dernière, des hommes en treillis ont défoncé sa porte, l’ont déshabillé, battu pour qu’il leur donne son argent. Son ami Peter, le mécanicien, s’est fait voler 1 800 dinars (environ 400 euros au marché noir). Leur voisin de chambrée, le Soudanais Habib Ali, 500 dinars. Et le vendeur égyptien du bout de la cour 5 000 dinars. Michel n’avait pas d’argent. Il a tenté de se cacher dans les toilettes, nu.
« Vers qui voulez-vous vous tourner ? »

La vingtaine d’hommes célibataires venus de toute l’Afrique qui partagent cette petite allée du quartier de Gargaresh ont tous été arrêtés, frappés, embarqués, puis relâchés au petit matin. Chacun a des blessures à montrer. Récentes, après la bastonnade de la veille ; anciennes, qui racontent une vie d’exil ; parfois cruelles, marques évidentes de tortures. Les serrures de leurs habitations ont été défoncées à coups de crosse. Les petites chambres taguées ont été retournées, à la recherche d’un billet, un bijou ou d’un téléphone dissimulé. « Les policiers étaient encagoulés, mais j’ai pu lire "Département de lutte contre la migration illégale" sur leurs uniformes noirs, dit Habib Ali. Quand ce sont les autorités elles-mêmes qui vous rançonnent et vous kidnappent, vers qui voulez-vous vous tourner ? »

Michel est officiellement demandeur d’asile, enregistré au HCR. Mais sa petite carte plastifiée de l’ONU, qu’il sort sans arrêt de sa pochette, ne le protège pas : la Libye n’a jamais ratifié les conventions de Genève. Sur son territoire, les réfugiés n’ont aucune existence officielle.

Ayoub Qassem est le porte-parole de la marine nationale libyenne. Il n’y a pas d’électricité, ce jour-là, dans la base navale d’Abou Sitta, sur la rive de Tripoli : son bureau est plongé dans la pénombre. Les lourds rideaux laissent tout juste filtrer une lumière bleutée qui donne au militaire formé en URSS un aspect de créature des profondeurs. « La migration clandestine est la dernière facette du colonialisme, assène-t-il. Partout, il y a des pions qui travaillent pour les intérêts de l’Occident. C’est l’Europe qui a créé un rêve dans la tête des Africains, afin d’éviter qu’ils ne développent leurs pays. Ils sont comme des papillons attirés par la flamme ! Mais qui va nous protéger, nous, les Libyens, contre cette invasion ? » Le vieil officier triture sa moustache, fulmine, soudain inarrêtable dans sa logorrhée complotiste et anti-impérialiste : « L’ONU est complice, elle a besoin de ces crises pour faire sa propagande et se lamenter sur le sort des migrants. »

Depuis 2012, affirme-t-il, 80 000 personnes ont été « secourues », c’est-à-dire interceptées, par ses gardes-côtes. Une activité qui occupe 90 % de leur temps et de leurs ressources. Les équipages ont été en partie formés par Sophia, la mission de l’Union européenne, mais aussi par des experts espagnols. « Notre partenaire le plus sérieux est l’Italie, affirme Ayoub Qassem. Quand le pays ferme ses portes, cela nous aide. »
Torture et viols systématiques

La majorité des départs, en cette période de l’année, a lieu depuis les plages à l’est de Tripoli, à proximité de la ville de Khoms. Près de 6 000 migrants ont été arrêtés en 2019 dans les eaux libyennes. Plus de 600 sont morts noyés. « Quand on critique les ONG, on donne l’impression qu’on est contre les migrants en tant que personnes, soupire Massoud Abdelsamad, à la tête du Centre de sécurité maritime. Mais je vous parle simplement en technicien : plus il y a de bateaux de sauvetage en mer, plus il y a des tentatives de traversée. On sait que des passeurs surveillent la position des navires humanitaires sur les sites de trafic maritime et qu’ils envoient leurs embarcations de migrants dans leur direction. »

Ella (1) a pris la mer à deux reprises. A chaque fois, la jeune Erythréenne a été refoulée vers cette Libye qu’elle « ne veut plus voir ». Chétive, le regard brûlant, elle dit : « Je suis venue jusqu’ici ici pour aller en Europe. C’est mon rêve, personne n’a le droit de me l’arracher. Peu importe ce qui m’arrive, je ne renoncerai pas. » Ella est aujourd’hui enfermée dans le centre de détention de Tariq al-Sikka, à Tripoli, géré par le Département de lutte contre la migration illégale.

Autour d’elle, dans un coin de la pièce, trois femmes se sont serrées sur les blocs de mousse qui servent de matelas, et jettent des regards obliques en direction de l’encadrement de la porte : le gardien y fume sa cigarette. Cette prison « modèle » est la seule que le gouvernement libyen laisse les journalistes visiter. On y sert deux repas par jour et les demandeuses d’asile ont le droit de posséder un téléphone portable.

« Le centre est dur, on devient folles à force de patienter, mais on est tellement en danger dans les villes libyennes que c’est préférable d’être dedans plutôt que dehors. On a la sécurité. Même si on risque autre chose ici… » Quoi exactement ? Coup de menton vers la silhouette masculine de la porte, ses amies lui ordonnent de se taire. « Vous allez partir d’ici dans une heure, mais nous, on va rester là pendant des mois, on doit se protéger », se fâche Beydaan (1), une jeune Somalienne enfermée depuis cinq mois ici, mais coincée depuis trois ans en Libye. Sa voisine Sanah (1) est soudanaise, c’est l’une des plus anciennes du centre : elle est arrivée en mai 2018 et a passé plusieurs entretiens avec des fonctionnaires du HCR. Depuis, elle attend une hypothétique place dans un pays d’accueil. « Au mois de mars, quatre femmes, mères de famille, ont été envoyées au Niger, répète-t-elle. Il paraît qu’après elles sont arrivées en Europe. »

Mariam (1) l’Ethiopienne regarde avec des yeux fixes mais ne parle pas. Les autres racontent pour elle. Son mari a été exécuté par un passeur à Bani Walid, plaque tournante du trafic d’êtres humains en Libye. La torture, les viols y sont systématiques. Elle a passé plus d’un an dans un centre de détention « officiel » - la plupart sont en réalité gérés par des milices - à Khoms, avant d’être transférée à Tariq al-Sikka.

« Le HCR s’oppose à la privation de liberté, les migrants ne devraient pas être enfermés, c’est notre position de principe, rappelle Paula Barrachina, porte-parole du HCR à Tripoli. Mais on se rend quand même dans les centres pour détecter les personnes les plus vulnérables et prodiguer des soins. C’est un dilemme permanent : faire de l’humanitaire sans participer à la pérennisation de ces lieux. »
Places allouées au compte-gouttes

Le HCR coadministre - avec le ministère libyen de l’Intérieur - à Tripoli son propre « centre de rassemblement et de départ », un site de transit où patientent les migrants « validés » pour obtenir l’asile en Occident. Mais les places dans les pays d’accueil étant allouées au compte-gouttes, le lieu est débordé. Quelque 1 500 personnes y vivent, dans un lieu aménagé pour 700. Surtout, les départs sont bien trop lents. Conséquence : les personnes vulnérables qui pourraient obtenir le statut de réfugiés croupissent dans des centres de détention insalubres, eux-mêmes saturés. Mais ils sont des dizaines de milliers d’autres à errer en Libye à la recherche d’une porte de sortie.

« J’ai perdu patience. On ne peut pas continuer comme ça, tonne Ghassan Salamé, l’envoyé spécial des Nations unies en Libye. Il faut fermer ces centres de détention. Il y a des sévices, des directeurs qui sont suspectés de faire du trafic, des entreprises qui bénéficient de contrats de fournitures [de nourriture et entretien]… » Trois prisons du Département de lutte contre la migration illégale ont officiellement cessé leur activité cet été, mais plusieurs ONG affirment que les migrants interceptés en mer continuent d’y être envoyés. « La communauté internationale et l’opinion publique européenne sont malheureusement obsédées par ces centres, alors qu’en réalité nous avons un problème bien plus sérieux, qui ne concerne pas que 5 000 migrants, mais 700 000 à 800 000 personnes illégalement entrées en Libye, explique le diplomate. C’est sur elles que nous voulons nous concentrer, sur le grand nombre d’expatriés illégaux, essayer de les aider de manière humanitaire, les soigner, les aider à accéder au marché du travail, les protéger. » Pour mettre son plan à exécution, Salamé a demandé un programme de 210 millions de dollars (188 millions d’euros) au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies : « Je suis fâché car nous n’en avons obtenu qu’un peu moins de 40 millions. Si nous devons faire ce pas supplémentaire, il faut vraiment que les pays qui le peuvent mettent la main à la poche. »
« Un mois et demi pour traverser le désert »

L’errance a fini par déposer Souleymane, 44 ans, sous le toit en tôle d’un hangar d’une administration à l’abandon, dans un quartier excentré de Tripoli. A sa suite, onze familles éparses, venues comme lui des monts Nouba, région en guerre du sud du Soudan. Allongé sur une natte en plastique, ses longues jambes repliées, le chef de la colonie décrit : « Nous sommes arrivés en Libye il y a un an. Nous habitions une maison dans la banlieue Sud de Tripoli dans une zone proche de la ligne de front. On entendait les tirs qui se rapprochaient, on est partis à pied. Après cinq jours à dormir sur la route, devant le HCR, un Libyen nous a trouvé cet abri. »

Les autres hommes du campement se sont rassemblés en silence pour écouter la voix grave de l’ancien chauffeur de camion. « Je voyage avec ma femme et mes sept enfants, entre 1 an et demi et 16 ans. Je suis passé par le Tchad. Nous avons mis un mois et trois jours à traverser le désert, à cause des pannes. Le petit qui est là, à 5 ans, il marchait dix heures par jour. Nous étions vingt dans un camion de transport de bétail. A Sebha, j’ai été battu et torturé. Je suis arrivé au HCR à Tripoli le 28 février. Dix jours plus tard, j’étais enregistré. »

A l’évocation de la chute du régime d’Omar el-Béchir, dans son pays, Souleymane sourit. « Au Soudan, le changement va prendre beaucoup de temps. Dans mon village, il n’y aura pas d’eau et d’école avant au moins quinze ans : mes enfants ne peuvent pas attendre. » Souleymane joue avec la cheville du garçon qui s’est installé contre lui. « Si j’avais assez d’argent, je pai erais la traversée à mon fils. Pour ma famille, cela coûte 3 500 euros de prendre la mer, environ 500 euros par personne, les bébés ne paient pas. Je sais qu’il y a une chance sur deux de mourir. »

Il se redresse, calmement, insiste. « Je vois que vous ne comprenez pas. Pour des gens qui ont quitté une vie vraiment horrible, qui ont traversé le désert, le reste est dérisoire, ça n’a pas d’importance. » Faute d’argent, comme 45 000 autres demandeurs d’asile enregistrés par le HCR, il attend le miracle onusien d’une place d’accueil pour sa famille en Occident. « On dit qu’une famille de Soudanais est déjà partie pour la Norvège, après un an et demi d’attente. C’est bien, la Norvège ? »

(1) Les prénoms ont été modifiés.

▻https://www.liberation.fr/planete/2019/10/31/migrants-en-libye-je-sais-qu-il-y-a-une-chance-sur-deux-de-mourir_1760873

v. aussi ce fil de discussion sur comment les migrants sont utilisés comme «#chair_à_canon» dans le cadre des conflits qui sévissent la Libye:

Carne da cannone. In Libia i profughi dei campi sono arruolati a forza e mandati a combattere
►https://seenthis.net/messages/773233

Refugees being ’starved out’ of UN facility in Tripoli

Aid worker claims refugees are being denied food to motivate them to leave.

The UN has been accused of trying to starve out refugees and asylum seekers who are sheltering for safety inside a centre run by the UN refugee agency in the Libyan capital of Tripoli.

One group of about 400 people, who came to the Tripoli gathering and departure facility in October from Abu Salim detention centre in the south of the country, have apparently been without food for weeks.

Among them are 100 minors, according to a recent assessment by the International Organization for Migration. They are “currently starving” apart from some food that other refugees manage to sneak out of another part of the centre, the IOM assessment said. They last received food assistance a “couple of weeks ago”.

Internal documents seen by the Guardian show that the UNHCR is also planning to withdraw food from 600 other refugees and migrants in the centre – who include survivors of bombings, torture, forced labour and other human rights abuses. The majority have already tried to reach Europe by crossing the Mediterranean, but were returned to Libya by the EU-backed Libyan coastguard.

In a document circulated among UN staff on Tuesday, and seen by the Guardian, the agency said it would “phase out” food catering from 31 December. The document said the information should not be made public before mid-December, when 230 more refugees have been evacuated to other countries, in order to prevent disruption. After that, the facility will no longer be used as a transit centre, the document said, until the remaining refugees and migrants “vacate voluntarily”.

In the document, the UNHCR said that it would continue to finance cleaning in the centre after the withdrawal of food, partly to “prevent the reputational risk of having deficient/broken toilets and showers”. It also said a healthcare clinic on the site would continue to operate.

An aid worker with knowledge of the situation, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said: “They are starving the population inside the [facility]. They’re just trying to starve them to motivate them to leave. It’s deliberately withholding aid to put people under pressure.”

The group who will be affected by the next food withdrawal include 400 survivors of the 3 July Tajoura detention centre bombing, in which at least 53 refugees and migrants were killed after an airstrike hit the hall in which they were being held. Hundreds of survivors remained on the site of the strike for a week afterwards, staging a hunger strike in protest at the lack of help.

They eventually walked dozens of miles to the gathering and departure facility, where they were let in but told their cases for evacuation wouldn’t be evaluated until they agreed to leave the centre.

One Tajoura survivor told the Guardian this week that if they are forced to leave and fend for themselves in Tripoli “it will be a very dangerous scenario”. Refugees are frightened of forced recruitment by militias, being caught up in the ongoing civil war, or being kidnapped anew by traffickers. Others who have taken a UNHCR offer of money, in return for living alone in Tripoli, say the payments are not enough and they remain in danger. One Eritrean man recently released from Triq al Sikka detention centre was shot last week by men in police uniforms who, he said, were trying to rob him.

“Still now they didn’t give food. I think it is [on] purpose?” an Eritrean refugee in the facility messaged the Guardian this week through WhatsApp. “Everyone is suffering and stressed and we have all decided to stay here until they use force, because being returned to a detention centre means again facing trafficking, torture and abuse.”

The man said he spent more than a year in Abu Salim detention centre, which was repeatedly caught on the frontlines of Tripoli’s ongoing conflict. “[We have] no option until UNHCR gives us a positive response. Even if they leave we will stay here. We have no option, we will not go anywhere. There are no safe places in Libya at this time.”

An 11 November email sent by the Guardian to UNHCR spokespeople, which asked whether denying food to former Abu Salim detainees in the facility was a “deliberate policy on UNHCR’s part”, went unanswered, as did further requests for comment.

The internal UN document suggest that, after the agency stops using the facility as a transit centre, the property could continue to operate as an “open centre” for refugees and migrants previously held in detention centres, though there are other “possible scenarios”. These include that Libya’s department for combating illegal migration (DCIM) “moves in and forcibly removes all the migrants/asylum-seekers … [to] detention centres”, or that it turns the facility into a detention centre run by its own guards.

The DCIM, which is under the interior ministry of the UN-backed Tripoli Government of National Accord, ostensibly runs a network of migrant detention centres in Libya, though in reality most are run by militias. A litany of human rights abuses, including rape and sexual abuse, labour exploitation and a denial of medical care have been reported.

The UN-run facility opened in December last year to much fanfare. “The opening of this centre, in very difficult circumstances, has the potential to save lives,” said the UN high commissioner for refugees, Filippo Grandi. “It offers immediate protection and safety for vulnerable refugees in need of urgent evacuation, and is an alternative to detention for hundreds of refugees currently trapped in Libya.”

▻https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/nov/28/refugees-being-starved-out-of-un-facility-in-tripoli?CMP=share_btn_tw

Au centre du HCR à Tripoli, les migrants d’Abu Salim accusent l’ONU de ne pas les nourrir

Les migrants actuellement réfugiés dans une partie du centre du HCR à Tripoli, le GDF, accusent l’agence onusienne de les « affamer ». Ces migrants n’ont pas accès aux distributions de nourriture et n’ont plus le droit d’en apporter de l’extérieur. Le HCR, de son côté, se défausse de toute responsabilité et assure que ce sont les autorités libyennes qui sont en charge de l’intendance du lieu.

« L’ONU nous affame pour qu’on quitte le centre ». Massaoud* ne décolère pas. Ce migrant fait partie des 400 personnes qui se sont réfugiées dans un hangar juste à côté du centre de rassemblement et de départ (GDF), géré par les autorités libyennes en coordination avec le Haut-commissariat des Nations unies aux réfugiés (HCR). Il avait rejoint le centre après avoir été libéré de la prison d’Abu Salim le 29 octobre.

Selon lui, depuis leur arrivée, le GDF ne distribue pas de nourriture à ces migrants et depuis quelques jours, leur interdit même d’en faire entrer dans l’enceinte du hangar. En tout, 400 personnes seraient concernées par ces restrictions de vivres - sur les 1 200 hébergées au sein du centre du HCR à Tripoli.

Ahmed*, un autre migrant du GDF, affirme à InfoMigrants que les autorités font en effet la différence entre deux catégories : les 400 migrants de la prison Abu Salim – arrivés en octobre - et les autres.
Quelques migrants autorisés à apporter de la nourriture

« Avant on pouvait faire entrer de la nourriture. Mais depuis ce week-end, la police refuse sans justification », soupire Massaoud qui raconte avoir été battu par les gardes libyens et envoyé dans la prison de Tarek al-Sika plusieurs jours parce qu’il avait justement apporté de la nourriture dans le hangar. Il a ensuite été renvoyé au GDF.

Contacté par la rédaction, le HCR se dégage de toute responsabilité. Selon l’agence onusienne, ce sont les autorités libyennes qui sont en charge de l’intendance du lieu. Et toujours selon le HCR, les Libyens n’autoriseraient, en effet, les entrées de vivres dans le hangar qu’au compte-goutte.

« La DCIM, l’organe du ministère de l’Intérieur chargé de surveiller le périmètre de l’installation [du hangar], n’autorise actuellement que peu de représentants des demandeurs d’asile à acheter de la nourriture et des boissons pour le reste du groupe », explique Tarik Argaz, porte-parole du HCR en Libye, dans un mail envoyé à InfoMigrants.
Les migrants priés de quitter le centre

Les migrants d’Abu Salim accusent également le HCR de les pousser dehors en les affamant. Mais les exilés affirment n’avoir nulle part où aller et redoutent les combats qui font rage dans la capitale libyenne. De son côté, le GDF se justifie en précisant que le centre est surpeuplé et qu’il est destiné à un « public vulnérable ».

« Ils nous ont dit que la seule solution pour nous était de sortir du centre et de nous intégrer dans la société libyenne », explique encore Massaoud qui déplore que l’ONU ne traite pas son dossier de réinstallation. « Mais je vais faire quoi dehors ? C’est trop dangereux », s’inquiète le jeune homme.

L’ONU propose un accompagnement à ceux qui accepteraient de quitter le GDF volontairement. « Le HCR leur offre une assistance pour les aider à s’établir dans les zones urbaines, y compris une assistance financière d’urgence pour une période de deux mois, des articles de première nécessité notamment des matelas, des couvertures, des vêtements, des kits d’hygiène, ainsi que l’accès à des soins médicaux », déclare encore Tarik Argaz.

Depuis les premières arrivées spontanées début juillet, seulement 40 migrants ont accepté de quitter le GDF et de bénéficier de l’aide du HCR.

▻https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/21185/au-centre-du-hcr-a-tripoli-les-migrants-d-abu-salim-accusent-l-onu-de-
#faim

UN Libya migrant center plagued with crowding, TB, food cuts

https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/1965cf53b0184bee98fa548b5008205e/800.jpeg

The United Nations center in Libya was opened as an “alternative to detention,” a last, safe stop for migrants before they were resettled in other countries. Now, just a year later, it looks increasingly like the notorious Libyan lockups it was supposed to replace.

The facility is jam-packed with nearly 1,200 migrants — about twice the number it was built for — including hundreds who fled from abuse at other detention centers in hopes of sanctuary. Dozens of patients with tuberculosis languish in a room crammed with mattresses. Sewage is overflowing, and armed guards from a local militia have effectively turned the center into a prison.

Unable to cope, the U.N. last week offered migrants the equivalent of $112 each to leave, and warned that food, already down to emergency rations, would be cut off on Jan. 1 for unapproved arrivals.

“This is very dangerous because among us there are people who are malnourished,” said a 27-year-old Sudanese man who arrived at the center in July. “If they cut food, they won’t be able to stand it.”

_

This story is part of an occasional series, “Outsourcing Migrants,” produced with the support of the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting.

_

He, like the rest of the nearly dozen migrants who spoke with The Associated Press from the compound, asked to withhold his name because of fears of retaliation. Libyan security officials and U.N. and other aid workers confirmed that the U.N. had lost control of the facility.

The conditions at the center underscore the predicament the U.N. finds itself in over migration. The UN has criticized the detention of migrants in Libya - a position it reiterated last month when Italy suggested the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees run more centers as a solution to rampant abuse in Libyan prisons.

“UNHCR does not and will not run places of detention in Libya,” its spokesman, Charlie Yaxley, told the AP.

Yet that is effectively what the Tripoli facility has become.

“It’s not the best possible scenario,” acknowledged Jean-Paul Cavalieri, the head of the UNHCR in Libya.

Cavalieri lamented the chaos that has accelerated as migrants, acting on their own, escape other detention centers with torture, rape, slave labor and trafficking to what they hope will be UN protection. He said the UNHCR is glad they are free of detention but cannot handle them at its center, known as the Gathering and Departure Facility, where people supposed to be there for days now spend months, stuck in a bureaucratic limbo.

“What we are trying to do now is to turn the loss of the GDF as a transit center into an opportunity,” Cavalieri said, but he struggled to articulate how. Cavalieri also said there are fears of possible abuse at the U.N. center, including of young girls. UN staff now spend just four hours a day in the compound, migrants and Libyan officials say.

In a statement after the AP story ran, Vincent Cochetel, UNHCR Special Envoy for the Central Mediterranean, said no one was being forced to leave the center, but “the situation is very tense.” UNHCR said 20 people agreed to leave Friday.

“We need the GDF (this transit centre) to function again as it was designed for the most vulnerable and most at risk refugees in detention, pending their evacuation out of Libya,” Cochetel added.

The dilemma has grown out of Europe’s outsourcing of migration to Libya. Europe has poured nearly 425 million euros into Libya since 2016 to keep migrants from reaching its shores — money that goes mostly to the U.N. and other aid agencies to improve conditions for migrants and Libyans displaced by the country’s civil war. The U.N. runs a vast operation within Libya, registering 40,000 refugees and asylum seekers, with about 6,000 inside the detention system and the rest ensconced in communities in Tripoli and beyond.

But dependence upon European funding and its increasingly restrictive migration policies have left the U.N. in the uncomfortable position of being the arbiter of horror stories. It is the U.N.’s job to decide who has suffered enough to get a coveted resettlement slot in another country.

Many end up waiting months, sometimes years — often in other detention centers — to find out their fate. The U.N. is now threatening to suspend asylum cases altogether for unauthorized migrants who refuse to leave its GDF facility.

The facility, like the UNHCR mission in Libya itself, was funded largely by European countries. The idea was that it would be operated by UNHCR, with cooperation from the Libyan government.

The situation was less than ideal from the outset, Cavalieri acknowledged. Delayed by months of negotiations, UNHCR ultimately agreed to a series of conditions from the Libyan government: armed guards within the compound and Interior Ministry militia at the gates, no freedom of movement for the refugees and asylum seekers, and a single Libyan “partner” for the various lucrative contracts inside.

Those conditions were never publicly spelled out. When the first group of refugees was resettled from the facility in December 2018, the UNHCR described it as “the first centre of its kind in Libya,” and said it was “intended to bring vulnerable refugees to a safe environment” while solutions were found. More than 2,300 people have passed through in the past year.

The influx of unauthorized migrants began in July, when an airstrike hit a detention center in Tripoli, killing 54. Survivors walked through the city to the U.N. center and, once the guards admitted them, they refused to leave.

The latest group to arrive, in late October, included more than three dozen tuberculosis patients among several hundred who walked out of Abu Salim detention center, where they had been imprisoned for the last year without regular meals. Those whose families could spare money paid guards to buy them food; others went hungry.

U.N. officials at the center told the new group, mostly men from sub-Saharan Africa, that there would be no resettlement unless they left — either for another detention center or for the streets of Tripoli. They were given bread and water, and U.N. officials said they had no control over what happened next, according to two Eritrean asylum-seekers. That would be up to the commander of the armed guards at the gates.

The Eritreans, whose government is considered among the world’s most repressive, refused to leave. They also refused to discuss returning home when an Eritrean diplomat unexpectedly showed up at the invitation of a U.N. migration official, according to the asylum-seekers. His arrival forced them to face a representative of the very government from which they are seeking asylum.

The tuberculosis patients, meanwhile, are being treated on-site in a crowded room of their own. They receive medicine from the U.N. But the pills are supposed to be taken on a full stomach, and instead the patients are making do with the same biscuits, bread and water they all have subsisted on since their arrival.

Most of the migrants at the U.N. center fled from worse and are torn between relief and fury — relief to have escaped Libya’s prisons alive, and fury at the impotence of the UN, which they say lacks either the will or the power to make any meaningful decisions about their future, inside the center or out.

“I hate these organizations. They don’t have any humanity,” said a 15-year-old Eritrean who survived the airstrike, fled to the U.N. facility, and is waiting to learn what will happen to him. His group is not allowed outside because they speak no Arabic and are targets for kidnapping. There are no resettlement slots available other than Libya.

“What shall we do?” he asked. “We have no options but to stay. Is there any news?”

The last thing most of those the AP interviewed want is to be turned out into Libyan cities, which are dangerous for everyone — Libyans and foreigners alike — but especially for migrants. They are considered ripe for kidnappings for ransom and for arrest by Libyan authorities who return them to the same detention centers they fled. So migrants inside see few alternatives to their new prison — it’s better than the old one or the streets.

“You are not allowed out because it’s like you are at the very last stage. You are almost outside Libya. It’s for your own safety,” said Khaled al-Marghani of LibAid, the Libyan group that operates the facility. “If you leave, I won’t be able to let you back in.”

Hardly anyone seemed eager to accept the latest offer, which the U.N. said came with guarantees from the Libyan government that they would not be re-arrested on the streets. But it is militias that run the streets, and not the central government.

One Sudanese migrant did agree to leave, seeing little alternative. He said he’ll now try to cross to Europe by sea before he is swept up in a Libyan raid to detain migrants.

“Instead of living in Tripoli and getting tortured, the sea is less torturous,” he said.

At a hearing late last month before members of the European Parliament, Annabelle Roig Granjon, a senior officer with UNHCR, fielded questions about how European funds were helping migrants inside Libya, especially in the center that opened a year ago to so much hope.

“The nature of the center, which was meant to be a transit center, is changing and this is a challenge right now,” she said. “What was meant to be an alternative to detention is turning into something else.”

►https://apnews.com/7e72689f44e45dd17aa0a3ee53ed3c03

UN tells migrants to leave Libya transit centre as $6m project flounders

‘You will not be considered for evacuation or resettlement if you stay.’

https://assets.irinnews.org/styles/responsive_large/s3/libya-gdf-refugee-un-migrant-unhcr_1.jpg?3pgwGV5f70GLLiXROfnUIoHB1dyLe1JR&itok=Ccldpnn5#.jpg

The UN says it is unable to help most residents of an overcrowded refugee centre in the Libyan capital it once touted as a safe haven. To encourage people to go, it is offering money and aid, even telling them they won’t be able to register as refugees to leave the war-torn country if they remain.

Originally intended as a temporary residence for a small fraction of refugees – just those who had already been vetted by the UN’s refugee agency (UNHCR) and were scheduled for evacuation or permanent residency in other countries — the Gathering and Departure Facility (GDF) now has some 1,150 residents, well over its stated capacity.

Most arrived over the last eight months of clashes in Tripoli, including 900 who UNHCR says entered “informally”; some even bribed their way in. As the fighting has intensified, numbers in the centre have risen and many of the people inside are hoping for, or demanding, a way out of the country – even though the UN says it can’t offer that to everyone.

A flyer UNHCR began distributing late November at the GDF – seen by The New Humanitarian – offers food, cash, primary healthcare, and medical referrals to those willing to leave.

“You will not be considered for evacuation or resettlement if you stay,” stresses the flyer – the latest in a series of attempts to encourage those who entered informally to leave. Aid, including cash, was also offered earlier. About 100 people have taken up the offer since late November, but others have also likely entered the facility.

A source within UNHCR Libya, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, criticised the effort to push people out, calling it tantamount to “blackmail” to promise them help if they go and threaten their ability to secure refugee status if they do not.

“Asylum seekers are asylum seekers and can’t be denied the right to seek asylum on the basis of their stay at the GDF,” they said, adding that the aid on offer had not included “any future consideration for their protection needs or safety” once they leave.

https://assets.irinnews.org/s3fs-public/styles/responsive_medium/public/libya-refugee.jpg?_sQ4Eqfqf2ig8adSNcBrFj6rNiYVMdqO&itok=ZadxKclN#.jpg

The agency has defended its actions.

UNHCR’s Special Envoy for the Central Mediterranean Situation Vincent Cochetel pointed out that there are only two locations in Libya, both in the Tripoli area, where people can officially register their claim as a refugee with UNHCR, and the GDF is not one of them.

Cochetel said the agency can no longer provide for or protect the people inside, given that it has become overcrowded and dangerous.

“We believe the urban environment is safer for them, as long as they have a roof over their heads,” he said, adding that his agency provides various services in Tripoli, where the vast majority of migrants already live and rent accomodations.

UNHCR “is not in charge of the GDF”, and never was, according to a spokesperson, who said that the centre was under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Interior, which allows UNHCR and a local NGO, LibAid, to provide services there – like healthcare and food.

But it was the refugee agency that proposed the project, and a statement released after the GDF’s opening late last year said the facility is “managed by the Libyan Ministry of Interior, UNHCR, and UNHCR’s partner LibAid.”

According to internal UN documents and several sources, the $6 million facility – paid for by international donors – has now become unsanitary and is in disarray.

Many of those inside are unsure whether to stay or go.

“UNHCR is putting a lot of pressure on us to leave the GDF,” one young Yemeni man who said he was in the centre told TNH by WhatsApp. “Should I leave the GDF no matter how dangerous the situation is for us?”
How it got this bad

There are more than 600,000 migrants in Libya, including 46,000 registered refugees and asylum seekers. Some came to work, but others aim to make their way to Europe, through a country that has become notorious for the rape, kidnap, and extortion of migrants, and for squalid detention centres run by militias and gangs.

Originally intended as a waystation for those on their way out of Libya, a UNHCR press release issued last December said the then-new GDF was a place to “bring vulnerable refugees to a safe environment while solutions including refugee resettlement, family reunification, evacuation to emergency facilities in other countries, return to a country of previous asylum, and voluntary repatriation are sought for them”.

The GDF is no longer the gleaming facility shown off in promotional videos and photos when it opened a year ago, when families posed with their packed bags, and kids smiled in a playground.

An internal UNHCR report from early November, obtained by TNH, paints a starkly different picture, as do the numerous accounts of those living inside the centre.

“Sewage water flooded days ago,” it says, adding, “the toilets in all the housing are extremely dirty… [and people] are complaining of the smell”. According to the report, some people had tuberculosis, scabies had begun to spread, and “food is stored in bad conditions”.

Some of this may be due to overcrowding, although the GDF’s capacity is not entirely clear: last December UNHCR said the facility could hold 1,000 people, but that number was adjusted in subsequent statements – in September, it was 700, and in October 600.

Numbers at the centre began to increase not long after it opened, although roughly in line with capacity until fighting broke out in Tripoli — with the internationally recognised government in Tripoli and the militias that back it on one side, and eastern forces led by general Khalifa Haftar on the other.

https://i.imgur.com/tqklCp4.png

Thousands of people found themselves trapped in detention centres on front lines, and UNHCR began evacuations to the GDF, including some of the “most vulnerable people” who had survived a July double airstrike on a centre called Tajoura that killed 52 people.

Other people were evacuated to the GDF from other centres or flocked there themselves, from Tajoura or elsewhere – drawn by the decent living conditions (it reportedly came to be known as “hotel GDF”) or because they saw it as a first step out of the country.

UNHCR tried to reserve GDF places for people it had previously registered as having a claim to refugee status – but distinguishing between refugees and other migrants has been at the heart of why the centre ran into trouble.

In late October, hundreds of residents from a separate Tripoli detention centre called Abu Salim managed to leave, and they too headed for the GDF, even though UNHCR described the facility as “severely overcrowded” at the time.

The guards who surround the GDF eventually let them in. Several sources, including UNHCR’s Cochetel told TNH that the guards — provided by the Tripoli government’s Department for Combating Illegal Migration (DCIM) — took bribes to do so.
Unrealistic hopes?

Libya is not a party to the international refugee conventions and does not accept refugees itself.

That leaves those who have not made it out of Libya and to Europe with limited options.

The UN’s migration agency, IOM, coordinates “voluntary humanitarian return” for migrants who want to go back to their home countries: nearly 9,000 people have opted for this option in 2019.

UNHCR, meanwhile, registers asylum seekers and refugees in Libya for possible moves to other countries, including permanent resettlement (774 people this year), or evacuation to countries who have agreed to take them, but not as citizens, like Rwanda (1,410 in 2019).

Until recently, UNHCR said the Libyan authorities had only allowed it to register people from nine countries for refugee status, but Cochetel said this had now changed and the agency could take the details of people of any nationality.

In addition to cash and healthcare, UNHCR says people who leave the GDF are eligible for “documentation,” and a spokesperson said “there is a commitment from the authorities not to detain asylum seekers holding UNHCR documents.”

But, even after registration, these papers do not confer the right to work, nor do they guarantee safety: Libya is a divided country with multiple authorities, none of which are party to refugee conventions and officially recognise UNHCR documents.

Kasper Engborg, deputy head of office for OCHA Libya, the UN body that coordinates emergency response, explained how those flocking to the GDF often have expectations that go beyond just shelter.

“They all went there in the hopes that this could be the first gateway to Europe, and they have obviously left [their home countries] for a reason. We are not in a place where we can judge what reasons people left for.

“They believe as soon as they are in the GDF they are halfway on their way to Europe,” Engborg said, pointing out that not many countries have so far stepped up to offer spots to people who claim asylum in Libya, many of whom come from sub-Saharan Africa.

A UNHCR report says 6,169 resettlement places have been found since September 2017, and over 4,000 of those have already been allocated.

“At the end of the day it is the countries who decide who they want to take and how many people,” Engborg said.

UNHCR’s Cochetel put it differently: “[Many] people believe UNHCR is a travel agency and we should resettle them all.” With limited spots available, he asked, “how do we do that?”

While much of the blame for the current chaos in the GDF appears to have been placed on the new influx of people and a lack of resettlement spaces, others say the current situation points to problems that were there from the start.

The GDF is across the street from the headquarters of the DCIM and a detention centre it runs, allowing people to slip between the facilities.

https://assets.irinnews.org/s3fs-public/styles/responsive_medium/public/libya-gdf-refugee-un-migrant-unhcr_1.jpg?QQD9uaiJ9aKdhXN.ui8g5ncCV13Ta5mj&itok=2_hCeEMW#.jpg

That means, according to multiple sources who work in Libya’s aid operation, all of whom requested anonymity, that physical and administrative control has largely been dictated by local authorities, and occasionally the militias that back them and provide armed security.

UNHCR’s Cochetel said the agency had limited choice in who it would work with in the GDF, and which firms to contract for services.

It’s “costing us enormous amounts of money; we cannot choose the partners”, he said. “We pay for food four times the level we should be paying.”

Two sources, both of whom requested anonymity, said part of the problem at the GDF stems from the fact that UNHCR never had a clear-cut agreement with the Libyan authorities – who are themselves split – on how the agency and its local partner, Libaid, would be able to operate inside the facility.
What’s next?

As controversy for the centre continues to swirl, it’s not clear what’s next for the GDF, and more importantly, for the people inside.

A UNHCR spokesperson said a catering contract that provides hot meals to the people who entered the centre without vetting will end at the start of next year, but the UN denies it will let GDF residents go hungry. It says, too, that it will not shut off the electricity or stop providing aid altogether.

“People are not going to be left in a starving situation,” said Engborg. “[If people do not leave] then other solutions will be found.”

But those solutions – one floated by a UNHCR spokesperson includes the possibility that the facility could “be run as an open centre, administered by the Libyan government, where different UN agencies and partners could provide various services” – would have to be approved by the authorities in Tripoli.

If conditions don’t improve, the UN could pull out altogether.

The spokesperson said that “for the UN to remain engaged, the centre would need to be a purely civilian facility where agencies and residents would have unhindered access and freedom of movement”.

One DCIM source, who requested anonymity because they were not authorised to speak to the media, said Tripoli authorities were unlikely to allow an unguarded centre on their doorstep.

So far, there is little sign of others stepping in. Several international groups involved in providing aid to migrants and refugees declined to speak on the record about the GDF or say if they would pitch in to help those currently there.

In the meantime, emotions are running high inside the centre, as desperate texts sent out to various media outlets lay bare.

“It is a very confusing situation, and it is also a very difficult situation, because you are dealing with people’s hopes and emotions,” Engborg said. “Therefore, whatever rational decision that we often need to take, we are up against people’s legitimate hopes and emotions.”

Leaving the GDF may mean a registration appointment, cash, and other help. But for some, staying may keep some semblance of safety and the dream of a new life elsewhere alive.

Only around 100 residents have taken the UN up on its offer since it began distributing flyers, according to an aid worker in the centre. But the UN’s attempts to coax people out of the GDF and dissuade others from entering have largely proven unsuccessful. And, with no agreed resolution, it might get worse still.

While “some people are leaving… new people are coming in”, said Cochetel. “They bribe, pay their way in… I have the feeling that more people will go there, thinking they will get better assistance at the GDF. [But] it’s not true.”

▻https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news/2019/12/10/UN-migrants-Libya-transit-centre-project

Non, en Libye les migrants en centres de détention n’ont pas plus de chance d’être réinstallés en Europe

En Libye, des trafiquants font payer à des migrants leur entrée en centre de détention en leur faisant croire qu’ils seront plus rapidement évacués et réinstallés en Europe. C’est totalement faux mais plusieurs centaines de personnes, désespérées, ont déjà été victimes de cette arnaque.

Depuis l’été dernier, il arrive que des migrants paient pour être enfermés dans des centres de détention en Libye. Selon le Haut-Commissariat des Nations unies pour les Réfugiés (UNHCR), informé de cette situation par des victimes de cette arnaque, les trafiquants demandent entre 200 et 500 dollars à certains migrants pour une place en centre de détention. Pour les convaincre de payer, ils leur promettent un accès facilité aux équipes du HCR et une réinstallation plus rapide en Europe.

« Les trafiquants leur font la promesse qu’une fois qu’ils auront payé, le HCR sera pour eux comme une agence de voyage vers l’Europe. Parfois, ils leur disent même que le HCR a déjà planifié un rendez-vous avec eux », s’indigne Vincent Cochetel, représentant du HCR pour la Méditerranée centrale, contacté par InfoMigrants.

Entre 200 et 500 dollars pour une place dans des centres dont les conditions de vie inhumaines (manque de nourriture et d’eau, absence d’hygiène et de soins, traitement dégradants…) sont régulièrement dénoncées par les ONG ? Pour Vincent Cochetel, le succès de cette nouvelle pratique des trafiquants est le signe d’une détérioration des conditions de vie des migrants en Libye. Si les personnes croient aux promesses des trafiquants et finissent par payer pour aller dans ces centres, c’est qu’elles se sentent trop en danger en dehors.

« Les gens sont désespérés »

« Beaucoup de quartiers de Tripoli sont touchés par des frappes aériennes et des coupures d’électricité et d’eau. Les gens se trouvent dans un cul de sac, ils n’ont pas assez d’argent pour traverser ou ne veulent pas prendre de risques car, avec l’hiver, l’eau est froide et la mer plus agitée. Ils sont désespérés et pensent qu’ils seront plus visibles dans ces centres », explique Vincent Cochetel.

Certaines nationalités craignent également l’enlèvement. En Libye, selon le représentant du HCR, moins on parle l’arabe, plus on a une couleur de peau foncée et plus les risques d’être enlevé sont élevés.

Pour alimenter cette nouvelle branche de leur économie, les trafiquants cibleraient en particulier les personnes membres des communautés érythréenne et soudanaise. Une rumeur persistante –bien que fausse – affirme que ces personnes ont plus de moyens financiers grâce à leurs diasporas.

Le sentiment d’insécurité des migrants risque d’être renforcé par la fermeture, fin 2019, du centre de rassemblement et de départ (Gathering and Departure Facility, GDF) du HCR, à Tripoli. Pour compenser la fermeture de ce centre surpeuplé, L’agence onusienne assure qu’elle va renforcer ses programmes d’assistance dans des zones urbaines. Mais depuis avril 2019, le sud de la capital libyenne est en proie à un conflit armé.

En juillet 2019, le centre de détention de Tajourah, près de Tripoli, a été la cible d’une frappe aérienne qui a fait plus de 44 morts et 130 blessés.
« Les gens n’ont pas besoin d’être en détention pour être enregistrés »

Pour les migrants qui ont accepté de payer pour se retrouver en centres de détention, les voies de recours sont inexistantes. Surtout dans un pays où « le système de détention officiel fait partie du ’business model’ des trafiquants », estime Vincent Cochetel,

Le HCR lui-même reconnaît qu’il ne peut pas faire « grand-chose de plus que de prévenir les gens qu’ils n’ont pas besoin d’être en détention pour être enregistré ». « On essaye de faire passer le message dans différentes communautés. Mais parfois, ce qu’on dit a moins d’impact que le discours des trafiquants », déplore le représentant du HCR.

Face à ce nouveau danger pour les migrants, la solution est de renforcer l’information dans les langues que les gens parlent. « Nous devons aussi bien équilibrer nos efforts de réinstallation pour qu’il n’y ait pas la perception qu’on réinstalle plus les gens en détention que ceux en milieu urbain », ajoute Vincent Cochetel.

Depuis novembre 2017, le HCR a mis en place un système d’évacuation des réfugiés susceptibles d’obtenir une protection internationale dans un pays européen. Pour cela, les personnes doivent avoir été enregistrées en tant que réfugiés par l’agence onusienne. Ces enregistrements se font depuis les centres de détention officiels gérés par le département de lutte contre la migration illégale (DCIM, selon l’acronyme anglais) ou depuis le centre du HCR, à Tripoli.

Les migrants évacués sont alors envoyés vers le Niger ou le Rwanda, dans l’attente de leur réinstallation dans un pays d’accueil. Mais les États européens et le Canada n’acceptent les réfugiés qu’au compte-goutte. Sur les quelques 50 000 réfugiés enregistrés par le HCR en Libye, seuls quelque 4 600 ont été réinstallés depuis novembre 2017.

Les migrants qui parviennent à quitter les centres de détention et tentent de rejoindre l’Europe par la mer sont quasi-systématiquement interceptés par les garde-côtes libyens et renvoyés en détention.

▻https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/21425/non-en-libye-les-migrants-en-centres-de-detention-n-ont-pas-plus-de-ch

Fin janvier 2020:
UN evacuates endangered refugee centre in Libya’s Tripoli
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/823675

« A Tripoli, la vulnérabilité des demandeurs d’asile est immense »

Selon la porte-parole du Haut-Commissariat pour les réfugiés, le nombre de candidats à la traversée vers l’Europe interceptés par les gardes-côtes libyens a « augmenté de plus de 120 % » en janvier.

Caroline Gluck est porte-parole du Haut-Commissariat pour les réfugiés (HCR) en Libye. Elle alerte sur la détérioration de la situation des migrants en Libye et déplore le manque de solution d’évacuation pour les plus vulnérables. Depuis l’assaut déclenché en avril 2019 par le maréchal dissident Khalifa Haftar contre le gouvernement d’accord national (GAN) de Tripoli, la sécurité s’est considérablement dégradée dans la capitale. Le HCR a décidé de fermer son centre de rassemblement et de départ de Tripoli.
Quelle est aujourd’hui la situation des migrants en Libye ?

Environ 640 000 migrants se trouvent actuellement en Libye et le pays continue d’être une terre d’accueil pour des travailleurs étrangers. Il faut ajouter à ces personnes 47 000 réfugiés et demandeurs d’asile, sachant que le HCR enregistre chaque mois un millier de demandeurs d’asile supplémentaires, qui ont pour beaucoup été libérés de centres de détention ou été victimes de trafiquants. Ils ont urgemment besoin d’aide. Ils sont Syriens, Soudanais, Erythréens, Palestiniens… Leur vulnérabilité est immense, en particulier pour ceux originaires d’Afrique.

La Libye n’est pas un pays sûr, ni une terre d’asile. Les réfugiés y sont considérés comme étant dans l’illégalité et peuvent à tout moment être arrêtés et détenus. Il leur est souvent difficile de trouver un logement, a fortiori depuis le regain de la guerre civile à partir d’avril 2019, qui a provoqué le déplacement de 150 000 Libyens à l’intérieur du pays. Migrants et nationaux se retrouvent en concurrence pour trouver des logements abordables.

De façon générale, le contexte sécuritaire a des conséquences considérables pour l’ensemble des agences internationales et des ONG. Plus du quart des effectifs libyens du HCR ont été déplacés à cause du conflit. Toutes nos activités sont ralenties. Notre présence est limitée aux villes de Tripoli, Benghazi et Misrata et nous ne pouvons pas apporter notre aide à tous ceux qui en ont besoin. En outre, les dysfonctionnements du système bancaire font que nous avons du mal à déployer notre programme de soutien pour les personnes vivant en milieu urbain. Quelque 5 000 foyers reçoivent jusqu’à présent cette assistance qui représente, pour une personne seule, 250 dollars [230 euros]. Ce n’est pas assez.
Un an à peine après son ouverture, le HCR a annoncé la fermeture de son centre de transit pour réfugiés à Tripoli. Pourquoi ?

Il y a encore 119 personnes au sein du centre de rassemblement et de départ (GDF) et nous aimerions le fermer la semaine prochaine. La suite qui sera donnée n’est pas encore claire. Ce centre devait être un lieu de transit pour des réfugiés particulièrement vulnérables avant leur évacuation de Libye et, éventuellement, leur réinstallation en Europe ou en Amérique du Nord.

Mais nous avons été dépassés par la réalité du terrain. En juillet, après le bombardement aérien du centre de détention de Tajoura [est de Tripoli], nous y avons accueilli de façon exceptionnelle 400 personnes. Les réfugiés ont cru qu’en entrant dans notre centre, ils pourraient quitter les pays. Fin octobre début novembre, 400 personnes du centre de détention d’Abu Salim [quartier de Tripoli], qui n’étaient pas prioritaires, sont venues au GDF. Les gardes de la DCIM [département libyen de lutte contre la migration illégale, qui relève du ministère de l’intérieur], qui surveillent le complexe dans lequel se trouve le GDF, les ont laissés faire. On a su que certains payaient pour pouvoir entrer. Les lieux sont devenus surpeuplés.

D’autres événements ont précipité notre décision de fermeture. En janvier, trois obus de mortier sont tombés près du GDF et des débris ont atterri près d’un entrepôt à l’intérieur du complexe. Au même moment, nous avons appris que la DCIM construisait un site militaire à proximité immédiate du GDF. Fin janvier, deux journées d’entraînement de forces armées y ont eu lieu. Le site a perdu sa vocation civile et les réfugiés devenaient une cible militaire. Nous ne pouvons plus y travailler.

Nous sommes conscients de nos échecs et de nos vulnérabilités. Nous recherchons un nouveau site pour que des réfugiés particulièrement vulnérables y transitent avant des vols d’évacuation. Mais nous avons aussi besoin que la communauté internationale offre plus de places de réinstallation. Seuls 2 400 réfugiés ont pu être évacués de Libye en 2019. Ce qui est vrai pour la Libye est vrai à l’échelle mondiale. Nous estimons qu’1,4 million de réfugiés en danger dans des pays de premier accueil ont urgemment besoin d’être évacués. En 2019, le HCR n’a pu en réinstaller que 63 000, soit 4,5 % des besoins mondiaux.
Le sujet est moins présent dans l’actualité, mais les traversées de la Méditerranée se poursuivent…

En janvier, les gardes-côtes libyens ont intercepté 1 040 personnes qui tentaient de traverser la Méditerranée pour rejoindre l’Europe. Il y a un an, ils en avaient intercepté 469. Cette augmentation de plus de 120 % est le fait de la guerre en Libye. Les gens sont désespérés. Des Libyens tentent aussi la traversée.

On observe par ailleurs un changement depuis peu : les gens interceptés en mer ne sont plus systématiquement ramenés dans des centres de détention. Nous comprenons qu’il y a actuellement onze centres de détentions officiels, placés sous la responsabilité du ministère de l’intérieur, contre seize il y a encore quelques semaines. Il y a d’autres centres de détention non officiels, mais le HCR n’y a pas accès.

Nous ne pouvons que spéculer sur les raisons des fermetures de certains centres officiels. Peut-être que les ressources du gouvernement sont employées sur d’autres fronts, peut-être que notre plaidoyer a eu un effet même si je pense qu’il est limité. La situation continue d’évoluer au jour le jour. Ce qui est certain, c’est que la Libye a besoin de paix. Nous espérons que les pourparlers progresseront mais, à ce stade, nous ne pouvons que constater le soutien militaire apporté par des pays étrangers malgré le cessez-le-feu et l’embargo sur les armes.

▻https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2020/02/14/a-tripoli-la-vulnerabilite-des-demandeurs-d-asile-est-immense_6029581_3212.h
#vulnérabilité

▻https://www.raialyoum.com/index.php/%d9%87%d9%84-%d8%a8%d8%af%d8%a3%d8%aa-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a7%d9%85%d8%a7%d8%b

Commentaire d’Abdelbari Atouane : Les Emirats ont-ils commencé à mettre fin à leur boycott du voisin iranien ? Peut-on s’attendre à une imminente réunion politique entre Ben Zayed et Zarif après la visite d’une délégation séucritaire émirienne à Téhéran ? Qu’en est-il des canaux secrets d’échange entre Abu Dhabi et les Houthis à Saada ? Qu’en pensent les Saoudiens ?

Trump Administration Implementing ’3rd Country’ Rule On Migrants Seeking Asylum

The Trump administration is moving forward with a tough new asylum rule in its campaign to slow the flow of Central American migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. Asylum-seeking immigrants who pass through a third country en route to the U.S. must first apply for refugee status in that country rather than at the U.S. border.

The restriction will likely face court challenges, opening a new front in the battle over U.S. immigration policies.

The interim final rule will take effect immediately after it is published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, according to the departments of Justice and Homeland Security.

The new policy applies specifically to the U.S.-Mexico border, saying that “an alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States across the southern border after failing to apply for protection in a third country outside the alien’s country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence through which the alien transited en route to the United States is ineligible for asylum.”

“Until Congress can act, this interim rule will help reduce a major ’pull’ factor driving irregular migration to the United States,” Homeland Security acting Secretary Kevin K. McAleenan said in a statement about the new rule.

The American Civil Liberties Union said it planned to file a lawsuit to try to stop the rule from taking effect.

“This new rule is patently unlawful and we will sue swiftly,” Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s national Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement.

Gelernt accused the Trump administration of “trying to unilaterally reverse our country’s legal and moral commitment to protect those fleeing danger.”

The strict policy shift would likely bring new pressures and official burdens on Mexico and Guatemala, countries through which migrants and refugees often pass on their way to the U.S.

On Sunday, Guatemala’s government pulled out of a meeting between President Jimmy Morales and Trump that had been scheduled for Monday, citing ongoing legal questions over whether the country could be deemed a “safe third country” for migrants who want to reach the U.S.

Hours after the U.S. announced the rule on Monday, Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said it was a unilateral move that will not affect Mexican citizens.

“Mexico does not agree with measures that limit asylum and refugee status for those who fear for their lives or safety, and who fear persecution in their country of origin,” Ebrard said.

Ebrard said Mexico will maintain its current policies, reiterating the country’s “respect for the human rights of all people, as well as for its international commitments in matters of asylum and political refuge.”

According to a DHS news release, the U.S. rule would set “a new bar to eligibility” for anyone seeking asylum. It also allows exceptions in three limited cases:

“1) an alien who demonstrates that he or she applied for protection from persecution or torture in at least one of the countries through which the alien transited en route to the United States, and the alien received a final judgment denying the alien protection in such country;

”(2) an alien who demonstrates that he or she satisfies the definition of ’victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons’ provided in 8 C.F.R. § 214.11; or,

“(3) an alien who has transited en route to the United States through only a country or countries that were not parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol, or the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”

The DHS release describes asylum as “a discretionary benefit offered by the United States Government to those fleeing persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

The departments of Justice and Homeland Security are publishing the 58-page asylum rule as the Trump administration faces criticism over conditions at migrant detention centers at the southern border, as well as its “remain in Mexico” policy that requires asylum-seekers who are waiting for a U.S. court date to do so in Mexico rather than in the U.S.

In a statement about the new rule, U.S. Attorney General William Barr said that current U.S. asylum rules have been abused, and that the large number of people trying to enter the country has put a strain on the system.

Barr said the number of cases referred to the Department of Justice for proceedings before an immigration judge “has risen exponentially, more than tripling between 2013 and 2018.” The attorney general added, “Only a small minority of these individuals, however, are ultimately granted asylum.”

▻https://www.npr.org/2019/07/15/741769333/u-s-sets-new-asylum-rule-telling-potential-refugees-to-apply-elsewhere

Le gouvernement américain va refuser l’asile aux migrants transitant par le Mexique

D’après le ministre de la justice, Bill Barr, cette mesure, dénoncée par Mexico, doit « décourager les migrants économiques qui veulent exploiter le système d’asile » des Etats-Unis.

▻https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/07/15/le-gouvernement-americain-va-refuser-l-asile-aux-migrants-transitant-par-le-
#dissuasion

Le journal The New Yorker : Trump est prêt à signer un accord majeur pour envoyer à l’avenir les demandeurs d’asile au Guatemala

L’article fait état d’un projet de #plate-forme_externalisée pour examiner les demandes de personnes appréhendées aux frontières US, qui rappelle à la fois une proposition britannique (jamais concrétisée) de 2003 de créer des processing centers extra-européens et la #Pacific_solution australienne, qui consiste à déporter les demandeurs d’asile « illégaux » de toute nationalité dans des pays voisins. Et l’article évoque la « plus grande et la plus troublante des questions : comment le Guatemala pourrait-il faire face à un afflux si énorme de demandeurs ? » Peut-être en demandant conseil aux autorités libyennes et à leurs amis européens ?

–-> Message reçu d’Alain Morice via la mailling-list Migreurop.

Trump Is Poised to Sign a Radical Agreement to Send Future Asylum Seekers to Guatemala

https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5d28e3d5b28c9b0008243b43/master/w_649,c_limit/Blitzer-Safe3rdCountry-1.jpg

Early next week, according to a D.H.S. official, the Trump Administration is expected to announce a major immigration deal, known as a safe-third-country agreement, with Guatemala. For weeks, there have been reports that negotiations were under way between the two countries, but, until now, none of the details were official. According to a draft of the agreement obtained by The New Yorker, asylum seekers from any country who either show up at U.S. ports of entry or are apprehended while crossing between ports of entry could be sent to seek asylum in Guatemala instead. During the past year, tens of thousands of migrants, the vast majority of them from Central America, have arrived at the U.S. border seeking asylum each month. By law, the U.S. must give them a chance to bring their claims before authorities, even though there’s currently a backlog in the immigration courts of roughly a million cases. The Trump Administration has tried a number of measures to prevent asylum seekers from entering the country—from “metering” at ports of entry to forcing people to wait in Mexico—but, in every case, international obligations held that the U.S. would eventually have to hear their asylum claims. Under this new arrangement, most of these migrants will no longer have a chance to make an asylum claim in the U.S. at all. “We’re talking about something much bigger than what the term ‘safe third country’ implies,” someone with knowledge of the deal told me. “We’re talking about a kind of transfer agreement where the U.S. can send any asylum seekers, not just Central Americans, to Guatemala.”

From the start of the Trump Presidency, Administration officials have been fixated on a safe-third-country policy with Mexico—a similar accord already exists with Canada—since it would allow the U.S. government to shift the burden of handling asylum claims farther south. The principle was that migrants wouldn’t have to apply for asylum in the U.S. because they could do so elsewhere along the way. But immigrants-rights advocates and policy experts pointed out that Mexico’s legal system could not credibly take on that responsibility. “If you’re going to pursue a safe-third-country agreement, you have to be able to say ‘safe’ with a straight face,” Doris Meissner, a former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, told me. Until very recently, the prospect of such an agreement—not just with Mexico but with any other country in Central America—seemed far-fetched. Yet last month, under the threat of steep tariffs on Mexican goods, Trump strong-armed the Mexican government into considering it. Even so, according to a former Mexican official, the government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador is stalling. “They are trying to fight this,” the former official said. What’s so striking about the agreement with Guatemala, however, is that it goes even further than the terms the U.S. sought in its dealings with Mexico. “This is a whole new level,” the person with knowledge of the agreement told me. “In my read, it looks like even those who have never set foot in Guatemala can potentially be sent there.”

At this point, there are still more questions than answers about what the agreement with Guatemala will mean in practice. A lot will still have to happen before it goes into force, and the terms aren’t final. The draft of the agreement doesn’t provide much clarity on how it will be implemented—another person with knowledge of the agreement said, “This reads like it was drafted by someone’s intern”—but it does offer an exemption for Guatemalan migrants, which might be why the government of Jimmy Morales, a U.S. ally, seems willing to sign on. Guatemala is currently in the midst of Presidential elections; next month, the country will hold a runoff between two candidates, and the current front-runner has been opposed to this type of deal. The Morales government, however, still has six months left in office. A U.N.-backed anti-corruption body called the CICIG, which for years was funded by the U.S. and admired throughout the region, is being dismantled by Morales, whose own family has fallen under investigation for graft and financial improprieties. Signing an immigration deal “would get the Guatemalan government in the U.S.’s good graces,” Stephen McFarland, a former U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala, told me. “The question is, what would they intend to use that status for?” Earlier this week, after Morales announced that he would be meeting with Trump in Washington on Monday, three former foreign ministers of Guatemala petitioned the country’s Constitutional Court to block him from signing the agreement. Doing so, they said, “would allow the current president of the republic to leave the future of our country mortgaged, without any responsibility.”

The biggest, and most unsettling, question raised by the agreement is how Guatemala could possibly cope with such enormous demands. More people are leaving Guatemala now than any other country in the northern triangle of Central America. Rampant poverty, entrenched political corruption, urban crime, and the effects of climate change have made large swaths of the country virtually uninhabitable. “This is already a country in which the political and economic system can’t provide jobs for all its people,” McFarland said. “There are all these people, their own citizens, that the government and the political and economic system are not taking care of. To get thousands of citizens from other countries to come in there, and to take care of them for an indefinite period of time, would be very difficult.” Although the U.S. would provide additional aid to help the Guatemalan government address the influx of asylum seekers, it isn’t clear whether the country has the administrative capacity to take on the job. According to the person familiar with the safe-third-country agreement, “U.N.H.C.R. [the U.N.’s refugee agency] has not been involved” in the current negotiations. And, for Central Americans transferred to Guatemala under the terms of the deal, there’s an added security risk: many of the gangs Salvadorans and Hondurans are fleeing also operate in Guatemala.

In recent months, the squalid conditions at borderland detention centers have provoked a broad political outcry in the U.S. At the same time, a worsening asylum crisis has been playing out south of the U.S. border, beyond the immediate notice of concerned Americans. There, the Trump Administration is quietly delivering on its promise to redraw American asylum practice. Since January, under a policy called the Migration Protection Protocols (M.P.P.), the U.S. government has sent more than fifteen thousand asylum seekers to Mexico, where they now must wait indefinitely as their cases inch through the backlogged American immigration courts. Cities in northern Mexico, such as Tijuana and Juarez, are filling up with desperate migrants who are exposed to violent crime, extortion, and kidnappings, all of which are on the rise.This week, as part of the M.P.P., the U.S. began sending migrants to Tamaulipas, one of Mexico’s most violent states and a stronghold for drug cartels that, for years, have brutalized migrants for money and for sport.

Safe-third-country agreements are notoriously difficult to enforce. The logistics are complex, and the outcomes tend not to change the harried calculations of asylum seekers as they flee their homes. These agreements, according to a recent study by the Migration Policy Institute, are “unlikely to hold the key to solving the crisis unfolding at the U.S. southern border.” The Trump Administration has already cut aid to Central America, and the U.S. asylum system remains in dire need of improvement. But there’s also little question that the agreement with Guatemala will reduce the number of people who reach, and remain in, the U.S. If the President has made the asylum crisis worse, he’ll also be able to say he’s improving it—just as he can claim credit for the decline in the number of apprehensions at the U.S. border last month. That was the result of increased enforcement efforts by the Mexican government acting under U.S. pressure.

There’s also no reason to expect that the Trump Administration will abandon its efforts to force the Mexicans into a safe-third-country agreement as well. “The Mexican government thought that the possibility of a safe-third-country agreement with Guatemala had fallen apart because of the elections there,” the former Mexican official told me. “The recent news caught top Mexican officials by surprise.” In the next month, the two countries will continue immigration talks, and, again, Mexico will face mounting pressure to accede to American demands. “The U.S. has used the agreement with Guatemala to convince the Mexicans to sign their own safe-third-country agreement,” the former official said. “Its argument is that the number of migrants Mexico will receive will be lower now.”

▻https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-poised-to-sign-a-radical-agreement-to-send-future-asylum-seekers-to
#externalisation

Le texte de l’#accord avec le Guatemala :
▻https://www.prensalibre.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/acuerdo-tercer-pais-seguro-trump-guatemala-jimmy-morales-migrantes-2019

v. aussi le contenu ici :
►https://www.prensalibre.com/guatemala/migrantes/este-es-el-acuerdo-migratorio-firmado-entre-guatemala-y-estados-unidos

signalé par @pascaline via la mailing-list Migreurop

After Tariff Threat, Trump Says Guatemala Has Agreed to New Asylum Rules

President Trump on Friday again sought to block migrants from Central America from seeking asylum, announcing an agreement with Guatemala to require people who travel through that country to seek refuge from persecution there instead of in the United States.

American officials said the deal could go into effect within weeks, though critics vowed to challenge it in court, saying that Guatemala is itself one of the most dangerous countries in the world — hardly a refuge for those fleeing gangs and government violence.

Mr. Trump had been pushing for a way to slow the flow of migrants streaming across the Mexican border and into the United States in recent months. This week, the president had threatened to impose tariffs on Guatemala, to tax money that Guatemalan migrants in the United States send back to family members, or to ban all travel from the country if the agreement were not signed.

Joined in the Oval Office on Friday by Interior Minister Enrique Degenhart of Guatemala, Mr. Trump said the agreement would end what he has described as a crisis at the border, which has been overwhelmed by hundreds of thousands of families fleeing violence and persecution in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala.
Sign up for The Interpreter

Subscribe for original insights, commentary and discussions on the major news stories of the week, from columnists Max Fisher and Amanda Taub.

“These are bad people,” Mr. Trump told reporters after a previously unannounced signing ceremony. He said the agreement would “end widespread abuse of the system and the crippling crisis on our border.”

Officials did not release the English text of the agreement or provide many details about how it would be put into practice along the United States border with Mexico. Mr. Trump announced the deal in a Friday afternoon Twitter post that took Guatemalan politicians and leaders at immigration advocacy groups by surprise.

Kevin K. McAleenan, the acting secretary of homeland security, described the document signed by the two countries as a “safe third” agreement that would make migrants ineligible for protection in the United States if they had traveled through Guatemala and did not first apply for asylum there.

Instead of being returned home, however, the migrants would be sent back to Guatemala, which under the agreement would be designated as a safe place for them to live.

“They would be removable, back to Guatemala, if they want to seek an asylum claim,” said Mr. McAleenan, who likened the agreement to similar arrangements in Europe.
Editors’ Picks
Buying a Weekend House With Friends: Is It Really a Good Idea?
Bob Dylan and the Myth of Boomer Idealism
True Life: I Got Conned by Anna Delvey

The move was the latest attempt by Mr. Trump to severely limit the ability of refugees to win protection in the United States. A new regulation that would have also banned most asylum seekers was blocked by a judge in San Francisco earlier this week.

But the Trump administration is determined to do everything it can to stop the flow of migrants at the border, which has infuriated the president. Mr. Trump has frequently told his advisers that he sees the border situation as evidence of a failure to make good on his campaign promise to seal the border from dangerous immigrants.

More than 144,200 migrants were taken into custody at the southwest border in May, the highest monthly total in 13 years. Arrests at the border declined by 28 percent in June after efforts in Mexico and the United States to stop migrants from Central America.

Late Friday, the Guatemalan government released the Spanish text of the deal, which is called a “cooperative agreement regarding the examination of protection claims.” In an earlier statement announcing the agreement, the government had referred to an implementation plan for Salvadorans and Hondurans. It does not apply to Guatemalans who request asylum in the United States.

By avoiding any mention of a “safe third country” agreement, President Jimmy Morales of Guatemala appeared to be trying to sidestep a recent court ruling blocking him from signing a deal with the United States without the approval of his country’s congress.

Mr. Morales will leave office in January. One of the candidates running to replace him, the conservative Alejandro Giammattei, said that it was “irresponsible” for Mr. Morales to have agreed to an accord without revealing its contents first.

“It is up to the next government to attend to this negotiation,” Mr. Giammattei wrote on Twitter. His opponent, Sandra Torres, had opposed any safe-third-country agreement when it first appeared that Mr. Morales was preparing to sign one.

Legal groups in the United States said the immediate effect of the agreement will not be clear until the administration releases more details. But based on the descriptions of the deal, they vowed to ask a judge to block it from going into effect.

“Guatemala can neither offer a safe nor fair and full process, and nobody could plausibly argue otherwise,” said Lee Gelernt, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who argued against other recent efforts to limit asylum. “There’s no way they have the capacity to provide a full and fair procedure, much less a safe one.”

American asylum laws require that virtually all migrants who arrive at the border must be allowed to seek refuge in the United States, but the law allows the government to quickly deport migrants to a country that has signed a “safe third” agreement.

But critics said that the law clearly requires the “safe third” country to be a truly safe place where migrants will not be in danger. And it requires that the country have the ability to provide a “full and fair” system of protections that can accommodate asylum seekers who are sent there. Critics insisted that Guatemala meets neither requirement.

They also noted that the State Department’s own country condition reports on Guatemala warn about rampant gang activity and say that murder is common in the country, which has a police force that is often ineffective at best.

Asked whether Guatemala is a safe country for refugees, Mr. McAleenan said it was unfair to tar an entire country, noting that there are also places in the United States that are not safe.

In 2018, the most recent year for which data is available, 116,808 migrants apprehended at the southwest border were from Guatemala, while 77,128 were from Honduras and 31,636 were from El Salvador.

“It’s legally ludicrous and totally dangerous,” said Eleanor Acer, the senior director for refugee protection at Human Rights First. “The United States is trying to send people back to a country where their lives would be at risk. It sets a terrible example for the rest of the world.”

Administration officials traveled to Guatemala in recent months, pushing officials there to sign the agreement, according to an administration official. But negotiations broke down in the past two weeks after Guatemala’s Constitutional Court ruled that Mr. Morales needed approval from lawmakers to make the deal with the United States.

The ruling led Mr. Morales to cancel a planned trip in mid-July to sign the agreement, leaving Mr. Trump fuming.

“Now we are looking at the BAN, Tariffs, Remittance Fees, or all of the above,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter on July 23.

Friday’s action suggests that the president’s threats, which provoked concern among Guatemala’s business community, were effective.

▻https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/26/world/americas/trump-guatemala-asylum.html

Este es el acuerdo migratorio firmado entre Guatemala y Estados Unidos

Prensa Libre obtuvo en primicia el acuerdo que Guatemala firmó con Estados Unidos para detener la migración desde el Triángulo Norte de Centroamérica.

Estados Unidos y Guatemala firmaron este 26 de julio un “acuerdo de asilo”, después de que esta semana el presidente Donald Trump amenazara a Guatemala con imponer aranceles para presionar por la negociación del convenio.

Según Trump, el acuerdo “va a dar seguridad a los demandantes de asilo legítimos y a va detener los fraudes y abusos en el sistema de asilo”.

El acuerdo fue firmado en el Despacho Oval de la Casa Blanca entre Kevin McAleenan, secretario interino de Seguridad Nacional de los Estados Unidos, y Enrique Degenhart, ministro de Gobernación de Guatemala.

“Hace mucho tiempo que hemos estado trabajando con Guatemala y ahora podemos hacerlo de la manera correcta”, dijo el mandatario estadounidense.

Este es el contenido íntegro del acuerdo:

ACUERDO ENTRE EL GOBIERNO DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMÉRICA Y EL GOBIERNO DE LA REPÚBLICA DE GUATEMALA RELATIVO A LA COOPERACIÓN RESPECTO AL EXAMEN DE SOLICITUDES DE PROTECCIÓN

EL GOBIERNO DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMÉRICA Y EL GOBIERNO DE LA REPÚBLICA DE GUATEMALA, en lo sucesivo de forma individual una “Parte” o colectivamente “las Partes”,

CONSIDERANDO que Guatemala norma sus relaciones con otros países de conformidad con principios, reglas y prácticas internacionales con el propósito de contribuir al mantenimiento de la paz y la libertad, al respeto y defensa de los derechos humanos, y al fortalecimiento de los procesos democráticos e instituciones internacionales que garanticen el beneficio mutuo y equitativo entre los Estados; considerando por otro lado, que Guatemala mantendrá relaciones de amistad, solidaridad y cooperación con aquellos Estados cuyo desarrollo económico, social y cultural sea análogo al de Guatemala, como el derecho de las personas a migrar y su necesidad de protección;

CONSIDERANDO que en la actualidad Guatemala incorpora en su legislación interna leyes migratorias dinámicas que obligan a Guatemala a reconocer el derecho de toda persona a emigrar o inmigrar, por lo que cualquier migrante puede entrar, permanecer, transitar, salir y retornar a su territorio nacional conforme a su legislación nacional; considerando, asimismo, que en situaciones no previstas por la legislación interna se debe aplicar la norma que más favorezca al migrante, siendo que por analogía se le debería dar abrigo y cuidado temporal a las personas que deseen ingresar de manera legal al territorio nacional; considerando que por estos motivos es necesario promover acuerdos de cooperación con otros Estados que respeten los mismos principios descritos en la política migratoria de Guatemala, reglamentada por la Autoridad Migratoria Nacional;

CONSIDERANDO que Guatemala es parte de la Convención sobre el Estatuto de los Refugiados de 1951, celebrada en Ginebra el 28 de julio de 1951 (la “Convención de 1951″) y del Protocolo sobre el Estatuto de los Refugiados, firmado en Nueva York el 31 de enero de 1967 (el “Protocolo de 1967′), del cual los Estados Unidos son parte, y reafirmando la obligación de las partes de proporcionar protección a refugiados que cumplen con los requisitos y que se encuentran físicamente en sus respectivos territorios, de conformidad con sus obligaciones según esos instrumentos y sujetos . a las respectivas leyes, tratados y declaraciones de las Partes;

RECONOCIENDO especialmente la obligación de las Partes respecto a cumplir el principio de non-refoulement de no devolución, tal como se desprende de la Convención de 1951 y del Protocolo de 1967, así como la Convención contra la Tortura y Otros Tratos o Penas Crueles, Inhumanos o Degradantes, firmada en Nueva York el 10 de diciembre de 1984 (la “Convención contra la Tortura”), con sujeción a las respectivas reservas, entendimientos y declaraciones de las Partes y reafirmando sus respectivas obligaciones de fomentar y proteger los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales en consonancia con sus obligaciones en el ámbito internacional;

RECONOCIENDO y respetando las obligaciones de cada Parte de conformidad con sus leyes y políticas nacionales y acuerdos y arreglos internacionales;

DESTACANDO que los Estados Unidos de América y Guatemala ofrecen sistemas de protección de refugiados que son coherentes con sus obligaciones conforme a la Convención de 1951 y/o el Protocolo de 1967;

DECIDIDOS a mantener el estatuto de refugio o de protección temporal equivalente, como medida esencial en la protección de los refugiados o asilados, y al mismo tiempo deseando impedir el fraude en el proceso de solicitud de refugio o asilo, acción que socava su legitimo propósito; y decididos a fortalecer la integridad del proceso oficial para solicitar el estatuto de refugio o asilo, así como el respaldo público a dicho proceso;

CONSCIENTES de que la distribución de la responsabilidad relacionada con solicitudes de protección debe garantizar en la práctica que se identifique a las personas que necesitan protección y que se eviten las violaciones del principio básico de no devolución; y, por lo tanto, comprometidos con salvaguardar para cada solicitante del estatuto de refugio o asilo que reúna las condiciones necesarias el acceso a un procedimiento completo e imparcial para determinar la solicitud;

ACUERDAN lo siguiente:

ARTÍCULO 1

A efectos del presente Acuerdo:

1. “Solicitud de protección” significa la solicitud de una persona de cualquier nacionalidad, al gobierno de una de las Partes para recibir protección conforme a sus respectivas obligaciones institucionales derivadas de la Convención de 1951, del Protocolo de 1967 o de la Convención contra la Tortura, y de conformidad con las leyes y políticas respectivas de las Partes que dan cumplimiento a esas obligaciones internacionales, así como para recibir cualquier otro tipo de protección temporal equivalente disponible conforme al derecho migratorio de la parte receptora.

2. “Solicitante de protección” significa cualquier persona que presenta una solicitud de protección en el territorio de una de las partes.

3. “Sistema para determinar la protección” significa el conjunto de políticas, leyes, prácticas administrativas y judiciales que el gobierno de cada parte emplea para decidir respecto de las solicitudes de protección.

4. “Menor no acompañado” significa un solicitante de protección que no ha cumplido los dieciocho (18) años de edad y cuyo padre, madre o tutor legal no está presente ni disponible para proporcionar atención y custodia presencial en los Estados Unidos de América o en Guatemala, donde se encuentre el menor no acompañado.

5. En el caso de la inmigración a Guatemala, las políticas respecto de leyes y migración abordan el derecho de las personas a entrar, permanecer, transitar y salir de su territorio de conformidad con sus leyes internas y los acuerdos y arreglos internacionales, y permanencia migratoria significa permanencia por un plazo de tiempo autorizado de acuerdo al estatuto migratorio otorgado a las personas.

ARTÍCULO 2

El presente Acuerdo no aplica a los solicitantes de protección que son ciudadanos o nacionales de Guatemala; o quienes, siendo apátridas, residen habitualmente en Guatemala.

ARTÍCULO 3

1. Para garantizar que los solicitantes de protección trasladados a Guatemala por los Estados Unidos tengan acceso a un sistema para determinar la protección, Guatemala no retornará ni expulsará a solicitantes de protección en Guatemala, a menos que el solicitante abandone la ‘solicitud o que esta sea denegada a través de una decisión administrativa.

2. Durante el proceso de traslado, las personas sujetas al presente Acuerdo serán responsabilidad de los Estados Unidos hasta que finalice el proceso de traslado.

ARTÍCULO 4

1. La responsabilidad de determinar y concluir en su territorio solicitudes de protección recaerá en los Estados Unidos, cuando los Estados Unidos establezcan que esa persona:

a. es un menor no acompañado; o

b. llegó al territorio de los Estados Unidos:

i. con una visa emitida de forma válida u otro documento de admisión válido, que no sea de tránsito, emitido por los Estados Unidos; o

ii. sin que los Estados Unidos de América le exigiera obtener una visa.

2. No obstante el párrafo 1 de este artículo, Guatemala evaluará las solicitudes de protección una por una, de acuerdo a lo establecido y autorizado por la autoridad competente en materia migratoria en sus políticas y leyes migratorias y en su territorio, de las personas que cumplen los requisitos necesarios conforme al presente Acuerdo, y que llegan a los Estados Unidos a un puerto de entrada o entre puertos de entrada, en la fecha efectiva del presente Acuerdo o posterior a ella. Guatemala evaluará la solicitud de protección, conforme al plan de implementación inicial y los procedimientos operativos estándar a los que se hace referencia en el artículo 7, apartados 1 y 5.

3. Las Partes aplicarán el presente Acuerdo respecto a menores no acompañados de conformidad con sus respectivas leyes nacionales,

4. Las Partes contarán con procedimientos para garantizar que los traslados de los Estados Unidos a Guatemala de las personas objeto del presente Acuerdo sean compatibles con sus obligaciones, leyes nacionales e internacionales y políticas migratorias respectivas.

5. Los Estados Unidos tomarán la decisión final de que una persona satisface los requisitos para una excepción en virtud de los artículos 4 y 5 del presente Acuerdo.

ARTÍCULO 5

No obstante cualquier disposición del presente Acuerdo, cualquier parte podrá, según su propio criterio, examinar cualquier solicitud de protección que se haya presentado a esa Parte cuando decida que es de su interés público hacerlo.

ARTÍCULO 6

Las Partes podrán:

1. Intercambiar información cuando sea necesario para la implementación efectiva del presente Acuerdo con sujeción a las leyes y reglamentación nacionales. Dicha información no será divulgada por el país receptor excepto de conformidad con sus leyes y reglamentación nacionales.

2. Las Partes podrán intercambiar de forma habitual información respecto á leyes, reglamentación y prácticas relacionadas con sus respectivos sistemas para determinar la protección migratoria.

ARTÍCULO 7

1. Las Partes elaborarán procedimientos operativos estándar para asistir en la implementación del presente Acuerdo. Estos procedimientos incorporarán disposiciones para notificar por adelantado, a Guatemala, el traslado de cualquier persona conforme al presente Acuerdo. Los Estados Unidos colaborarán con Guatemala para identificar a las personas idóneas para ser trasladadas al territorio de Guatemala.

2. Los procedimientos operativos incorporarán mecanismos para solucionar controversias que respeten la interpretación e implementación de los términos del presente Acuerdo. Los casos no previstos que no puedan solucionarse a través de estos mecanismos serán resueltos a través de la vía diplomática.

3. Los Estados Unidos prevén cooperar para fortalecer las capacidades institucionales de Guatemala.

4. Las Partes acuerdan evaluar regularmente el presente Acuerdo y su implementación, para subsanar las deficiencias encontradas. Las Partes realizarán las evaluaciones conjuntamente, siendo la primera dentro de un plazo máximo de tres (3) meses a partir de la fecha de entrada en operación del Acuerdo y las siguientes evaluaciones dentro de los mismos plazos. Las Partes podrán invitar, de común acuerdo, a otras organizaciones pertinentes con conocimientos especializados sobre el tema a participar en la evaluación inicial y/o cooperar para el cumplimiento del presente Acuerdo.

5. Las Partes prevén completar un plan de implementación inicial, que incorporará gradualmente, y abordará, entre otros: a) los procedimientos necesarios para llevar a cabo el traslado de personas conforme al presente Acuerdo; b) la cantidad o número de personas a ser trasladadas; y c) las necesidades de capacidad institucional. Las Partes planean hacer operativo el presente Acuerdo al finalizarse un plan de implementación gradual.

ARTÍCULO 8

1. El presente Acuerdo entrará en vigor por medio de un canje de notas entre las partes en el que se indique que cada parte ha cumplido con los procedimientos jurídicos nacionales necesarios para que el Acuerdo entre en vigor. El presente Acuerdo tendrá una vigencia de dos (2) años y podrá renovarse antes de su vencimiento a través de un canje de notas.

2. Cualquier Parte podrá dar por terminado el presente Acuerdo por medio de una notificación por escrito a la otra Parte con tres (3) meses de antelación.

3. Cualquier parte podrá, inmediatamente después de notificar a la otra parte por escrito, suspender por un periodo inicial de hasta tres (3) meses la implementación del presente Acuerdo. Esta suspensión podrá extenderse por periodos adicionales de hasta tres (3) meses por medio de una notificación por escrito a la otra parte. Cualquier parte podrá, con el consentimiento por escrito de la otra, suspender cualquier parte del presente Acuerdo.

4. Las Partes podrán, por escrito y de mutuo acuerdo, realizar cualquier modificación o adición al presente Acuerdo. Estas entrarán en vigor de conformidad con los procedimientos jurídicos pertinentes de cada Parte y la modificación o adición constituirá parte integral del presente Acuerdo.

5. Ninguna disposición del presente Acuerdo deberá interpretarse de manera que obligue a las Partes a erogar o comprometer fondos.

EN FE DE LO CUAL, los abajo firmantes, debidamente autorizados por sus respectivos gobiernos, firman el presente Acuerdo.

HECHO el 26 de julio de 2019, por duplicado en los idiomas inglés y español, siendo ambos textos auténticos.

POR EL GOBIERNO DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMÉRICA: Kevin K. McAleenan, Secretario Interino de Seguridad Nacional.

POR EL GOBIERNO DE LA REPÚBLICA DE GUATEMALA: Enrique A. Degenhart Asturias, Ministro de Gobernación.

►https://www.prensalibre.com/guatemala/migrantes/este-es-el-acuerdo-migratorio-firmado-entre-guatemala-y-estados-unidos

Washington signe un accord sur le droit d’asile avec le Guatemala

Sous la pression du président américain, le Guatemala devient un « pays tiers sûr », où les migrants de passage vers les Etats-Unis doivent déposer leurs demandes d’asile.

Sous la pression de Donald Trump qui menaçait de lui infliger des sanctions commerciales, le Guatemala a accepté vendredi 26 juillet de devenir un « pays tiers sûr » pour contribuer à réduire le nombre de demandes d’asile aux Etats-Unis. L’accord, qui a été signé en grande pompe dans le bureau ovale de la Maison blanche, en préfigure d’autres, a assuré le président américain, qui a notamment cité le Mexique.

Faute d’avoir obtenu du Congrès le financement du mur qu’il souhaitait construire le long de la frontière avec le Mexique, Donald Trump a changé de stratégie en faisant pression sur les pays d’Amérique centrale pour qu’ils l’aident à réduire le flux de migrants arrivant aux Etats-Unis, qui a atteint un niveau record sous sa présidence.

Une personne qui traverse un « pays tiers sûr » doit déposer sa demande d’asile dans ce pays et non dans son pays de destination. Sans employer le terme « pays tiers sûr », le gouvernement guatémaltèque a précisé dans un communiqué que l’accord conclu avec les Etats-Unis s’appliquerait aux réfugiés originaires du Honduras et du Salvador.

Contreparties pour les travailleurs agricoles

S’adressant à la presse devant la Maison blanche, le président américain a indiqué que les ouvriers agricoles guatémaltèques auraient en contrepartie un accès privilégié aux fermes aux Etats-Unis.

Le président guatémaltèque Jimmy Morales devait signer l’accord de « pays tiers sûr » la semaine dernière mais il avait été contraint de reculer après que la Cour constitutionnelle avait jugé qu’il ne pouvait pas prendre un tel engagement sans l’accord du Parlement, ce qui avait provoqué la fureur de Donald Trump.

Invoquant la nécessité d’éviter des « répercussions sociales et économiques », le gouvernement guatémaltèque a indiqué qu’un accord serait signé dans les prochains jours avec Washington pour faciliter l’octroi de visas de travail agricole temporaires aux ressortissants guatémaltèques. Il a dit espérer que cette mesure serait ultérieurement étendue aux secteurs de la construction et des services.

Les Etats-Unis sont confrontés à une flambée du nombre de migrants qui cherchent à franchir sa frontière sud, celle qui les séparent du Mexique. En juin, les services de police aux frontières ont arrêté 104 000 personnes qui cherchaient à entrer illégalement aux Etats-Unis. Ils avaient été 144 000 le mois précédent.

▻https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/07/27/washington-signe-un-accord-sur-le-droit-d-asile-avec-le-guatemala_5493979_32
#agriculture #ouvriers_agricoles #travail #fermes

Migrants, pressions sur le Mexique

Sous la pression des États-Unis, le Mexique fait la chasse aux migrants sur son territoire, et les empêche d’avancer vers le nord. Au mois de juin, les autorités ont arrêté près de 24 000 personnes sans papiers.

Debout sur son radeau, Edwin maugrée en regardant du coin de l’œil la vingtaine de militaires de la Garde Nationale mexicaine postés sous les arbres, côté mexicain. « C’est à cause d’eux si les affaires vont mal », bougonne le jeune Guatémaltèque en poussant son radeau à l’aide d’une perche. « Depuis qu’ils sont là, plus personne ne peut passer au Mexique ».

Les eaux du fleuve Suchiate, qui sépare le Mexique du Guatemala, sont étrangement calmes depuis le mois de juin. Fini le ballet incessant des petits radeaux de fortune, où s’entassaient, pêle-mêle, villageois, commerçants et migrants qui se rendaient au Mexique. « Mais ça ne change rien, les migrants traversent plus loin », sourit le jeune homme.

La stratégie du président américain Donald Trump pour contraindre son voisin du sud à réduire les flux migratoires en direction des États-Unis a mis le gouvernement mexicain aux abois : pour éviter une nouvelle fois la menace de l’instauration de frais de douanes de 5 % sur les importations mexicaines, le gouvernement d’Andrés Manuel López Obrador a déployé dans l’urgence 6 500 éléments de la Garde Nationale à la frontière sud du Mexique.
Des pots-de-vin lors des contrôles

Sur les routes, les opérations de contrôle sont partout. « Nous avons été arrêtés à deux reprises par l’armée », explique Natalia, entourée de ses garçons de 11 ans, 8 ans et 3 ans. Cette Guatémaltèque s’est enfuie de son village avec son mari et ses enfants, il y a dix jours. Son époux, témoin protégé dans le procès d’un groupe criminel, a été menacé de mort. « Au premier contrôle, nous leur avons donné 1 500 pesos (NDLR, 70 €), au deuxième 2 500 pesos (118 €), pour qu’ils nous laissent partir », explique la mère de famille, assise sous le préau de l’auberge du Père César Augusto Cañaveral, l’une des deux auberges qui accueillent les migrants à Tapachula.

Conçu pour 120 personnes, l’établissement héberge actuellement plus de 300 personnes, dont une centaine d’enfants en bas âge. « On est face à une politique anti-migratoire de plus en plus violente et militarisée, se désole le Père Cañaveral. C’est devenu une véritable chasse à l’homme dehors, alors je leur dis de sortir le moins possible pour éviter les arrestations ». Celles-ci ont en effet explosé depuis l’ultimatum du président des États-Unis : du 1er au 24 juin, l’Institut National de Migration (INM) a arrêté près de 24 000 personnes en situation irrégulière, soit 1 000 personnes détenues par jour en moyenne, et en a expulsé plus de 17 000, essentiellement des Centraméricains. Du jamais vu.
Des conditions de détention « indignes »

À Tapachula, les migrants arrêtés sont entassés dans le centre de rétention Siglo XXI. À quelques mètres de l’entrée de cette forteresse de béton, Yannick a le regard vide et fatigué. « Il y avait tellement de monde là-dedans que ma fille y est tombée malade », raconte cet Angolais âgé de 33 ans, sa fille de 3 ans somnolant dans ses bras. « Ils viennent de nous relâcher car ils ne vont pas nous renvoyer en Afrique, ajoute-il. Heureusement, car à l’intérieur on dort par terre ». « Les conditions dans ce centre sont indignes », dénonce Claudia León Aug, coordinatrice du Service jésuite des réfugiés pour l’Amérique latine, qui a visité à plusieurs reprises le centre de rétention Siglo XXI. « La nourriture est souvent avariée, les enfants tombent malades, les bébés n’ont droit qu’à une seule couche par jour, et on a même recensé des cas de tortures et d’agressions ».

Tapachula est devenu un cul-de-sac pour des milliers de migrants. Ils errent dans les rues de la ville, d’hôtel en d’hôtel, ou louent chez l’habitant, faute de pouvoir avancer vers le nord. Les compagnies de bus, sommées de participer à l’effort national, demandent systématiquement une pièce d’identité en règle. « On ne m’a pas laissé monter dans le bus en direction de Tijuana », se désole Elvis, un Camerounais de 34 ans qui rêve de se rendre au Canada.

Il sort de sa poche un papier tamponné par les autorités mexicaines, le fameux laissez-passer que délivrait l’Institut National de Migration aux migrants extra-continentaux, pour qu’ils traversent le Mexique en 20 jours afin de gagner la frontière avec les États-Unis. « Regardez, ils ont modifié le texte, maintenant il est écrit que je ne peux pas sortir de Tapachula », accuse le jeune homme, dépité, avant de se rasseoir sur le banc de la petite cour de son hôtel décati dans la périphérie de Tapachula. « La situation est chaotique, les gens sont bloqués ici et les autorités ne leur donnent aucune information, pour les décourager encore un peu plus », dénonce Salvador Lacruz, coordinateur au Centre des Droits humains Centro Fray Matías de Córdova.
Explosion du nombre des demandes d’asile au Mexique

Face à la menace des arrestations et des expulsions, de plus en plus de migrants choisissent de demander l’asile au Mexique. Dans le centre-ville de Tapachula, la Commission mexicaine d’aide aux réfugiés (COMAR), est prise d’assaut dès 4 heures du matin par les demandeurs d’asile. « On m’a dit de venir avec tous les documents qui prouvent que je suis en danger de mort dans mon pays », explique Javier, un Hondurien de 34 ans qui a fait la queue une partie de la nuit pour ne pas rater son rendez-vous.

Son fils de 9 ans est assis sur ses genoux. « J’ai le certificat de décès de mon père et celui de mon frère. Ils ont été assassinés pour avoir refusé de donner de l’argent aux maras », explique-t-il, une pochette en plastique dans les mains. « Le prochain sur la liste, c’est moi, c’est pour ça que je suis parti pour les États-Unis, mais je vois que c’est devenu très difficile, alors je me pose ici, ensuite, on verra ».

Les demandes d’asile au Mexique ont littéralement explosé : 31 000 pour les six premiers mois de 2019, c’est trois fois plus qu’en 2018 à la même période, et juin a été particulièrement élevé, avec 70 % de demandes en plus par rapport à janvier. La tendance devrait se poursuivre du fait de la décision prise le 15 juillet dernier par le président américain, que toute personne « entrant par la frontière sud des États-Unis » et souhaitant demander l’asile aux États-Unis le fasse, au préalable, dans un autre pays, transformant ainsi le Mexique, de facto, en « pays tiers sûr ».

« Si les migrants savent que la seule possibilité de demander l’asile aux États-Unis, c’est de l’avoir obtenu au Mexique, ils le feront », observe Salvador Lacruz. Mais si certains s’accrochent à Tapachula, d’autres abandonnent. Jesús Roque, un Hondurien de 21 ans, « vient de signer » comme disent les migrants centraméricains en référence au programme de retour volontaire mis en place par le gouvernement mexicain. « C’est impossible d’aller plus au nord, je rentre chez moi », lâche-t-il.

Comme lui, plus de 35 000 personnes sont rentrées dans leur pays, essentiellement des Honduriens et des Salvadoriens. À quelques mètres, deux femmes pressent le pas, agacées par la foule qui se presse devant les bureaux de la COMAR. « Qu’ils partent d’ici, vite ! », grogne l’une. Le mur tant désiré par Donald Trump s’est finalement érigé au Mexique en quelques semaines. Dans les esprits aussi.

▻https://www.la-croix.com/Monde/Ameriques/Le-Mexique-verrouille-frontiere-sud-2019-08-01-1201038809

Et la toile d’araignée s’élargit, après le Mexique, le #Venezuela :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/800215

US Move Puts More Asylum Seekers at Risk. Expanded ‘#Remain_in_Mexico’ Program Undermines Due Process

The Trump administration has drastically expanded its “Remain in Mexico” program while undercutting the rights of asylum seekers at the United States southern border, Human Rights Watch said today. Under the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) – known as the “Remain in Mexico” program – asylum seekers in the US are returned to cities in Mexico where there is a shortage of shelter and high crime rates while awaiting asylum hearings in US immigration court.

Human Rights Watch found that asylum seekers face new or increased barriers to obtaining and communicating with legal counsel; increased closure of MPP court hearings to the public; and threats of kidnapping, extortion, and other violence while in Mexico.

“The inherently inhumane ‘Remain in Mexico’ program is getting more abusive by the day,” said Ariana Sawyer, assistant US Program researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The program’s rapid growth in recent months has put even more people and families in danger in Mexico while they await an increasingly unfair legal process in the US.”

The United States will begin sending all Central American asylum-seeking families to Mexico beginning the week of September 29, 2019 as part of the most recent expansion of the “Remain in Mexico” program, the Department of Homeland Security acting secretary, Kevin McAleenan, announced on September 23.

Human Rights Watch concluded in a July 2019 report that the MPP program has had serious rights consequences for asylum seekers, including high – if not insurmountable – barriers to due process on their asylum claims in the United States and threats and physical violence in Mexico. Human Rights Watch recently spoke to seven asylum seekers, as well as 26 attorneys, migrant shelter operators, Mexican government officials, immigration court workers, journalists, and advocates. Human Rights Watch also observed court hearings for 71 asylum seekers in August and analyzed court filings, declarations, photographs, and media reports.

“The [MPP] rules, which are never published, are constantly changing without advance notice,” said John Moore, an asylum attorney. “And so far, every change has had the effect of further restricting the already limited access we attorneys have with our clients.”

Beyond the expanded program, which began in January, the US State Department has also begun funding a “voluntary return” program carried out by the United Nations-affiliated International Organization for Migration (IOM). The organization facilitates the transportation of asylum seekers forced to wait in Mexico back to their country of origin but does not notify US immigration judges. This most likely results in negative judgments against asylum seekers for not appearing in court, possibly resulting in a ban of up to 10 years on entering the US again, when they could have withdrawn their cases without penalty.

Since July, the number of people being placed in the MPP program has almost tripled, from 15,079 as of June 24, to 40,033 as of September 7, according to the Mexican National Institute of Migration. The Trump administration has increased the number of asylum seekers it places in the program at ports of entry near San Diego and Calexico, California and El Paso, Texas, where the program had already been in place. The administration has also expanded the program to Laredo and Brownsville, Texas, even as the overall number of border apprehensions has declined.

As of early August, more than 26,000 additional asylum seekers were waiting in Mexican border cities on unofficial lists to be processed by US Customs and Border Protection as part the US practice of “metering,” or of limiting the number of people who can apply for asylum each day by turning them back from ports of entry in violation of international law.

In total, more than 66,000 asylum seekers are now in Mexico, forced to wait months or years for their cases to be decided in the US. Some have given up waiting and have attempted to cross illicitly in more remote and dangerous parts of the border, at times with deadly results.

As problematic as the MPP program is, seeking asylum will likely soon become even more limited. On September 11, the Supreme Court temporarily allowed the Trump administration to carry out an asylum ban against anyone entering the country by land after July 16 who transited through a third country without applying for asylum there. This could affect at least 46,000 asylum seekers, placed in the MPP program or on a metering list after mid-July, according to calculations based on data from the Mexican National Institute of Migration. Asylum seekers may still be eligible for other forms of protection, but they carry much higher eligibility standards and do not provide the same level of relief.

Human Rights Watch contacted the Department of Homeland Security and the US Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review with its findings and questions regarding the policy changes and developments but have not to date received a response. The US government should immediately cease returning asylum seekers to Mexico and instead ensure them meaningful access to full and fair asylum proceedings in US immigration courts, Human Rights Watch said. Congress should urgently act to cease funding the MPP program. The US should manage asylum-seeker arrivals through a genuine humanitarian response that includes fair determinations of an asylum seeker’s eligibility to remain in the US. The US should simultaneously pursue longer-term efforts to address the root causes of forced displacement in Central America.

“The Trump administration seems intent on making the bad situation for asylum seekers even worse by further depriving them of due process rights,” Sawyer said. “The US Congress should step in and put an end to these mean-spirited attempts to undermine and destroy the US asylum system.”

New Concerns over the MPP Program

Increased Barriers to Legal Representation

Everyone in the MPP has the right to an attorney at their own cost, but it has been nearly impossible for asylum seekers forced to remain in Mexico to get legal representation. Only about 1.3 percent of participants have legal representation, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, a research center that examined US immigration court records through June 2019. In recent months, the US government has raised new barriers to obtaining representation and accessing counsel.

When the Department of Homeland Security created the program, it issued guidance that:

in order to facilitate access to counsel for aliens subject to return to Mexico under the MPP who will be transported to their immigration court hearings, [agents] will depart from the [port of entry] with the alien at a time sufficient to ensure arrival at the immigration court not later than one hour before his or her scheduled hearing time in order to afford the alien the opportunity to meet in-person with his or her legal representative.

However, according to several attorneys Human Rights Watch interviewed in El Paso, Texas, and as Human Rights Watch observed on August 12 to 15 in El Paso Immigration Court, the Department of Homeland Security and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which manages the immigration court, have effectively barred attorneys from meeting with clients for the full hour before their client’s hearing begins. Rather than having free access to their clients, attorneys are now required to wait in the building lobby on a different level than the immigration court until the court administrator notifies security guards that attorneys may enter.

As Human Rights Watch has previously noted, one hour is insufficient for adequate attorney consultation and preparation. Still, several attorneys said that this time in court was crucial. Immigration court is often the only place where asylum seekers forced to wait in Mexico can meet with attorneys since lawyers capable of representing them typically work in the US. Attorneys cannot easily travel to Mexico because of security and logistical issues. For MPP participants without attorneys, there are now also new barriers to getting basic information and assistance about the asylum application process.

Human Rights Watch observed in May a coordinated effort by local nongovernmental organizations and attorneys in El Paso to perform know-your-rights presentations for asylum seekers without an attorney and to serve as “Friend of the Court,” at the judge’s discretion. The Executive Office for Immigration Review has recognized in the context of unaccompanied minors that a Friend of the Court “has a useful role to play in assisting the court and enhancing a respondent’s comprehension of proceedings.”

The agency’s memos also say that, “Immigration Judges and court administrators remain encouraged to facilitate pro bono representation” because pro bono attorneys provide “respondents with welcome legal assistance and the judge with efficiencies that can only be realized when the respondent is represented.”

To that end, immigration courts are encouraged to support “legal orientations and group rights presentations” by nonprofit organizations and attorneys.

One of the attorneys involved in coordinating the various outreach programs at the El Paso Immigration Court said, however, that on June 24 the agency began barring all contact between third parties and asylum seekers without legal representation in both the courtroom and the lobby outside. This effectively ended all know-your-rights presentations and pro bono case screenings, though no new memo was issued. Armed guards now prevent attorneys in the US from interacting with MPP participants unless the attorneys have already filed official notices that they are representing specific participants.

On July 8, the agency also began barring attorneys from serving as “Friend of the Court,” several attorneys told Human Rights Watch. No new memo has been issued on “Friend of the Court” either.

In a July 16 email to an attorney obtained by Human Rights Watch, an agency spokesman, Rob Barnes, said that the agency shut down “Friend of the Court” and know-your-rights presentations to protect asylum seekers from misinformation after it “became aware that persons from organizations not officially recognized by EOIR...were entering EOIR space in El Paso.

However, most of the attorneys and organizations now barred from performing know-your-rights presentations or serving as “Friend of the Court” in El Paso are listed on a form given to asylum seekers by the court of legal service providers, according to a copy of the form given to Human Rights Watch and attorneys and organizations coordinating those services.

Closure of Immigration Court Hearings to the Public

When Human Rights Watch observed court hearings in El Paso on May 8 to 10, the number of asylum seekers who had been placed in the MPP program and scheduled to appear in court was between 20 and 24 each day, with one judge hearing all of these cases in a single mass hearing. At the time, those numbers were considered high, and there was chaos and confusion as judges navigated a system that was never designed to provide hearings for people being kept outside the US.

When Human Rights Watch returned to observe hearings just over three months later, four judges were hearing a total of about 250 cases a day, an average of over 60 cases for each judge. Asylum seekers in the program, who would previously have been allowed into the US to pursue their claims at immigration courts dispersed around the country, have been primarily funneled through courts in just two border cities, causing tremendous pressures on these courts and errors in the system. Some asylum seekers who appeared in court found their cases were not in the system or received conflicting instructions about where or when to appear.

One US immigration official said the MPP program had “broken the courts,” Reuters reported.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review has stated that immigration court hearings are generally supposed to be open to the public. The regulations indicate that immigration judges may make exceptions and limit or close hearings if physical facilities are inadequate; if there is a need to protect witnesses, parties, or the public interest; if an abused spouse or abused child is to appear; or if information under seal is to be presented.

In recent weeks, however, journalists, attorneys, and other public observers have been barred from these courtrooms in El Paso by court administrators, security guards, and in at least one case, by a Department of Homeland Security attorney, who said that a courtroom was too full to allow a Human Rights Watch researcher entry.

Would-be observers are now frequently told by the court administrator or security guards that there is “no room,” and that dockets are all “too full.”

El Paso Immigration Court Administrator Rodney Buckmire told Human Rights Watch that hundreds of people receive hearings each day because asylum seekers “deserve their day in court,” but the chaos and errors in mass hearings, the lack of access to attorneys and legal advice, and the lack of transparency make clear that the MPP program is severely undermining due process.

During the week of September 9, the Trump administration began conducting hearings for asylum seekers returned to Mexico in makeshift tent courts in Laredo and Brownsville, where judges are expected to preside via videoconference. At a September 11 news conference, DHS would not commit to allowing observers for those hearings, citing “heightened security measures” since the courts are located near the border. Both attorneys and journalists have since been denied entry to these port courts.

Asylum Seekers Describe Risk of Kidnapping, Other Crimes

As the MPP has expanded, increasing numbers of asylum seekers have been placed at risk of kidnapping and other crimes in Mexico.

Two of the northern Mexican states to which asylum seekers were initially being returned under the program, Baja California and Chihuahua, are among those with the most homicides and other crimes in the country. Recent media reports have documented ongoing harm to asylum seekers there, including rape, kidnapping, sexual exploitation, assault, and other violent crimes.

The program has also been expanded to Nuevo Laredo and Matamoros, both in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas, which is on the US State Department’s “do not travel” list. The media and aid workers have also reported that migrants there have experienced physical violence, sexual assault, kidnapping, and other abuses. There have been multiple reports in 2019 alone of migrants being kidnapped as they attempt to reach the border by bus.

Jennifer Harbury, a human rights attorney and activist doing volunteer work with asylum-seekers on both sides of the border, collected sworn declarations that they had been victims of abuse from three asylum seekers who had been placed in the MPP program and bused by Mexican immigration authorities to Monterrey, Mexico, two and a half hours from the border. Human Rights Watch examined these declarations, in which asylum seekers reported robbery, extortion, and kidnapping, including by Mexican police.

Expansion to Mexican Cities with Even Fewer Protections

Harbury, who recently interviewed hundreds of migrants in Mexico, described asylum seekers sent to Nuevo Laredo as “fish in a barrel” because of their vulnerability to criminal organizations. She said that many of the asylum seekers she interviewed said they had been kidnapped or subjected to an armed assault at least once since they reached the border.

Because Mexican officials are in many cases reportedly themselves involved in crimes against migrants, and because nearly 98 percent of crimes in Mexico go unsolved, crimes committed against migrants routinely go unpunished.

In Matamoros, asylum seekers have no meaningful shelter access, said attorneys with Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG) who were last there from August 22 to 26. Instead, more than 500 asylum seekers were placed in an encampment in a plaza near the port of entry to the US, where they were sleeping out in the open, despite temperatures of over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Henriette Vinet-Martin, a lawyer with the group, said she saw a “nursing mother sleeping on cardboard with her baby” and that attorneys also spoke to a woman in the MPP program there who said she had recently miscarried in a US hospital while in Customs and Border Protection custody. The attorneys said some asylum seekers had tents, but many did not.

Vinet-Martin and Claire Noone, another lawyer there as part of the L4GG project, said they found children with disabilities who had been placed in the MPP program, including two children with Down Syndrome, one of them eight months old.

Human Rights Watch also found that Customs and Border Protection continues to return asylum seekers with disabilities or other chronic health conditions to Mexico, despite the Department of Homeland Security’s initial guidance that no one with “known physical/mental health issues” would be placed in the program. In Ciudad Juárez, Human Rights Watch documented six such cases, four of them children. In one case, a 14-year-old boy had been placed in the program along with his mother and little brother, who both have intellectual disabilities, although the boy said they have family in the US. He appeared to be confused and distraught by his situation.

The Mexican government has taken some steps to protect migrants in Ciudad Juárez, including opening a large government-operated shelter. The shelter, which Human Rights Watch visited on August 22, has a capacity of 3,000 migrants and is well-stocked with food, blankets, sleeping pads, personal hygiene kits, and more. At the time of the visit, the shelter held 555 migrants, including 230 children, primarily asylum seekers in the MPP program.

One Mexican government official said the government will soon open two more shelters – one in Tijuana with a capacity of 3,000 and another in Mexicali with a capacity of 1,500.

Problems Affecting the ‘Assisted Voluntary Return’ Program

In October 2018, the International Organization for Migration began operating a $1.65 million US State Department-funded “Assisted Voluntary Return” program to assist migrants who have decided or felt compelled to return home. The return program originally targeted Central Americans traveling in large groups through the interior of Mexico. However, in July, the program began setting up offices in Ciudad Juárez, Tijuana, and Mexicali focusing on asylum seekers forced to wait in those cities after being placed in the MPP program. Alex Rigol Ploettner, who heads the International Organization for Migration office in Ciudad Juárez, said that the organization also provides material support such as bunk beds and personal hygiene kits to shelters, which the organization asks to refer interested asylum seekers to the Assisted Voluntary Return program. Four shelter operators in Ciudad Juárez confirmed these activities.

As of late August, Rigol Ploettner said approximately 500 asylum seekers in the MPP program had been referred to Assisted Voluntary Return. Of those 500, he said, about 95 percent were found to be eligible for the program.

He said the organization warns asylum seekers that returning to their home country may cause them to receive deportation orders from the US in absentia, meaning they will most likely face a ban on entering the US of up to 10 years.

The organization does not inform US immigration courts that they have returned asylum seekers, nor are asylum seekers assisted in withdrawing their petition for asylum, which would avoid future penalties in the US.

“For now, as the IOM, we don’t have a direct mechanism for withdrawal,” Rigol Ploettner said. Human Rights Watch is deeply concerned about the failure to notify the asylum courts when people who are on US immigration court dockets return home and the negative legal consequences for asylum seekers. These concerns are heightened by the environment in which the Assisted Voluntary Return Program is operating. Asylum seekers in the MPP are in such a vulnerable situation that it cannot be assumed that decisions to return home are based on informed consent.

▻https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/09/25/us-move-puts-more-asylum-seekers-risk

via @pascaline

Sweeping Language in Asylum Agreement Foists U.S. Responsibilities onto El Salvador

Amid a tightening embrace of Trump administration policies, last week El Salvador agreed to begin taking asylum-seekers sent back from the United States. The agreement was announced on Friday but details were not made public at the time. The text of the agreement — which The Intercept requested and obtained from the Department of Homeland Security — purports to uphold international and domestic obligations “to provide protection for eligible refugees,” but immigration experts see the move as the very abandonment of the principle of asylum. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy analyst at American Immigration Council, called the agreement a “deeply cynical” move.

The agreement, which closely resembles one that the U.S. signed with Guatemala in July, implies that any asylum-seeker who is not from El Salvador could be sent back to that country and forced to seek asylum there. Although officials have said that the agreements would apply to people who passed through El Salvador or Guatemala en route, the text of the agreements does not explicitly make that clear.

“This agreement is so potentially sweeping that it could be used to send an asylum-seeker who never transited El Salvador to El Salvador,” said Eleanor Acer, senior director of refugee protection at the nonprofit organization Human Rights First.

DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6427712/pages/US-El-Salvador-Cooperative-Agreement-p1-normal.gif

The Guatemalan deal has yet to take effect, as Guatemala’s Congress claims to need to ratify it first. DHS officials are currently seeking a similar arrangement with Honduras and have been pressuring Mexico — under threats of tariffs — to crack down on U.S.-bound migration.

The agreement with El Salvador comes after the Supreme Court recently upheld the Trump administration’s most recent asylum ban, which requires anyone who has transited through another country before reaching the border to seek asylum there first, and be denied in that country, in order to be eligible for asylum in the U.S. Meanwhile, since January, more than 42,000 asylum-seekers who filed their claims in the U.S. before the ban took effect have been pushed back into Mexico and forced to wait there — where they have been subjected to kidnapping, rape, and extortion, among other hazards — as the courts slowly weigh their eligibility.

Reichlin-Melnick called the U.S.-El Salvador deal “yet another sustained attack at our system of asylum protections.” It begins by invoking the international Refugee Convention and the principle of non-refoulement, which is the crux of asylum law — the guarantee not to return asylum-seekers to a country where they would be subjected to persecution or death. Karen Musalo, law professor at U.C. Hastings Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, called that invocation “Orwellian.”

“The idea that El Salvador is a safe country for asylum-seekers when it is one of the major countries sending asylum-seekers to the U.S., a country with one of the highest homicide and femicide rates in the world, a place in which gangs have control over large swathes of the country, and the violence is causing people to flee in record numbers … is another absurdity that is beyond the pale,” Musalo said.

“El Salvador is not a country that is known for having any kind of protection for its own citizens’ human rights,” Musalo added. “If they can’t protect their own citizens, it’s absolutely absurd to think that they can protect people that are not their citizens.”

“They’ve looked at all of the facts,” Reichlin-Melnick said. “And they’ve decided to create their own reality.”

Last week, the Salvadoran newspaper El Faro reported that the country’s agency that reviews asylum claims only has a single officer. Meanwhile, though homicide rates have gone down in recent months — since outsider president Nayib Bukele took office in June — September has already seen an increase in homicides. Bukele’s calculus in accepting the agreement is still opaque to Salvadoran observers (Guatemala’s version was deeply unpopular in that country), but he has courted U.S. investment and support. The legal status of nearly 200,000 Salvadorans with temporary protected status in the U.S. is also under threat from the administration. This month also saw the symbolic launch of El Salvador’s Border Patrol — with U.S. funding and support. This week, Bukele, who has both sidled up to Trump and employed Trumpian tactics, will meet with the U.S. president in New York to discuss immigration.

Reichlin-Melnick noted that the Guatemalan and Salvadoran agreements, as written, could bar people not only from seeking asylum, but also from two other protections meant to fulfill the non-refoulement principle: withholding of removal (a stay on deportation) and the Convention Against Torture, which prevents people from being returned to situations where they may face torture. That would mean that these Central American cooperation agreements go further than the recent asylum ban, which still allows people to apply for those other protections.

Another major difference between the asylum ban and these agreements is that with the asylum ban, people would be deported to their home countries. If these agreements go into effect, the U.S. will start sending people to Guatemala or El Salvador, regardless of where they may be from. In the 1980s, the ACLU documented over 100 cases of Salvadorans who were harmed or killed after they were deported from the U.S. After this agreement goes into effect, it will no longer be just Salvadorans who the U.S. will be sending into danger.

▻https://theintercept.com/2019/09/23/el-salvador-asylum-agreement

La forteresse Trump ou le pari du mur

Plus que sur le mur promis pendant sa campagne, Donald Trump semble fonder sa #politique_migratoire sur une #pression_commerciale sur ses voisins du sud, remettant en cause les #échanges économiques mais aussi culturels avec le Mexique. Ce mur ne serait-il donc que symbolique ?
Alors que l’administration américaine le menaçait de #taxes_douanières et de #guerre_commerciale, le Mexique d’Andres Lopez Obrador a finalement concédé de freiner les flux migratoires.

Après avoir accepté un #accord imposé par Washington, Mexico a considérablement réduit les flux migratoires et accru les #expulsions. En effet, plus de 100 000 ressortissants centre-américains ont été expulsés du Mexique vers le #Guatemala dans les huit premiers mois de l’année, soit une hausse de 63% par rapport à l’année précédente selon les chiffres du Guatemala.

Par ailleurs, cet été le Guatemala a conclu un accord de droit d’asile avec Washington, faisant de son territoire un « #pays_sûr » auprès duquel les demandeurs d’asiles ont l’obligation d’effectuer les premières démarches. Le Salvador et le #Honduras ont suivi la voie depuis.

Et c’est ainsi que, alors qu’il rencontrait les plus grandes difficultés à obtenir les financements pour le mur à la frontière mexicaine, Donald Trump mise désormais sur ses voisins pour externaliser sa politique migratoire.

Alors le locataire de la Maison Blanche a-t-il oublié ses ambitions de poursuivre la construction de cette frontière de fer et de béton ? Ce mur n’était-il qu’un symbole destiné à montrer à son électorat son volontarisme en matière de lutte contre l’immigration ? Le retour de la campagne est-il susceptible d’accélérer les efforts dans le domaine ?

D’autre part, qu’en est-il de la situation des migrants sur le terrain ? Comment s’adaptent-ils à cette nouvelle donne ? Quelles conséquences sur les parcours migratoires des hommes, des femmes et des enfants qui cherchent à gagner les Etats-Unis ?

On se souvient de cette terrible photo des cadavres encore enlacés d’un père et de sa petite fille de 2 ans, Oscar et Valeria Alberto, originaires du Salvador, morts noyés dans les eaux tumultueuses du Rio Bravo en juin dernier alors qu’ils cherchaient à passer aux Etats-Unis.

Ce destin tragique annonce-t-il d’autres drames pour nombre de candidats à l’exil qui, quelques soient les politiques migratoires des Etats, iront au bout de leur vie avec l’espoir de l’embellir un peu ?

▻https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/cultures-monde/les-frontieres-de-la-colere-14-la-forteresse-trump-ou-le-pari-du-mur

#Mexique #symbole #barrières_frontalières #USA #Etats-Unis #renvois #push-back #refoulements

Mexico sends asylum seekers south — with no easy way to return for U.S. court dates

https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/c6e5bf3/2147483647/strip/true/crop/6000x4000+0+0/resize/840x560!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fca-times.brightspotcdn.com%2F16%2Fe7%2F7c46711647aaabf99d97d5bb48ee%2Fla-fg-migrant-bus-05.jpg

The exhausted passengers emerge from a sleek convoy of silver and red-streaked buses, looking confused and disoriented as they are deposited ignominiously in this tropical backwater in southernmost Mexico.

There is no greeter here to provide guidance on their pending immigration cases in the United States or on where to seek shelter in a teeming international frontier town packed with marooned, U.S.-bound migrants from across the globe.

The bus riders had made a long and perilous overland trek north to the Rio Grande only to be dispatched back south to Mexico’s border with Central America — close to where many of them had begun their perilous journeys weeks and months earlier. At this point, some said, both their resources and sense of hope had been drained.

“We don’t know what we’re going to do next,” said Maria de Los Angeles Flores Reyes, 39, a Honduran accompanied by her daughter, Cataren, 9, who appeared petrified after disembarking from one of the long-distance buses. “There’s no information, nothing.”

The two are among more than 50,000 migrants, mostly Central Americans, whom U.S. immigration authorities have sent back to Mexico this year to await court hearings in the United States under the Trump administration’s Remain in Mexico program.

Immigration advocates have assailed the program as punitive, while the White House says it has worked effectively — discouraging many migrants from following up on asylum cases and helping to curb what President Trump has decried as a “catch and release” system in which apprehended migrants have been freed in U.S. territory pending court proceeding that can drag on for months or years.

The ever-expanding ranks pose a growing dilemma for Mexican authorities, who, under intense pressure from the White House, had agreed to accept the returnees and provide them with humanitarian assistance.

As the numbers rise, Mexico, in many cases, has opted for a controversial solution: Ship as many asylum seekers as possible more than 1,000 miles back here in the apparent hope that they will opt to return to Central America — even if that implies endangering or foregoing prospective political asylum claims in U.S. immigration courts.

Mexican officials, sensitive to criticism that they are facilitating Trump’s hard-line deportation agenda, have been tight-lipped about the shadowy busing program, under which thousands of asylum-seekers have been returned here since August. (Mexican authorities declined to provide statistics on just how many migrants have been sent back under the initiative.)

In a statement, Mexico’s immigration agency called the 40-hour bus rides a “free, voluntary and secure” alternative for migrants who don’t want to spend months waiting in the country’s notoriously dangerous northern border towns.

Advocates counter that the program amounts to a barely disguised scheme for encouraging ill-informed migrants to abandon their ongoing petitions in U.S. immigration court and return to Central America. Doing so leaves them to face the same conditions that they say forced them to flee toward the United States, and, at the same time, would undermine the claims that they face persecution at home.

“Busing someone back to your southern border doesn’t exactly send them a message that you want them to stay in your country,” said Maureen Meyer, who heads the Mexico program for the Washington Office on Latin America, a research and advocacy group. “And it isn’t always clear that the people on the buses understand what this could mean for their cases in the United States.”

Passengers interviewed on both ends of the bus pipeline — along the northern Mexican border and here on the southern frontier with Guatemala — say that no Mexican official briefed them on the potential legal jeopardy of returning home.

“No one told us anything,” Flores Reyes asked after she got off the bus here, bewildered about how to proceed. “Is there a safe place to stay here until our appointment in December?”

The date is specified on a notice to appear that U.S. Border Patrol agents handed her before she and her daughter were sent back to Mexico last month after having been detained as illegal border-crossers in south Texas. They are due Dec. 16 in a U.S. immigration court in Harlingen, Texas, for a deportation hearing, according to the notice, stamped with the capital red letters MPP — for Migrant Protection Protocols, the official designation of Remain in Mexico.

The free bus rides to the Guatemalan border are strictly a one-way affair: Mexico does not offer return rides back to the northern border for migrants due in a U.S. immigration court, typically several months later.

Beti Suyapa Ortega, 36, and son Robinson Javier Melara, 17, in a Mexican immigration agency waiting room in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.

https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/36917ab/2147483647/strip/true/crop/3264x2448+0+0/resize/840x630!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fca-times.brightspotcdn.com%2Ffb%2F5d%2F270e6ebc41d38a420732f1268e5b%2Fla-fg-migrants-nuevo-laredo-01.jpeg

“At this point, I’m so frightened I just want to go home,” said Beti Suyapa Ortega, 36, from Honduras, who crossed the border into Texas intending to seek political asylum and surrendered to the Border Patrol.

She, along with her son, 17, were among two dozen or so Remain in Mexico returnees waiting recently for a southbound bus in a spartan office space at the Mexican immigration agency compound in Nuevo Laredo, across the Rio Grande from Laredo, Texas.

Ortega and others said they were terrified of venturing onto the treacherous streets of Nuevo Laredo — where criminal gangs control not only drug trafficking but also the lucrative enterprise of abducting and extorting from migrants.

“We can’t get out of here soon enough. It has been a nightmare,” said Ortega, who explained that she and her son had been kidnapped and held for two weeks and only released when a brother in Atlanta paid $8,000 in ransom. “I can never come back to this place.”

The Ortegas, along with a dozen or so other Remain in Mexico returnees, left later that evening on a bus to southern Mexico. She said she would skip her date in U.S. immigration court, in Laredo — an appointment that would require her to pass through Nuevo Laredo and expose herself anew to its highly organized kidnapping and extortion gangs.

The Mexican government bus service operates solely from the northern border towns of Nuevo Laredo and Matamoros, officials say. Both are situated in hyper-dangerous Tamaulipas state, a cartel hub on the Gulf of Mexico that regularly ranks high nationwide in homicides, “disappearances” and the discovery of clandestine graves.

The long-haul Mexican busing initiative began in July, after U.S. immigration authorities began shipping migrants with court cases to Tamaulipas. Earlier, Remain in Mexico had been limited to sending migrants with U.S. court dates back to the northern border towns of Tijuana, Mexicali and Ciudad Juarez.

At first, the buses left migrants departing from Tamaulipas state in the city of Monterrey, a relatively safe industrial center four hours south of the U.S. border. But officials there, including the state governor, complained about the sudden influx of hundreds of mostly destitute Central Americans. That’s when Mexican authorities appear to have begun busing all the way back to Ciudad Hidalgo, along Mexico’s border with Guatemala.

A separate, United Nations-linked program has also returned thousands of migrants south from two large cities on the U.S. border, Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez.

The packed buses arrive here two or three times a week, with no apparent set schedule.

On a recent morning, half a dozen, each ferrying more than 40 migrants, came to a stop a block from the Rodolfo Robles international bridge that spans the Suchiate River, the dividing line between Mexico and Guatemala. Part of the fleet of the Omnibus Cristobal Colon long-distance transport company, the buses displayed windshield signs explaining they were “in the service” of Mexico’s national immigration agency.

The migrants on board had begun the return journey south in Matamoros, across from Brownsville, Texas, after having been sent back there by U.S. immigration authorities.

Many clutched folders with notices to appear in U.S. immigration court in Texas in December.

But some, including Flores Reyes, said they were terrified of returning to Matamoros, where they had been subjected to robbery or kidnapping. Nor did they want to return across the Rio Grande to Texas, if it required travel back through Matamoros.

Flores Reyes said kidnappers held her and her daughter for a week in Matamoros before they managed to escape with the aid of a fellow Honduran.

The pair later crossed into Texas, she said, and they surrendered to the U.S. Border Patrol. On Sept. 11, they were sent back to Matamoros with a notice to appear Dec. 16 in immigration court in Harlingen.

“When they told us they were sending us back to Matamoros I became very upset,” Flores Reyes said. “I can’t sleep. I’m still so scared because of what happened to us there.”

Fearing a second kidnapping, she said, she quickly agreed to take the transport back to southern Mexico.

Christian Gonzalez, 23, a native of El Salvador who was also among those recently returned here, said he had been mugged in Matamoros and robbed of his cash, his ID and his documents, among them the government notice to appear in U.S. immigration court in Texas in December.

“Without the paperwork, what can I do?” said an exasperated Gonzalez, a laborer back in Usulutan province in southeastern El Salvador. “I don’t have any money to stay here.”

He planned to abandon his U.S. immigration case and return to El Salvador, where he said he faced threats from gangs and an uncertain future.

https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/9ad4dcd/2147483647/strip/true/crop/6000x4000+0+0/resize/840x560!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fca-times.brightspotcdn.com%2F60%2Fbd%2Fd0251b084ede9ba56266853113a3%2Fla-fg-migrant-bus-09.jpg

Standing nearby was Nuvia Carolina Meza Romero, 37, accompanied by her daughter, Jessi, 8, who clutched a stuffed sheep. Both had also returned on the buses from Matamoros. Meza Romero, too, was in a quandary about what do, but seemed resigned to return to Honduras.

“I can’t stay here. I don’t know anyone and I don’t have any money,” said Meza Romero, who explained that she spent a week in U.S. custody in Texas after crossing the Rio Grande and being apprehended on Sept. 2.

Her U.S. notice to appear advised her to show up on Dec. 3 in U.S. immigration court in Brownsville.

“I don’t know how I would even get back there at this point,” said Meza Romero, who was near tears as she stood with her daughter near the border bridge.

Approaching the migrants were aggressive bicycle taxi drivers who, for a fee of the equivalent of about $2, offered to smuggle them back across the river to Guatemala on rafts made of planks and inner tubes, thus avoiding Mexican and Guatemalan border inspections.

Opting to cross the river were many bus returnees from Matamoros, including Meza Romero, her daughter and Gonzalez, the Salvadoran.

But Flores Reyes was hesitant to return to Central America and forfeit her long-sought dream of resettling in the United States, even if she had to make her way back to Matamoros on her own.

“Right now, we just need to find some shelter,” Flores Reyes said as she ambled off in search of some kind of lodging, her daughter holding her mother’s arm. “We have an appointment on Dec. 16 on the other side. I plan to make it. I’m not ready to give up yet.”

https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/3603574/2147483647/strip/true/crop/6000x4000+0+0/resize/840x560!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fca-times.brightspotcdn.com%2Fd4%2F35%2F334c3a9440c4bb680d240d73abd9%2Fla-fg-migrant-bus-10.jpg

▻https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-10-15/buses-to-nowhere-mexico-transports-migrants-with-u-s-court-dates-to-its-far

–---------

Commentaire de @pascaline via la mailing-list Migreurop :

Outre le dispositif d’expulsion par charter de l’OIM (▻https://seenthis.net/messages/730601) mis en place à la frontière nord du Mexique pour les MPPs, le transfert et l’abandon des demandeurs d’asile MPPS à la frontière avec le Guatemala, par les autorités mexicaines est présentée comme une façon de leur permettre d’échapper à la dangerosité des villes frontalières du Nord tout en espérant qu’ils choississent de retourner par eux-mêmes « chez eux »...

https://i.imgur.com/Jj33oQv.png

Productive meeting with officials from the Government of Honduras today. #Honduras has been a trusted and helpful partner as we work together to build asylum capacity and strengthen border security and information sharing in the region.

▻https://twitter.com/DHS_Wolf/status/1195076959769964559

In a first, U.S. starts pushing Central American families seeking asylum to Guatemala

U.S. officials have started to send families seeking asylum to Guatemala, even if they are not from the Central American country and had sought protection in the United States, the Los Angeles Times has learned.

In July, the Trump administration announced a new rule to effectively end asylum at the southern U.S. border by requiring asylum seekers to claim protection elsewhere. Under that rule — which currently faces legal challenges — virtually any migrant who passes through another country before reaching the U.S. border and does not seek asylum there will be deemed ineligible for protection in the United States.

A few days later, the administration reached an agreement with Guatemala to take asylum seekers arriving at the U.S. border who were not Guatemalan. Although Guatemala’s highest court initially said the country’s president couldn’t unilaterally enter into such an agreement, since late November, U.S. officials have forcibly returned individuals to Guatemala under the deal.

At first, U.S. officials said they would return only single adults. But starting Tuesday, they began applying the policy to non-Guatemalan parents and children, according to communications obtained by The Times and several U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials.

One family of three from Honduras, as well as a separate Honduran parent and child, were served with notices on Tuesday that they’d soon be deported to Guatemala.

The Trump administration has reached similar agreements with Guatemala’s Northern Triangle neighbors, El Salvador and Honduras, in each case obligating those countries to take other Central Americans who reach the U.S. border. Those agreements, however, have yet to be implemented.

The administration describes the agreements as an “effort to share the distribution of hundreds of thousands of asylum claims.”

The deals — also referred to as “safe third country” agreements — “are formed between the United States and foreign countries where aliens removed to those countries would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection,” according to the federal notice.

Guatemala has virtually no asylum system of its own, but the Trump administration and Guatemalan government both said the returns would roll out slowly and selectively.

The expansion of the policy to families could mean many more asylum seekers being forcibly removed to Guatemala.

Experts, advocates, the United Nations and Guatemalan officials say the country doesn’t have the capacity to handle any sizable influx, much less process potential protection claims. Guatemala’s own struggles with corruption, violence and poverty helped push more than 270,000 Guatemalans to the U.S. border in fiscal 2019.

Citizenship and Immigration Services and Homeland Security officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

▻https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12-10/u-s-starts-pushing-asylum-seeking-families-back-to-guatemala-for-first-time

U.S. implements plan to send Mexican asylum seekers to Guatemala

Mexicans seeking asylum in the United States could be sent to Guatemala under a bilateral agreement signed by the Central American nation last year, according to documents sent to U.S. asylum officers in recent days and seen by Reuters.

In a Jan. 4 email, field office staff at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) were told Mexican nationals will be included in the populations “amenable” to the agreement with Guatemala.

The agreement, brokered last July between the administration of Republican President Donald Trump and the outgoing Guatemalan government, allows U.S. immigration officials to send migrants requesting asylum at the U.S.-Mexican border to apply for protection in Guatemala instead.

Mexico objects to the plan, its foreign ministry said in a statement late on Monday, adding that it would be working with authorities to find “better options” for those that could be affected.

Trump has made clamping down on unlawful migration a top priority of his presidency and a major theme of his 2020 re-election campaign. His administration penned similar deals with Honduras and El Salvador last year.

U.S. Democrats and pro-migrant groups have opposed the move and contend asylum seekers will face danger in Guatemala, where the murder rate is five times that of the United States, according to 2017 data compiled by the World Bank. The country’s asylum office is tiny and thinly staffed and critics have argued it lacks the capacity to properly vet a significant increase in cases.

Guatemalan President-elect Alejandro Giammattei, who takes office this month, has said he will review the agreement.

Acting Deputy U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Ken Cuccinelli said in a tweet in December that Mexicans were being considered for inclusion under the agreement.

USCIS referred questions to DHS, which referred to Cuccinelli’s tweet. Mexico’s foreign ministry did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Alejandra Mena, a spokeswoman for Guatemala’s immigration institute, said that since the agreement was implemented in November, the United States has sent 52 migrants to the country. Only six have applied for asylum in Guatemala, Mena said.

On Monday, an additional 33 Central American migrants arrived on a flight to Guatemala City, she said.

Unaccompanied minors cannot be sent to Guatemala under the agreement, which now applies only to migrants from Honduras, El Salvador and Mexico, according to the guidance documents. Exceptions are made if the migrants can establish that they are “more likely than not” to be persecuted or tortured in Guatemala based on their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Numbers of Central American migrants apprehended at the border fell sharply in the second part of 2019 after Mexico deployed National Guard troops to stem the flow, under pressure from Trump.

Overall, border arrests are expected to drop again in December for the seventh straight month, a Homeland Security official told Reuters last week, citing preliminary data.

The U.S. government says another reason for the reduction in border crossings is a separate program, known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, that has forced more than 56,000 non-Mexican migrants to wait in Mexico for their U.S. immigration court hearings.

With fewer Central Americans at the border, U.S. attention has turned to Mexicans crossing illegally or requesting asylum. About 150,000 Mexican single adults were apprehended at the border in fiscal 2019, down sharply from previous decades but still enough to bother U.S. immigration hawks.

▻https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration/us-implements-plan-to-send-mexican-asylum-seekers-to-guatemala-idUSKBN1Z51S
#Guatemala

Mexican Asylum Seekers Could Now Be Deported to Guatemala

A plan that homeland security officials once praised as a deterrent for Central Americans considering the long journey through Mexico is being expanded.

▻https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/06/us/politics/mexican-asylum-seekers-guatemala.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Mexico begins flying, busing migrants back to #Honduras

Hundreds of Central American migrants who entered southern Mexico in recent days have either been pushed back into Guatemala by Mexican troops, shipped to detention centers or returned to Honduras, officials said Tuesday. An unknown number slipped past Mexican authorities and continued north.

The latest migrant caravan provided a public platform for Mexico to show the U.S. government and migrants thinking of making the trip that it has refined its strategy and produced its desired result: This caravan will not advance past its southern border.

What remained unclear was the treatment of the migrants who already find themselves on their way back to the countries they fled last week.

“Mexico doesn’t have the capacity to process so many people in such a simple way in a couple of days,” said Guadalupe Correa Cabrera, a professor at George Mason University studying how the caravans form.

The caravan of thousands had set out from Honduras in hopes Mexico would grant them passage, posing a fresh test of U.S. President Donald Trump’s effort to reduce the flow of migrants arriving at the U.S. border by pressuring other governments to stop them.

Mexican Foreign Secretary Marcelo Ebrard said 2,400 migrants entered Mexico legally over the weekend. About 1,000 of them requested Mexico’s help in returning to their countries. The rest were being held in immigration centers while they start legal processes that would allow them to seek refuge in Mexico or obtain temporary work permits that would confine them to southern Mexico.

On Tuesday afternoon, Jesus, a young father from Honduras who offered only his first name, rested in a shelter in Tecun Uman, Guatemala, with his wife and their baby, unsure of what to do next.

“No country’s policy sustains us,” he said in response to hearing Ebrard’s comments about the situation. “If we don’t work, we don’t eat. (He) doesn’t feed us, doesn’t care for our children.”

Honduran officials said more than 600 of its citizens were expected to arrive in that country Tuesday by plane and bus and more would follow in the coming days.

Of an additional 1,000 who tried to enter Mexico illegally Monday by wading across the Suchiate river, most were either forced back or detained later by immigration agents, according to Mexican officials.

Most of the hundreds stranded in the no-man’s land on the Mexican side of the river Monday night returned to Guatemala in search of water, food and a place to sleep. Late Tuesday, the first buses carrying Hondurans left Tecun Uman with approximately 150 migrants heading back to their home country.

Mexican authorities distributed no water or food to those who entered illegally, in what appeared to be an attempt by the government to wear out the migrants.

Alejandro Rendón, an official from Mexico’s social welfare department, said his colleagues were giving water to those who turned themselves in or were caught by immigration agents, but were not doing the same along the river because it was not safe for workers to do so.

“It isn’t prudent to come here because we can’t put the safety of the colleagues at risk,” he said.

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said Tuesday that the government is trying to protect the migrants from harm by preventing them from traveling illegally through the country. He said they need to respect Mexican laws.

“If we don’t take care of them, if we don’t know who they are, if we don’t have a register, they pass and get to the north, and the criminal gangs grab them and assault them, because that’s how it was before,” he said. “They disappeared them.”

Mexican Interior Minister Olga Sánchez Cordero commended the National Guard for its restraint, saying: “In no way has there been an act that we could call repression and not even annoyance.”

But Honduras’ ambassador to Mexico said there had been instances of excessive force on the part of the National Guard. “We made a complaint before the Mexican government,” Alden Rivera said in an interview with HCH Noticias without offering details. He also conceded migrants had thrown rocks at Mexican authorities.

An Associated Press photograph of a Mexican National Guardsman holding a migrant in a headlock was sent via Twitter by acting U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Ken Cuccinelli with the message: “We appreciate Mexico doing more than they did last year to interdict caravans attempting to move illegally north to our southern border.”

“They absolutely must be satisfied with (Mexico’s) actions because in reality it’s their (the United States’) plan,” said Correa Cabrera, the George Mason professor. “They’re congratulating themselves, because in reality it wasn’t López Obrador’s plan.”

She said it is an complicated issue for Mexico, but the National Guard had no business being placed at the border to handle immigration because they weren’t trained for it. The government “is sending a group that doesn’t know how to and can’t protect human rights because they’re trained to do other kinds of things,” she said.

Mexico announced last June that it was deploying the newly formed National Guard to assist in immigration enforcement to avoid tariffs that Trump threatened on Mexican imports.

Darlin René Romero and his wife were among the few who spent the night pinned between the river and Mexican authorities.

Rumors had circulated through the night that “anything could happen, that being there was very dangerous,” Romero said. But the couple from Copan, Honduras, spread a blanket on the ground and passed the night 20 yards from a line of National Guard troops forming a wall with their riot shields.

They remained confident that Mexico would allow them to pass through and were trying to make it to the northern Mexican city of Monterrey, where his sister lives.

They said a return home to impoverished and gang-plagued Honduras, where most of the migrants are from, was unthinkable.

▻https://apnews.com/4d685100193f6a2c521267fe614356df

les éléctions c’est dimanche

His support was also dented by a landmark agreement that took effect this year with neighboring North Macedonia, which formally changed its name from Macedonia to end a decades-long dispute with Athens. Greece has long argued use of the term implies territorial ambitions on its own northern province of the same name.

The deal was warmly welcomed by Greece’s NATO allies but remains unpopular domestically.

. “The high tax burden on the middle class has been one of the main reasons why Syriza has lost much of its support.”

Libye, loin des yeux, loin du cœur : reportage dans les centres de détention

https://www.msf.fr/sites/default/files/styles/contenu_article/public/image_base_media/2019/07/MSF278414.jpg

5 000 à 6 000 réfugiés et migrants sont détenus de façon arbitraire dans les centres de détention libyens qui dépendent du ministère de l’Intérieur basé à Tripoli.

Ces derniers mois, leur situation s’est encore aggravée à cause du conflit qui a éclaté début avril entre le gouvernement libyen reconnu par les Nations unies et basé à Tripoli (GNA) et les forces de l’Armée Nationale Libyenne (ANL). Toutefois, malgré des appels répétés à la protection et à l’évacuation des réfugiés et des migrants détenus, ceux-ci ont peu de chances de parvenir en lieu sûr dans un avenir proche. Par ailleurs, nombre d’entre eux sont renvoyés de force dans ce même cycle de violences et de détention en Libye par les garde-côtes libyens soutenus par l’Union européenne.

Loin de la zone de combat, des centaines de personnes restent enfermées pour une durée indéterminée, dans des conditions néfastes, dans des centres de détention où elles sont exposées aux maltraitances et à la mort, et poussées au désespoir.

https://www.msf.fr/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/image_base_media/2019/07/MSF278410.jpg

Dans le djebel Nafousa, une région montagneuse au sud de Tripoli, des personnes nécessitant une protection internationale et enregistrées auprès du Haut Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés (HCR) en tant que réfugiés ou demandeurs d’asile, ont été abandonnées dans des centres de détention depuis des mois, voire des années, sans aucune assistance.

De septembre 2018 à mai 2019, au moins 22 personnes sont décédées dans les centres de détention de Zintan et de Gharyan, principalement de la tuberculose. Parmi les morts se trouvaient des jeunes hommes, des femmes et un enfant de huit ans.

Dans le centre de détention de Zintan, quelque 700 personnes étaient enfermées dans un entrepôt agricole surpeuplé, tandis que 200 autres étaient confinées dans un ensemble de petits bâtiments.

▻https://www.msf.fr/actualites/libye-loin-des-yeux-loin-du-coeur-reportage-dans-les-centres-de-detention

Libye : incendie dans un centre de détention de migrants à Zintan

https://scd.infomigrants.net/media/resize/my_image_big/df34867421a030534953446b0a1ec8a9901f65c7.png

Un feu s’est déclaré dimanche dans le centre de détention de Zintan, en Libye. Provoqué par des infrastructures électriques vétustes, l’incendie a provoqué des dégâts matériels et alerte une fois de plus sur les conditions de détention des migrants en Libye.

Un nuage de fumée noire sort d’un bâtiment délabré. À l’extérieur, plusieurs jeunes hommes tentent d’évacuer les affaires qu’ils peuvent atteindre. Certains portent un tissu sur la bouche, maigre protection face à une fumée toxique.

Dimanche 1er décembre, le centre de détention de Zintan, en Libye, a connu un incendie dont l’origine serait électrique. L’incident n’a pas fait de blessés même si certains migrants ont respiré des fumées. Une vingtaine d’entre eux ont perdu leurs affaires personnelles et le bâtiment où s’est déclaré l’incendie est désormais inutilisable.

Selon Besay*, un jeune Érythréen détenu dans le centre et contacté par InfoMigrants, les gardiens ont mis plus d’une heure et demie à appeler les pompiers. Cet incendie rappelle que les conditions de vie des migrants en Libye sont extrêmement difficiles. Les ONG dénoncent régulièrement la situation des migrants dans les centres de détention gérés par le département libyen de lutte contre la migration illégale (DCIM, selon l’acronyme anglais).

Près de 500 hommes – majoritairement érythréens et somaliens – sont détenus à Zintan. Parmi eux, plus d’une centaine sont atteints de tuberculose. Les équipes de Médecins sans frontières (MSF) n’ont accès aux détenus que depuis le mois de mai.

Aujourd’hui, les malades de la tuberculose sont séparés des autres détenus pendant deux semaines. Mais cela n’a pas toujours été le cas. « Après ils reviennent avec nous », explique Besay. Le jeune Érythréen est lui-même malade. « Depuis quatre mois, je prends un traitement donné par MSF. »

À Zintan, les migrants souffrent également du manque de nourriture. En mars 2019, plusieurs migrants étaient morts de faim dans le centre. InfoMigrants avait reçu des photos de jeunes hommes d’une maigreur extrême.

Plus de 40 000 migrants ont été enregistrés en Libye par le Haut-Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés (HCR). Mais plusieurs centaines vivraient en tout dans le pays dans des centres de détentions officiels et clandestins ainsi que dans des squats et des logements individuels.

▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7GmSTYgAK4&feature=emb_logo

▻https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/21270/libye-incendie-dans-un-centre-de-detention-de-migrants-a-zintan?ref=tw

#feu #incendie

La machine à broyer. Réfugiés et migrants piégés en Libye

Fin 2017, des images effroyables de migrants vendus comme des marchandises en Libye faisaient le tour du monde et suscitaient une réaction en chaîne de nombreux dirigeants, en Libye, en Europe, en Afrique, promettant de prendre des mesures destinées à protéger les réfugiés et migrants d’un système d’exploitation organisée.

Deux ans après, rien n’a pourtant changé. Présentes depuis 2017 auprès des migrants et réfugiés détenus en Libye, les équipes MSF témoignent de l’#horreur de la situation pour des milliers de personnes condamnées à croupir dans des centres de détention ou prises au piège d’un cycle sans fin de #violence et d’#abus.

►https://msf2016.atavist.com/libye-la-machine-a-broyer

#MSF #rapport
–----------
v. des documents archivés sur seenthis en 2017 :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/605873

Migrant in Libya relives brutal detention through sketches

https://i.imgur.com/z3cLsP6.jpg https://i.imgur.com/Y1UaoA4.jpg?1 https://i.imgur.com/WXX12gb.jpg https://i.imgur.com/CUgXFRs.jpg

A guard withholds water from a barefoot migrant kneeling in front of him. An emaciated man lies on the ground while a thermostat reads a broiling 43 degrees Celsius. Refugees cower to the ground as bullets whiz by.

These rough pencil sketches by an Eritrean refugee offer a glimpse of the brutal reality of Libya’s migrant detention centers, where thousands have been locked away for months or even years. Most are there after failing to make the perilous crossing to Europe through the Mediterranean Sea.

The artist asked to only be identified by his nickname, Aser, because he fears reprisals from militias for speaking out about what he says are “nightmare conditions” inside the centers. In a country with no functioning government, it is often competing militias who run the detention centers and make money off migrants.

The drawings are based on what Aser, 28, witnessed inside several migrant facilities in Tripoli between September 2017 and October this year. At night, he recalls, he awoke to the sounds of militiamen dragging migrants from their sleep and beating them to get ransoms from their families, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa. Guards withheld food, water and medicine for the same reason.

Libya’s migrant detention centers are rife with abuse, and many have gotten caught in the crossfire of the country’s civil war. One drawing depicts refugees in the crossfire between forces of military commander Khalifa Hifter and militias allied with the United Nations-supported government in Tripoli.

Libya became a major crossing point for migrants to Europe after the death of longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi in 2011, but Europe now sends money for Libya to prevent migrants from reaching its shores. With increased reports of torture and abuse inside detention centers, Europe’s policy of supporting the Libyan coast guard as it intercepts fleeing migrants has come under growing criticism.

Aser says that often, the only drinking water available inside the hangars where he was kept was a few buckets of water for hundreds of people. He and others went weeks without seeing sunlight, and the crowded centers became breeding grounds for disease. At the last facility where he was held, Abu Salim, he and another migrant, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said two Eritreans died from what they believed to be tuberculosis.

Aser’s journey began more than four years ago, when he escaped forced military conscription in Eritrea, considered among the world’s most repressive governments. He made his way through Ethiopia and Sudan, and paid $6,000 to traffickers in Libya to secure a place on a boat to Europe. But the vessel was intercepted by the Libyan coast guard.

He ended up in Tripoli in September 2017 and was placed in the first of three centers. Visiting workers from Doctors Without Borders, or MSF, provided him with pencils and paper, and he worked out of the sight of guards. He sometimes hid the drawings with other migrants, and took photos of some sketches before destroying them.

In late October, Aser fled to an already overcrowded United Nations-run facility with hundreds of other detainees. Now his hope is that he can be one of the few to qualify for asylum, who are put on flights via Niger and Rwanda to Europe.

In the meantime, he says, his only escape is art.

“I dream that one day I can move out of Libya to develop my skill by gaining additional education,” he said.

source : ▻https://apnews.com/b55a574819e26a45c819fe843c946379

#eau #guerre_civile #jeu_de_l'oie (une sorte de jeu de l’oie bien dramatique, car la dernière étape est le #cimetière dans ce dessin) #centre_de_détention #centres_de_détention #décès #mort

Et pour le dessin du « tour des centres de détention » :
▻https://twitter.com/mokhbersahafi/status/1211981910219657218?s=03

ce qui se passe à Ferguson mérite quelques secondes d’attention. Depuis 2014 les militant.e.s là-bas qui ont impulsé le mouvement #BlackLivesMatter meurent les uns après les autres. De mort violente.

►https://twitter.com/OlivierCyran/status/1108279806104428544

▻https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/world/americas/donald-trump-venezuela-military-coup.html?module=inline

The Trump administration held secret meetings with rebellious military officers from Venezuela over the last year to discuss their plans to overthrow President Nicolás Maduro, according to American officials and a former Venezuelan military commander who participated in the talks.

Establishing a clandestine channel with coup plotters in Venezuela was a big gamble for Washington, given its long history of covert intervention across Latin America. Many in the region still deeply resent the United States for backing previous rebellions, coups and plots in countries like Cuba, Nicaragua, Brazil and Chile, and for turning a blind eye to the abuses military regimes committed during the Cold War.

sur l’effondrement dramatique de la santé publique au Zimbabwe :

Bare-handed surgeries as Zimbabwe’s health system collapses
▻https://apnews.com/49adc4d9062d446ba364da89d4771f7f

https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/media:0ad12a196a024bd6828ee87d705168ea/3000.jpeg

Doctors describe grim conditions: Bare-handed surgeries. Plastic bread bags used to collect patients’ urine. Broken-down machines. Zimbabwe’s health sector, once considered one of the best in Africa, is on its knees.

“It’s so sad. The hospitals are empty, the patients are being turned away to die somewhere else,” said Prince Butau, treasurer of the Zimbabwe Hospital Doctors Association, which represents about 1,000 doctors who anchor government hospitals.

A new president’s promises of change have turned out to be empty.

Arab nations inch toward rehabilitating Syria’s Assad
▻https://apnews.com/beb8390d4a4e4e26accff0b26995fa28

The debate now appears to be about when, not whether, to re-admit Syria to the Arab League. At a meeting in Cairo on Wednesday, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shukri said Syria’s return to the League is connected to developments on the political track to end the crisis. Some officials in Lebanon insist Syria should be invited to an Arab economic summit the country is hosting next week, although final decision rests with the League.

“It could happen slower or faster, but if Assad is going to stay where he is, then obviously countries in the region are going to try to make the best of that situation,” said Aron Lund, a fellow with The Century Foundation. “American politicians can sit in splendid isolation on the other side of an ocean and pretend Syria isn’t what it is,” he said. “But King Abdullah of Jordan can’t.”

Les MSM occidentaux adorent cette photo avec Bachir du Soudan.

Le culot de se référer à un accord qu’ils ont rejeté :

Earlier in January, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Iran’s plans for sending satellites into orbit demonstrate the country’s defiance of a U.N. Security Council resolution that calls on Iran to undertake no activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons

Rejeté parce qu’en réalité ce qu’ils voudraient c’est une interdiction de TOUT missile balistique...

Iran says will not halt aerospace program despite U.S. warning | Reuters
▻https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKCN1P31J3

Under the U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231, which enshrined the nuclear deal in 2015, Iran is “called upon” to refrain from work on ballistic missiles designed to deliver nuclear weapons for up to eight years.

Iran has ruled out negotiations with Washington over its military capabilities, particularly the missile program run by the Revolutionary Guards. It says the program is purely defensive and denies missiles are capable of being tipped with nuclear warheads.

U.S. President Donald Trump pulled out of an international agreement on Iran’s nuclear program in May and reimposed sanctions on Tehran. He said the deal was flawed because it did not include curbs on Iran’s development of ballistic missiles [...]

“We can have it both ways”
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/725079

Deux satellites iraniens en orbite ? Paris appelle Téhéran à renoncer à ses tirs - Sputnik France
▻https://fr.sputniknews.com/international/201901111039601773-iran-satellites-tirs-france-appel

#France