« Preso atto di un progetto inadeguato »

/hotspot-zen-progetto-bocciato-regione.h

  • Alors que les #Etats-nations (notamment l’#Italie dans ce cas précis) ferment les portes aux exilés, les #villes semblent aujourd’hui faire preuve de #solidarité.

    Il y a eu l’exemple de #Valence, mais #Barcelone et #Berlin se disent prêtes à accueillir les personnes sauvées par les navires des #ONG en #Méditerranée.

    Ici, des liens sur les #villes-refuge :
    http://seen.li/eh64

    Et ci-dessous, dans le fil de la discussion, des liens plus récents.

    #Etat-nation #villes #urban_matter #migrations #réfugiés #asile

    • Barcelona urges Spain to allow migrant ship to dock

      Barcelona Mayor Ada Colau is calling on Spain’s prime minister to grant the city docking rights to help a Spanish aid boat that rescued 60 migrants in the Mediterranean near Libya.

      The Open Arms boat, run by Spanish aid group Proactiva Open Arms, was the cause of a political row Saturday between Italy and Malta, who both rejected taking in the aid boat’s migrants.

      Mr Colau tweeted that Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez should “save lives” because Barcelona “doesn’t want to be an accomplice to the policies of death of Matteo Salvini,” referring to Italy’s hard-line interior minister.

      Mr Salvini, head of an anti-migrant party in the Italian coalition government, has vowed that no more humanitarian groups’ rescue boats will dock in Italy.

      The Spanish vessel said it rescued the migrants Saturday — including five women, a nine-year-old child and three teenagers — after it spotted a rubber boat patched with duct tape floating in the sea. All the migrants appeared in good health.

      "Despite the hurdles, we continue to protect the right to life of invisible people,’ said Open Arms.

      Mr Salvini quickly declared that the rescue boat “can forget about arriving in an Italian port” and claimed the boat should go to Malta, the nearest port.

      But Malta swiftly pushed back, with its interior minister contending that the tiny Italian island of Lampedusa, south of Sicily, was closer to the boat.

      Earlier this month, Rome rejected the Aquarius ship carrying 630 migrants, forcing it to eventually dock in Spain.

      “For women and children really fleeing the war the doors are open, for everyone else they are not!” Mr Salvini tweeted.

      https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/barcelona-urges-spain-to-allow-migrant-ship-to-dock-1.745767
      #villes-refuge

    • Migrants rescue boat allowed to dock in Barcelona

      A Spanish rescue boat which plucked 60 migrants from a patched-up rubber dinghy in the Mediterranean Sea near Libya has been given permission to sail to Barcelona, following another political row between Italy and Malta over where the vessel should dock.

      The boat, Open Arms, run by Spanish aid group Proactiva Open Arms, said it rescued the migrants – including five women, a nine-year-old child and three teenagers – after it spotted a rubber boat patched with duct tape floating in the sea. All the migrants appeared in good health.

      Italy’s right-wing interior minister Matteo Salvini quickly declared that the rescue boat “can forget about arriving in an Italian port”, and claimed it should instead go to Malta, the nearest port.

      Malta swiftly pushed back, with its interior minister contending that the tiny Italian island of Lampedusa, south of Sicily, was closer to the boat.

      http://www.itv.com/news/2018-06-30/migrants-rescue-boat-allowed-to-dock-in-barcelona

    • #Palerme:

      La Commission régionale de l’Urbanisme a rejeté le projet de pré-faisabilité du « #hotspot » à Palerme, confirmant l’avis du Conseil municipal de Palerme. L’avis de la Commission régionale reste technique. Le maire de Palerme a rappelé que "la ville de Palerme et toute sa communauté sont opposés à la création de centres dans lesquels la dignité des personnes est violée (...). Palerme reste une ville qui croit dans les valeurs de l’accueil, de la solidarité et des rencontres entre les peuples et les cultures, les mettant en pratique au quotidien. En cela, notre « non » à l’hotspot n’est pas et ne sera pas seulement un choix technique, mais plutôt un choix relatif à des principes et des valeurs".
      > Pour en savoir plus (IT) : http://www.palermotoday.it/politica/hotspot-zen-progetto-bocciato-regione.html

      – Leoluca Orlando, le maire de Palerme, continue de défier le gouvernement et les politiques migratoires de Salvini. La nouvelle querelle fait suite à une circulaire envoyée aux préfets et présidents de commissions sur la reconnaissance de la protection internationale. Matteo Salvini souhaite une accélération de l’examen des demandes et un accès plus strict au titre de séjour pour motif(s) humanitaire(s), un des avantages les plus accordés (cette année, ils représentaient 28% des trois titres de séjour prévus par la loi). La circulaire invite les commissions à être plus rigoureuses dans l’examen de la vulnérabilité.
      > Pour en savoir plus (IT) : www.palermotoday.it/politica/migranti-polemica-orlando-salvini-querela.html ?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

      – 8 Juillet, 18h : manifestation citoyenne des oppressé.es à Palerme.
      > Pour en savoir plus (IT), lien vers l’évènement : http://palermo.carpediem.cd/events/7342024-prima-le-oppresse-e-gli-oppressi-at-piazza-giuseppe-verdi

      –-> Reçu via la mailing-list Migreurop

    • Migranti: parte l’offensiva degli amministratori locali contro la deriva xenofoba e razzista del Governo

      Primo firmatario dell’appello «inclusione per una società aperta» Nicola Zingaretti; tra gli aderenti Sala, Pizzarotti e De Magistris.

      Trentatré episodi di aggressioni a sfondo razzista da quando il governo Salvini - Di Maio si è insediato, tre solo nelle ultime ore; porti chiusi e criminalizzazione delle Ong; ruspe sui campi rom e una narrazione costante e diffusa che parla di invasione, sostituzione etnica, pericolo immigrazione: qualcuno ha deciso di non restare in silenzio e mostrare che esiste anche un’Italia che rifiuta tutto questo, rivendica lo stato di diritto e sostiene l’inclusione sociale come valore assoluto.

      Per questo oggi stato lanciato - e ha già raccolto più di 200 adesioni in tutta Italia - il manifesto «Inclusione per una società aperta», ideato e promosso dai consiglieri regionali del Lazio Alessandro Capriccioli, Marta Bonafoni, Paolo Ciani, Mauro Buschini e Daniele Ognibene e rivolto a tutti gli amministratori locali che rifiutino «la retorica dell’invasione e della sostituzione etnica, messa in campo demagogicamente al solo scopo di ottenere consenso elettorale, dagli imprenditori della paura e dell’odio sociale; rifiutino il discorso pubblico di denigrazione e disprezzo del prossimo e l’incitamento all’odio, che nutrono una narrazione della disuguaglianza, giustificano e fanno aumentare episodi di intolleranza ed esplicito razzismo», col fine di costruire «una rete permanente che, dato l’attuale contesto politico, affronti il tema delle migrazioni e dell’accoglienza su scala nazionale a partire dalle esperienze e dalle politiche locali, con l’obiettivo di opporsi fattivamente alla deriva sovranista e xenofoba che sta investendo il nostro paese», come si legge nell’appello diffuso quest’oggi.

      «In Italia viviamo una situazione senza precedenti», ha spiegato Alessandro Capriccioli, capogruppo di +Europa Radicali durante la conferenza stampa di lancio dell’appello insieme ai colleghi Paolo Ciani, Marta Bonaforni e Marietta Tidei. «Attraverso una strategia quasi scientifica è stato imposto un racconto sull’immigrazione che alimenta l’odio e lo sfrutta per ottenere consensi. Questo manifesto si rivolge agli amministratori locali che affrontano sul campo il tema dell’immigrazione con risultati virtuosi che spesso smentiscono quel racconto, ed è uno strumento per formare una rete istituzionale che potrà diventare un interlocutore autorevole e credibile in primo luogo di questo Governo, dettando indicazioni, strategie e proposte».

      Paolo Ciani, capogruppo di Centro Solidale, ha sottolineato come «questa narrazione distorta sta portando a un imbarbarimento della nostra società. Gli episodi di questi giorni rappresentano solo la punta dell’iceberg di un atteggiamento diffuso: sappiamo tutti che esistono degli istinti bassi che appartengono a tutti gli esseri umani e che, se trovano una loro legittimazione nelle istituzioni, diventano un problema». Marietta Tidei, consigliera regionale del Pd ha posto l’attenzione sul fatto che «oggi viene raccontato solo il brutto dell’immigrazione, ma noi siamo qui per dire che c’è anche molto che ha funzionato: il programma Sprar è un esempio virutoso», mentre la capogruppo della Lista Civica Zingaretti Marta Bonafoni ha sottolineato come ciò che conta sia «la quantità e la pronta risposta che stiamo avendo: la distribuzione geografica ci dice che c’è un’altra italia, che con questo appello diventa una rete istituzionale che si pone come interlocutrice del Governo».

      Oltre al Presidente della regione Lazio hanno già sottoscritto l’appello Beppe Sala, sindaco di Milano, Federico Pizzarotti, sindaco di Parma, Luigi De Magistris, sindaco di Napoli e più di 200 tra assessori e consiglieri regionali, sindaci, presidenti di municipi e consiglieri comunali e municipali da ogni parte d’Italia.

      http://www.repubblica.it/solidarieta/immigrazione/2018/08/03/news/migranti_parte_l_offensiva_degli_amministratori_locali_contro_la_deriva_x
      #xénophobie #racisme #anti-racisme

    • Espagne : #Bilbao accueille de plus en plus de migrants

      Dernière étape avant la France ou une autre destination, Bilbao accueille de plus en plus de migrants débarqués sur les plages du sud de l’Espagne. Le Pays basque, connu pour être doté d’un réseau de solidarité citoyenne très développé, prend en charge le sort de ces migrants en transit. C’est le cas de l’association #Ongi_Etorri_regugiak - « Bienvenue réfugié » - qui depuis trois mois aide un groupe de 130 subsahariens livrés à eux-mêmes.

      Dans la cour de récréation, une vingtaine d’Africains jouent au football en attendant l’heure du dîner. C’est dans cette ancienne école primaire du quartier populaire de Santuxtu, transformée en centre social, que sont hébergés ces migrants âgés de plus de 18 ans. Tous ont débarqué en zodiac sur les côtes espagnoles, puis ont été transportés jusqu’à Bilbao dans des bus affrétés par les autorités espagnoles. Mais à leur arrivée, ils sont très vite livrés à eux-mêmes.

      La solidarité d’une centaine de personnes a permis d’aider ces migrants et de prendre la relève des autorités locales comme le souligne Martha, une des volontaires. « On a ouvert ce dispositif entre personnes qui n’ont aucun moyen économique, c’est autofinancé, et on apprend sur le tas un peu de tout, explique-t-elle. Il y a des gens qui restent dormir pour voir si tout se passe bien. On est là pour les accompagner, pour créer aussi le lien avec les gens d’ici, avec la ville. C’est très émouvant de voir comment s’est créée une chaîne de solidarité entre différents quartiers peu à peu, qui ne devrait pas s’arrêter là et on espère qu’elle ne va pas se rompre ».

      Parmi ces migrants, Zacharia, un Camerounais de 29 ans, désigné chef cuisinier. C’est lui qui prépare les repas pour les 130 personnes avec les vivres donnés par les habitants du coin. Il espère l’obtenir l’asile politique, mais il va devoir attendre six mois pour avoir son premier rendez-vous avec les autorités, ce qui le préoccupe.

      Les autorités basques ont promis de se pencher sur le sort de ces migrants, mais d’ordinaire, ils sont très peu à choisir de rester au Pays basque. La plupart décident de continuer leur périple vers le nord de l’Europe avec ou sans aide.

      http://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/11498/espagne-bilbao-accueille-de-plus-en-plus-de-migrants

    • #Atlanta says NO to detention and YES to increased legal services and support for family reunification:

      Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms Issues Executive Order to Permanently End City of Atlanta Receiving ICE Detainees

      Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms has signed an Executive Order directing the Chief of the Atlanta City Department of Corrections to take the necessary action to permanently stop receiving U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees under the current agreement with the United States Marshals Service.


      https://t.co/9jZoIICiIi
      #détention_administrative #rétention

      #USA #Etats-Unis

    • How Cities Are Demanding a Greater Voice on Migration

      Cities are developing their own solutions to help fast-growing migrant and refugee populations in urban areas. Cities expert Robert Muggah describes the swell of initiatives by urban leaders and what it will take to overcome the barriers ahead.

      Most refugees and internally displaced people live in cities. Yet urban leaders are regularly excluded from international discussions about refugee response.

      Robert Muggah, cofounder of the Brazil-based think-tank the Igarape Institute and Canadian risk consultancy The SecDev Group, is among a growing chorus of city and migration experts calling for that to change. His recent paper for the World Refugee Council describes how cities are developing their own solutions and offers a blueprint for better cooperation.

      “Cities will need resources to scale up their activities,” Muggah told Refugees Deeply. “This may require changes in laws so that cities can determine their own residence policies and keep tax revenues generated by migrants who move there.”

      Refugees Deeply talked to Muggah about how city leaders are championing new approaches to displacement and the barriers they’re trying to overcome.
      Refugees Deeply: Are the global compacts on refugees and migration a missed opportunity for a smarter international approach to urban refugees and migrants?

      Robert Muggah: The international response to the urbanization of displacement has been woefully inadequate. The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), in particular, was remarkably slow to empower cities to assume a greater role in protecting and assisting refugees and other groups of concern. And while it has made some modest improvements, the UNHCR’s strategic plan (2017–21) makes just one reference to urban refugees – acknowledging that they constitute the majority of the agency’s caseload – but offers no vision or concrete recommendations moving forward.

      The global compacts on migration and refugees were never going to be revolutionary. But so far they have been a disappointment seen from the vantage point of cities. While still under review, the new compacts only tangentially address the central role of urban authorities, businesses and civic associations in supporting displaced populations. While they offer a suite of sensible-sounding proposals to ensure a more predictable approach to protection and care and “regularize” population movements more generally, they are silent on the role of cities. The global compact on refugees mentions the word “urban” just four times and “cities” just once. These omissions have not gone unnoticed: cities and inter-city networks are agitating for a greater voice.

      The global compacts on migration and refugees were never going to be revolutionary. But so far they have been a disappointment seen from the vantage point of cities.
      Refugees Deeply: What are some of the main political and institutional blockages to better equipping cities around the world to protect and care for migrants and refugees?

      Muggah: For most of the 20th and 21st centuries, nation states have actively resisted giving cities more discretion in responding to issues of cross-border and internal population displacement. Cities will not find recourse in international law, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) also have nothing to say about urban displacement. More positively, the nonbinding New Urban Agenda offers more concrete direction on cooperation between national and subnational authorities to address the needs of refugees and internally displaced people.

      Cities have also received comparatively limited support from international organizations to support urban refugees and displaced people. On the contrary – the UNHCR has instead emphasized the need to reduce assistance and promote self-reliance. Under immense pressure from U.N. member states, and host states in particular, the UNHCR sought to limit refugees from moving to cities where possible. UNHCR made tentative gestures to move beyond the minimalist approach and advocate for refugee rights in cities in the 2000s, but a camp-based model prevailed. There were concerns that the focus on refugees in cities could antagonize host countries, many of whom saw displaced people as a threat to domestic and international security.
      Refugees Deeply: What are some of the factors common to the most proactive and innovative cities on these issues?

      Muggah: A growing number of cities are demanding a greater voice on issues of migration and displacement. Earlier in 2018 a small delegation of cities – led by New York – sent recommendations to improve the overall wording and content of the Global Compact. Likewise, in 2017, the International Organization for Migration, together with the United Cities and Local Government (UCLG), assembled 150 cities to sign the Mechelen Declaration demanding a seat at the decision-making table. And in 2015, Eurocities also issued a statement on refugees in the wake of the influx of refugees from the Middle East and North Africa. They set up Solidarity Cities, which provides support to help cities deliver services and identify effective long-term solutions to protect social cohesion and integration.

      Cities are also getting on with developing legislative and policy frameworks to welcome refugees and promote protection, care and assistance. Good examples include more than 100 “welcoming cities” in the U.S. that have committed to promoting integration, developing institutional strategies for inclusion, building leadership among new arrivals and providing support to refugees. Meanwhile, some 500 jurisdictions describe themselves as “sanctuary cities.” Despite threats of cuts to funding, they are resisting federal efforts to enforce immigration law and are on the front line of supporting refugees. In the U.K., at least 80 “cities of sanctuary” offer another approach to providing compassionate solutions for refugees. Large and medium-sized cities across Europe are also adopting similar strategies, in cooperation with Eurocities – a network of major European cities founded in 1986.

      While it can generate tension with federal counterparts, these city-level responses can help contribute to greater safety and economic progress in the long run. Cities, states and countries with sanctuary policies tend to be safer and more prosperous than those without them. Sanctuary cities can build trust between law enforcement agencies and migrant communities. Likewise, the economies of sanctuary cities, towns and counties are largely more resilient than nonsanctuary counterparts, whether measured in terms of the population’s income, reliance on public assistance or labor force participation.
      Refugees Deeply: Many cities face financial and political limitations on their ability to respond to refugee crises. Where have you seen good examples of devolution of power and resources helping cities to respond better?

      Muggah: There are countless examples of cities strengthening their protection and care for urban refugees in a time of austerity. In New York, for example, city authorities launched ActionNYC, which offers free, safe legal assistance for migrants and refugees in multiple languages. In Barcelona, the SAIER (Service Center for Immigrants, Emigrants and Refugees) program provides free advice on asylum and return, while Milan works with the UNHCR and Save the Children to offer services for unaccompanied minors.

      Montreal established the BINAM (Bureau d’integration des nouveaux arrivants a Montreal) program to provide on-the-job training and mentoring to new arrivals, and Sao Paulo has created municipal immigration councils to help design, implement and monitor the city’s policies. Likewise, cities such as Atlanta and Los Angeles are requiring that migrants – in particular, refugees – have equal access to city facilities, services and programs regardless of their citizenship status.

      Cities are also banding together, pooling their resources to achieve greater influence on the urban refugee agenda. Today there are more than 200 intercity networks dedicated to urban priorities, ranging from governance and climate change to public safety and migration. Several of them have dedicated guidelines on how cities can protect and care for refugees. For example, the Global Parliament of Mayors, established in 2016, focuses on, among other things, promoting inclusive cities for refugees and advocating on their behalf. The International Coalition of Inclusive and Sustainable Cities and the UCLG are others, having teamed up with think-tanks and international agencies to strengthen information-sharing and best practices. Another new initiative is Urban20, which is promoting social integration, among other issues, and planning an inaugural meeting in October 2018.
      Refugees Deeply: Most cities at the forefront of refugee crises are in the Global South. What recommendations would you offer to ensure that international responses to urban displacement do not become too North-centric?

      Muggah: This reality is often lost on Northern policymakers and citizens as they seek to restrict new arrivals and reduce overseas assistance. The Carnegie Mellon University’s Create Lab and the Igarape Institute have developed a range of data visualization tools to highlight these trends, but a much greater effort is required to educate the public. These outreach efforts must be accompanied with a dramatic scaling-up of assistance to redressing the “causes” of displacement as well as supporting front-line cities absorbing the vast majority of the world’s displaced populations.


      https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2018/09/21/how-cities-are-demanding-a-greater-voice-on-migration

    • Création de l’#association_nationale des #villes et #territoires accueillants

      À l’heure où l’échec des politiques migratoires européenne et nationale entraîne une montée des populismes tout en restreignant les droits humains fondamentaux, nous, élu.e.s de villes et collectivités, décidons de nous unir sous une bannière commune : celle de l’accueil inconditionnel.

      Nous demandons ainsi que l’Etat assume ses missions et assure les moyens pour créer des solutions d’accueil, d’hébergement et d’accompagnement plus nombreuses et plus qualitatives que celles existantes aujourd’hui. Cela doit passer par la mise en place d’une stratégie nationale d’accueil afin de répartir et d’accompagner l’effort de solidarité.

      Nous l’enjoignons à respecter le droit et ses engagements internationaux (Protocole de Quito de l’ONU, Convention de Genève), européens (Pacte d’Amsterdam) et nationaux (Code des Familles et de l’Action Sociale)

      Néanmoins, dépositaires d’une tradition d’accueil et de valeurs humanistes, nous, élu.e.s locaux et territoriaux, mettons en oeuvre et expérimentons déjà sur nos territoires, au quotidien, des réponses aux impératifs de l’urgence humanitaire et d’inclusion de tout un chacun, même quand l’Etat est défaillant.
      Surtout, nous agissons en responsabilité, conformément à nos obligations règlementaires et législatives.

      L’association que nous avons constituée à Lyon 1er le 26 septembre 2018, rassemble tout.e.s les élu.e.s promouvant l’hospitalité, source de politiques inclusives et émancipatrices. Fort.e.s de notre expérience, animé.e.s par la volonté d’agir collectivement, nous donnerons à voir que des solutions dignes sont possibles et adaptées à chaque situation locale. Il n’y a pas UNE politique d’accueil, mais autant que de particularismes locaux.

      Elle permettra de mettre en avant toutes les réussites locales en matière d’accueil sur notre
      territoire et les réussites que cela engendre lorsque chacun assume ses responsabilités.
      Elle permettra aussi, la mise en commun de bonnes pratiques, l’accompagnement de territoires volontaires, la mobilisation autour d’enjeux liés aux politiques migratoires, la proposition de mesures adaptées. En partenariat avec toutes les forces vives volontaires : acteurs associatifs, citoyen.ne.s, universitaires, juristes, militant.e.s, etc.

      Nous souhaitons la bienvenue aux élu.e.s de tous horizons et de tout territoire, qui, partageant nos valeurs humanistes et notre volonté politique, veulent rejoindre notre association.

      Damien CARÊME, Maire de #Grande-Synthe, Président de l’Association
      Catherine BASSANI, Représentante de la ville de #Nantes
      Philippe BOUYSSOU, Maire d’#Ivry-Sur-Seine
      Marie-Dominique DREYSSE, Maire-adjointe de #Strasbourg
      Gérard FROMM, Maire de #Briançon
      Corinne IEHL, Elue de #Lyon 7ème arrondissement
      Myriam LAÏDOUNI-DENIS, Elue de la #Région_Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
      Bernard MACRET, 4ème Adjoint aux Solidarités Internationales, #Grenoble
      Halima MENHOUDJ, Adjointe au Maire de #Montreuil
      Jaklin PAVILLA, 1ère Adjointe au Maire de #Saint-Denis
      Nathalie PERRIN-GILBERT, Maire du 1er arrondissement de Lyon
      Eric PIOLLE, Maire de #Grenoble
      Laurent RUSSIER, Maire de #Saint-Denis
      Bozena WOJCIECHOWSKI, Adjointe au Maire d’Ivry-sur-Seine

      https://blogs.mediapart.fr/fini-de-rire/blog/280918/creation-de-l-association-nationale-des-villes-et-territoires-accuei
      #villes_accueillantes #territoires_accueillants #France
      #ANVITA

    • How Cities Can Shape a Fairer, More Humane Immigration Policy

      National governments do not have all the answers on immigration says Bristol mayor Marvin Rees. Ahead of a mayors’ summit he outlines a better city-led response.

      People have always been on the move, both within nations and across borders, but increasingly migrants tend to settle in cities. This puts cities and their responses at the heart of the conversation, something we are looking to highlight at the Global Parliament of Mayors (GPM) Summit here in Bristol.

      There is a steady upward trend in the number of people who have left their homelands voluntarily for economic or other reasons, or who are forced to leave their homes as refugees or displaced persons for reasons of conflict or environmental disaster. Population diversity in most developed countries can be attributed to international migration, whereas in developing nations it is mostly internal migration that contributes to this diversity.

      This is an important moment in the United Kingdom’s approach to the issue of migration. The upcoming Immigration Bill, expected toward the end of this year, will bring unprecedented reform of U.K. immigration policy. At the same time, the scandal over the treatment of the Windrush generation has brought to public consciousness the impact of this government’s “hostile environment” policy and the burdensome bureaucracy the Home Office is inflicting on individual human lives. A fairer, more compassionate system is needed, one in which no one is detained without knowing why and when they will be released. It is everyone’s legitimate right to enjoy a family life with loved ones and to realize the aspiration to provide for oneself and one’s family and contribute to society through employment.

      However, national governments clearly do not have all the answers. Around the world, it is cities that are increasingly collaborating nationally and across borders, learning from each other and replicating good practice. Cities’ experiences have to be included in the national debate on how to take advantage of the full potential of migration and drive a change in policies and mind-set to ensure that migration is embraced as an opportunity rather than seen solely as a challenge.

      That is why this will be high on the agenda at the GPM summit opening on October 21, with almost 100 mayors representing both developed and emerging states in attendance. Cities are where migrants interact with communities, society and, if only indirectly, with the host country. The social, economic, political and cultural activities in a city can play a crucial role in countering the anxiety and fears associated with migration, and help integration and inclusivity. Where the right policies and practices are in place, migration can bring huge benefits to communities and cities, fueling growth, innovation and entrepreneurship.
      City Responses

      City responses to migration and refugees have been varied and multifaceted but they are characterized by the theme of inclusion, with city leaders attempting to design and implement policies that allow newcomers to contribute to, and benefit from, the flourishing of their new communities. These responses are rooted in an approach that is both principled and pragmatic – seeking to uphold human rights and dignity while at the same time identifying practical solutions to the challenges affecting local residents. At a time when, at national and international level, migration has been used by some as a political weapon to stoke resentment and tension, this city perspective has never been more vital in bringing both humanity and reality back into public discourse.

      In seeking to develop inclusive solutions on migration, cities across the globe are innovating and developing new models of best practice.

      Amsterdam has adopted a programme called “Everyone’s Police,” which encourages the reporting of crimes in the interest of more effective policing and community engagement.

      New York City has created the I.D. NYC scheme, a government-issued identification card available to all residents regardless of immigration status that enables people to access a variety of services and discounts in the city.

      Barcelona supports children and families applying for family reunification by providing comprehensive and personalized guidance on the legal, practical and psychological aspects of the process.

      Sao Paulo has established the Coordination of Policies for Migrants’ Unite within its municipal structures to promote city policies for migrants across departments and disciplines and in a participative manner.

      Amman has welcomed almost 2 million migrants and refugees in the last two decades as a result of conflicts in neighboring countries. And cities in Uganda have played a key role in implementing national policies designed to allow refugees to own land and set up businesses.

      These are just a handful of examples of the great work already being done by many cities on these issues. These innovations will be examined in detail at the GPM summit, with city representatives sharing their valuable learning and experience.

      A number of initiatives and networks have been established to support and catalyze such innovations and share best practice across different city contexts, from the World Economic Forum Global Future Council on Migration to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Champion Mayors for Inclusive Growth – and many more. Together these networks provide a wealth of resources and insight for cities seeking to make inclusion a reality.
      A Voice for Cities on the Global Stage

      Despite this vital work on the ground, cities remain underrepresented on the global stage when it comes to key decision-making on migration and refugee issues. This is the challenge the GPM summit will address.

      The GPM has already been actively engaged in the negotiations on the United Nations global compacts on migration and refugees. As the mayor of Bristol I become the first city leader to speak in the deliberations on the compact on migration in May 2018.

      At the summit we will debate and decide how, collectively, we can take a leadership role for cities in the implementation of the global compacts. We will hear from other key international stakeholders, as well as from mayors with direct and varied experience. And we will agree on practical steps to enable cities to implement the compacts in their areas of influence.

      The price of inaction is huge – a critical global diplomatic process could once again largely pass cities by and leave national-level politicians bickering over watered-down commitments. The potential prize is just as significant – a recognized seat at the table for cities to review and implement global compacts, and a range of practical resources to maximize the contributions that migrants and refugees can bring to our communities.

      Our conversations in Bristol represent a critical opportunity to better grasp the key issues for cities related to migration and integration, and to amplify the voice of city leaders in international policymaking relating to migrants and refugees.


      https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/community/2018/10/19/how-cities-can-shape-a-fairer-more-humane-immigration-policy

    • Migranti, «Venite al porto di Napoli, vi accogliamo»

      E sul fronte migranti: «Io faccio una proposta ai timonieri di navi: la prossima volta che avete un problema per le autorizzazioni avvicinatevi alle acque territoriali di una città povera ma dalla grande dignità. Avvicinatevi al porto di Napoli. Noi disponiamo di due gommoni come Comune, un po’ malandati ma funzionanti. Vi assicuro che ci sono pescatori democratici e tanta gente in grado di remare e venire a prendere. E mi metto io nella prima barca, voglio vedere se ci sparano addosso».

      https://napoli.repubblica.it/cronaca/2018/12/01/news/incontro_con_de_magistris_a_roma_nasce_terzo_fronte_-213118777/?ref=fbpr

    • Italie : #Palerme, l’exception

      En juin, il a été l’un des premiers à proposer d’accueillir l’Aquarius et ses passagers indésirables : Leoluca Orlando, le maire de Palerme, s’affiche comme l’un des plus farouches opposants à la politique migratoire du gouvernement italien. Il milite entre autres, pour la disparition du permis de séjour et la libre-circulation des personnes.

      Ces trois dernières années, la capitale sicilienne a accueilli des dizaines de milliers de migrants. Ils sont nombreux à y être restés et, parmi eux, beaucoup de mineurs isolés. Pour les prendre en charge, une multitude d’associations travaillent main dans la main avec le soutien de la mairie.
      Reportage à Palerme, où les initiatives se multiplient, à contre-courant de la politique du ministre de l’intérieur, Mateo Salvini.

      https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/084352-000-A/italie-palerme-l-exception

      signalé par @sinehebdo
      https://seenthis.net/messages/743236

    • Le temps est venu pour des villes solidaires...


      https://twitter.com/seawatchcrew/status/1078595657051574272?s=19

      Stuck at Sea for over 6 days – the New Year for the rescued on Sea-Watch 3 must start ashore!

      Already on Saturday, the crew of the Sea-Watch 3 has saved 32 people from drowning, including four women, three unaccompanied minors, two young children and a baby. Five countries (Italy, Malta, Spain, Netherlands, Germany) refused to take responsibility and grant the rescued a port of safety for Christmas.
      In Germany only, more than 30 cities and several federal states have declared themselves to be safe havens and are willing to accept those rescued from distress at sea.

      https://sea-watch.org/en/stuck-at-sea-for-over-6-days-without-port-of-safety

    • NYC to Fund Health Care for All, Including the Undocumented, Mayor Says

      New York Mayor Bill de Blasio proposed a $100 million plan that he said would provide affordable “healthcare for all,” reaching about 600,000 people, including undocumented immigrants, low-income residents not enrolled in Medicaid and young workers whose current plans are too expensive.

      The plan, which de Blasio dubbed “NYC Care,” will offer public health insurance on a sliding price scale based on income, the mayor said during an interview Tuesday morning on MSNBC. It will begin later this year in the Bronx and will be available to all New Yorkers in 2021, and would cost at least $100 million once it reaches full enrollment, according to the mayor’s office.

      The proposed city-funded health insurance option would assign a primary care doctor to each plan participant and help patients find specialists if needed. De Blasio said the plan, which would be financed out of the city’s public health budget, would ultimately be cost effective by reducing hospital emergency room visits by uninsured patients and by improving public health.

      The program builds upon the city’s $1.6 billion a-year Department of Public Health and Mental Hygiene budget and the separately funded public hospital system, which already serves 475,000 under-insured and uninsured patients annually, including undocumented immigrants, in more than 11 hospitals and 70 neighborhood clinics. The city already has an insurance plan, MetroPlus, that will be used as the template for the coverage. The program may take two years to get “to full strength,” de Blasio said.

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-08/nyc-to-fund-health-care-for-all-including-the-undocumented

      #NYC #New_York

    • Avec la « ville-refuge », ce serait un nouveau concept de Ville qui pourrait émerger, un autre droit d’asile, une autre hospitalité qui transformerait le droit international

      Intervenant devant le Parlement international des écrivains pour répondre à un appel lancé en 1995 pour constituer un réseau de villes-refuges susceptibles d’accueillir un écrivain persécuté, Jacques Derrida s’interroge sur les implications de cette proposition. Une Ville peut-elle se distinguer d’un Etat, prendre de sa propre initiative un statut original qui, au moins sur ce point précis, l’autoriserait à échapper aux règles usuelles de la souveraineté nationale ? Peut-elle contribuer à une véritable innovation dans l’histoire du droit d’asile, une nouvelle cosmopolitique, un devoir d’hospitalité revisité ? Inventer cela peut être considéré comme une utopie, mais c’est aussi une tâche théorique et critique, urgente dans un contexte où les violences, les crimes, les tragédies, les persécutions, multiplient les réfugiés, les exilés, les apatrides et les victimes anonymes.

      Le droit d’asile est un vestige médiéval, qui a survécu aux guerres du 20ème siècle. Appeler les villes à renouer avec cette tradition en accueillant les réfugiés comme tels, sans leur proposer ni la naturalisation, ni le retour dans leur région d’origine, implique de déborder les limites fixés par les traités entre Etats souverains. On peut imaginer une nouvelle figure de ville, une ville franche qui bénéficierait d’un statut d’exemption, d’immunité, comparable à celui qui est encore parfois attaché à certains lieux, religieux ou diplomatiques.

      On trouve la notion de ville-refuge dans la bible, chez certains stoïciens grecs, chez Cicéron, Saint Paul (qui la sécularise), dans la tradition médiévale et religieuse (les églises comme lieu de « sauveté »). Les Lumières en héritent et Kant, dans son Article définitif en vue de la paix perpétuelle, en donne une formulation rigoureuse mais restrictive : (1) il limite l’hospitalité au droit de visite, excluant le droit de résidence ; (2) il la fait dépendre du droit étatique. Pour faire progresser le droit, il faut analyser ces restrictions. D’une part l’hospitalité selon Jacques Derrida est une Loi, un droit inconditionnel offert à quiconque, un principe irréductible ; mais d’autre part il faut répondre à l’urgence, à la violence et à la persécution. Cela peut ouvrir la possibilité d’une expérimentation - dans la pratique et dans la pensée, d’une autre idée du cosmopolitisme et de la démocratie à venir.

      En France, le droit d’asile est assez récent. La constitution de 1946 ne l’accorde qu’aux pesonnes persécutées à cause de leur action « en faveur de la liberté », une définition élargie en 1954 (par suite de l’adhésion à la Convention de Genève de 1951) à ceux dont la vie ou la liberté se trouve menacée « en raison de leur race, de leur religion ou de leurs opinions politiques ». L’application de cette Convention n’a été élargie aux personnes hors d’Europe et aux événements survenus après 1951 qu’en 1967. Mais les Etats-nations n’acceptent, en pratique, d’accorder ce droit que sous des conditions qui le rendent parfois presque impossible. En France, il faut que l’exilé ne puisse attendre aucun bénéfice économique de son immigration. Souvent, devant l’imprécision des règles, on laisse la police faire la loi - une confusion inquiétante, voire ignoble, comme le dénonçait Walter Benjamin, quand les limites de l’action de la police deviennent insaisissables, indéterminées. Le droit d’asile implique une subordination stricte de toutes les administrations policières au pouvoir politique.

      https://www.idixa.net/Pixa/pagixa-1308210805.html
      via @nepthys

    • #Jacques_Derrida und die Idee der Zufluchtsstädte

      Nach islamistischen Anschlägen in Algerien Anfang der 90er-Jahre flohen viele Kulturschaffende aus dem Land. Zusammen mit anderen internationalen Intellektuellen initiierte der französische Philosoph Jacques Derrida von Staaten unabhängige Zufluchtsorte für Verfolgte. Welche Kraft hat diese Idee heute?

      Der Exodus arabischer Intellektueller in den Westen hat eine lange Tradition. Vor über 20 Jahren wütete der islamistische Furor in Algerien. Viele Journalisten wurden damals ermordet, den Überlebenden blieb nur die Flucht ins westliche Ausland. Dieses Horrorszenario wiederholt sich heute in Syrien. Karim Chamoun, ein in Mainz lebender Radiojournalist, gibt den syrischen Flüchtlingen eine Stimme. Seine Landsleute informiert er über die eskalierenden Zustände in der Heimat. Offenbar – so berichtet Chamoun – läuft dem regierenden Assad-Clan die noch verbliebene Bildungselite davon:

      „In den letzten 18 Monaten sind sehr viele Pro-Assad-Intel­lektuelle ausgewandert und sind in Deutschland gelandet. Viele sind in der jetzigen Zeit ausgewandert, vor Angst, vor Terror. Die haben keine Organisation, die sie vereint.“

      Das Medieninteresse für Syrien lässt vergessen, dass schon vor über 20 Jahren islamistische Fanatiker eine tödliche Hetzjagd auf Journalisten und Künstler veranstalteten. Der Algerier Tahar Djaout war in den 80er-Jahren bekannt für seine Kommentare im Wochenmagazin Algérie-Actualité. Anfang 1993 gründete Djaout Ruptures – „Brüche“ –, eine Zeitschrift, die sich als Stachel im Fleisch einer autoritär regierten Gesellschaft verstand. Die Redakteure fürchteten allerdings nicht nur die Zensur, sie bangten um ihr Leben, da die „Islamische Heilsfront“ ihnen offen den Kampf angesagt hatte. Im Mai 1993 wurde Tahar Djaout vor seiner Haustür in Algier ermordet. Der Journalist war nicht das erste Opfer der Islamisten, aber das prominenteste. Unzählige andere folgten.

      Tahar Djaouts Ermordung war ein Fanal für die französische Intelligenz. Nicht länger wollte man sich auf den mutlosen internationalen PEN verlassen. Der Philosoph Jacques Derrida und der Soziologe Pierre Bourdieu, die lange Zeit in Algerien gelebt hatten, fühlten sich den Algeriern, den Opfern eines langen, erbitterten Bürgerkrieges gegen die französische Kolonialmacht, eng verbunden. Sie wollten den „Terrainverlust“ der Intellektuellen, einer Elite ohne Macht, wettmachen.
      Die Öffentlichkeit wachrütteln

      Christian Salmon, Gründer des Straßburger Zirkels „Carrefour de littérature“, startete eine Unterschriftenaktion. Weltweit verbündeten sich namhafte Schriftsteller mit den verfolgten Algeriern. Salmon schrieb:

      „Algerische Journalisten und Schriftsteller, die glücklich einem Attentat entkommen sind, müssen sich verbergen, während sie vergeblich auf ein Visum warten. Sie harren ungeduldig vor unseren Grenzen. Hunderte algerische Intellektuelle, dem Hass islamistischer Attentäter ausgeliefert, verdanken ihr Überleben entweder purem Glück oder der Überbeschäftigung der Henker. (…) Wir sagen jetzt: Es reicht! Genug der Morde in Algerien! Schriftsteller, Künstler und Intellektuelle zeigen ihren Widerstand. In aller Deutlichkeit sagen wir: Keine Demokratie ohne Solidarität, keine Zivilisation ohne Gastfreundschaft.“

      Aus Solidarität mit den algerischen Kollegen kamen im November 1993 im Straßburger „Carrefour de littérature“ zahlreiche internationale Autoren zusammen, um die Öffentlichkeit wachzurütteln. 200 Schriftsteller unterzeichneten den Appell. Bei einer rituellen Aktion wollte man es aber nicht belassen: Unter der Leitung des indischen Autors Salman Rushdie, der seit der Fatwa Ayatollah Chomeinis von den iranischen Häschern verfolgt wurde, gründeten sie das Internationale Schriftsteller-Parlament. Währenddessen rief Rushdie, zusammen mit Straßburgs Bürgermeisterin Catherine Trautmann und dem Generalsekretär des Europarats, zur Gründung von Zufluchtsstädten auf – von „villes- refuges“, um verfolgten Schriftstellern und Künstlern Asyl zu gewähren. Salman Rushdie schrieb das Gründungsdokument:

      „Heute widersetzt sich die Literatur ein weiteres Mal der Tyrannei. Wir gründeten das Schriftsteller-Parlament, damit es sich für die unterdrückten Autoren einsetzt und gegen ihre Widersacher erhebt, die es auf sie und ihre Werke abgesehen haben. Nachdrücklich erneuern wir die Unabhängigkeitserklärung, ohne die Literatur unmöglich ist, nicht nur die Literatur, sondern der Traum, nicht nur der Traum, sondern das Denken, nicht nur das Denken, sondern die Freiheit.“
      Kommunen können schneller auf neue Situationen reagieren

      Catherine Trautmann stellte später die Initiative der „villes-refuges“ vor, die zuvor vom Internationalen Schrift­steller-Parlament beschlossen wurde:

      „Es kommt darauf an, dass multikulturell sich verstehende Städte bereit sind, Gedankenfreiheit und Toleranz zu verteidigen. Die in einem Netz verbundenen Städte können etwas bewirken, indem sie verfolgte Künstler und Schriftsteller aufnehmen. Wir wissen, dass Euro­pa ein Kontinent ist, wo über alle Konflikte hinweg Intellektuelle leben und schreiben. Dieses Erbe müssen wir wach halten. Die bedrohten Intellektuellen müssen bei uns Bürgerrecht erhalten. Zu diesem Zweck sollte ein Netz der Solidarität geschaffen werden.“

      Das Projekt der „villes-refuges“ war anfangs äußerst erfolgreich: 1995 beschlossen Vertreter von mehr als 400 europäischen Städten die „Charta der villes-refuges“. Eine Resolution des Europäischen Parlaments förderte ein weltweites Netz von „villes-refuges“. Straßburg und Berlin gehörten zu den ersten „Zu­fluchts­städten“, es folgten Städte wie Venedig und Helsinki.

      Die Skepsis gegenüber den nationalen und überstaatlichen Organisationen wächst. Kommunen, die politische Macht auf lokaler Ebene ausüben, seien imstande, wesentlich schneller und flexibler auf neue, unvorgesehene Situationen zu reagieren, meint der amerikanische Politikwissenschaftler Benjamin Barber:

      „Der Unterschied zu Staaten liegt in der Eigenart der Städte: Sie sind zutiefst multikulturell, partizipatorisch, demokratisch, kooperativ. Städte interagieren und können viel erreichen, während Staaten eigensinnig sind und gemeinsames Handeln behindern. Die Welt globaler Demokratie führt uns nicht zu Staaten, sondern zu Städten. Demokratie entstand in der griechischen polis. Sie könnte ein weiteres Mal in der globalen kosmopolis entstehen.“

      Jacques Derrida ist im Oktober 2004 gestorben. Angesichts der unlösbar scheinenden Flüchtlingsprobleme wäre der Philosoph heutzutage ein verantwortungsvoller und sachkundiger Diskussionspartner. Vielleicht würde er darauf hinweisen, dass sich die Gesetze der Gastfreundschaft keineswegs geändert haben. Denn auch heute müssen Pflichten und Rechte, Grenzen und Freiheiten neu austariert werden. Im Interesse beider – der Gäste und der Gastgeber.

      https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/villes-refuges-jacques-derrida-und-die-idee-der.976.de.html?dr
      #Derrida
      via @nepthys

    • #ICORN

      The #International_Cities_of_Refuge_Network (ICORN) is an independent organisation of cities and regions offering shelter to writers and artists at risk, advancing freedom of expression, defending democratic values and promoting international solidarity.

      Writers and artists are especially vulnerable to censorship, harassment, imprisonment and even death, because of what they do. They represent the liberating gift of the human imagination and give voice to thoughts, ideas, debate and critique, disseminated to a wide audience. They also tend to be the first to speak out and resist when free speech is threatened.

      ICORN member cities offer long term, but temporary, shelter to those at risk as a direct consequence of their creative activities. Our aim is to be able to host as many persecuted writers and artists as possible in ICORN cities and together with our sister networks and organisations, to form a dynamic and sustainable global network for freedom of expression.

      https://icorn.org
      #réseau #art #artistes #liberté_d'expression #écrivains

    • #New_Sanctuary_Coalition

      The New Sanctuary Coalition of #NYC is an interfaith network of congregations, organizations, and individuals, standing publicly in solidarity with families and communities resisting detention and deportation in order to stay together. We recognize that unjust global and systemic economic relationships and racism form the basis of the injustices that affect immigrants. We seek reform of United States immigration laws to promote fairness, social and economic justice.

      http://www.newsanctuarynyc.org
      #New_York

    • #Eine_Stadt_für_Alle

      Eine Stadt, aus der kein Mensch abgeschoben wird, in der sich alle frei und ohne Angst bewegen können, in der kein Mensch nach einer Aufenthaltserlaubnis gefragt wird, in der kein Mensch illegal ist. Das sind die grundlegenden Vorstellungen von einer Solidarity City. In einer solchen Stadt der Solidarität sollen alle Menschen das Recht haben zu leben, zu wohnen und zu arbeiten. Alle Menschen soll der Zugang zu Bildung und medizinischer Versorgung gewährt werden. Alle Menschen sollen teilhaben und das Stadtleben mitgestalten können – unabhängig von Aufenthaltsstatus, finanziellen Möglichkeiten, Hautfarbe, Geschlecht, Sexualität, Religion,…
      In vielen Städten in Deutschland, Europa und der ganzen Welt ist der Prozess, eine Solidarity City zu werden schon in vollem Gang.

      https://solidarity-city.eu/de
      #solidarity_city

    • The Cities Refugees Saved

      In the cities where the most refugees per capita were settled since 2005, the newcomers helped stem or reverse population loss.

      Mahira Patkovich was eight years old in 1997 when her family left Bosnia. After a long and complicated war, Muslim families like hers had found themselves without jobs, food, and any semblance of safety. So they sought refuge in America.

      The first year in their new home in Utica, New York, Patkovich felt uprooted—torn from her childhood and everything she knew, and thrust into an alien environment. She knew no one and didn’t speak English. But as time went by, she began to acclimate.

      “The next thing you know, you’re home,”she says in a recent mini-documentary by New American Economy, a bipartisan immigration reform group, and Off Ramp Films. “This is home.”

      Patkovich, the film shows, is now thriving. She works at the office of the Oneida County Executive, owns a small business, and is on her way to a master’s degree. She is also pregnant, and excited to raise her first-born in a community she loves.

      Utica—it’s clear—saved Patkovich and her family. But the truth is: They’re helping to save this town as well. Like many Rust Belt cities, Utica suffered enormously in the second part of the 20th century, losing jobs and bleeding out residents as major employers like General Electric and Lockheed Martin shuttered or left the Mohawk Valley.

      Adam Bedient, director of photography and editor at Off Ramp Films grew up in the nearby town of Clinton in the 1980s and ’90s. He wasn’t tracking Utica’s trajectory too closely then, in part, because not much was happening there. What he remembers of Utica in that era is a typical fading factory town, a place where shuttered storefronts and exposed bricks belied neglect. “Foundationally, there were beautiful things there, they just didn’t look cared for,” he says.

      Now, he’s working on a full-length feature about the refugee communities in Utica, and when he drives through town, he finds it simmering with new life. Old buildings are getting refurbished. Construction cranes bob up and down. And at the center of town is a long-vacant historic Methodist church that has been renovated and converted into a beautiful mosque—a symbol of the new Utica.

      Without its new Bosnian community, Utica would have faced a 6 percent population drop.

      “It’s really symbolic—it was previously a church that was going to be torn down,” Bedient told CityLab. “The Bosnian community bought it from the city, and now it’s a part of the skyline.”

      For CityLab, NAE crunched the numbers on the 11 cities that have resettled the most refugees per capita between 2005 and 2017 to gauge how welcoming these newcomers affected overall population. In almost all cases, refugee resettlement either stemmed population loss or reversed it completely. Without its new Bosnian community, for example, Utica would have faced a 6 percent population drop. With them, the city saw a 3 percent gain.

      But what Andrew Lim, NAE’s director of quantitative research, found surprising was that this list didn’t just include industrial towns hungry for newcomers—places like Syracuse, New York, and Springfield, Massachusetts; it also features places in the South and Sunbelt. Take Clarkston, Georgia, for example, a diverse Atlanta exurb of 13,000 (whose young mayor you may recognize from a recent episode of Queer Eye). Since the 1970s, Clarkston has taken in tens of thousands of refugees from various parts of Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. In Bitter Southerner, Carly Berlin recently explained how it gained its nickname as the “Ellis Island of the South.”

      As many white residents fled farther out to more fashionable developing Atlanta suburbs, Clarkston became perfect for refugees, with its hundreds of vacated apartments and access to public transportation, a post office, and a grocery store, all within walking distance. The little city became one of now 190 designated resettlement communities across the country.

      Using the data NAE extracted from the Census Bureau and from the Department of Homeland Services, CityLab’s David Montgomery created this nifty chart to show exactly how much refugees boosted or stabilized population in these 11 cities:

      But the pipeline that funneled refugees into cities like Utica is being closed up. In 2018, the Trump administration lowered the maximum number of refugees it takes in for the third year in a row—to 30,000, which is the lowest in three decades. Resettlement agencies, from Western Kansas to Florida, are having to close shop.

      Some places are already seeing the effects. In cities with large concentrations of refugees and refugee services, recent arrivals have been waiting for loved ones to join them. Because of the slash in numbers being accepted, some of these people have been thrust into uncertainty. Muslim refugees from countries listed in the final travel ban have been doubly hit, and may not be able to reunite with their families at all.

      But the effects of the Trump-era refugee policy don’t just affect individual families. In Buffalo, New York—another Rust Belt city that has been reinvigorated by new residents from refugee communities—medical clinics have closed down, housing developments have stalled, and employers have been left looking for employees, The Buffalo News reported. The loss for refugees hoping to come to America appears to also be a loss for the communities they might have called home

      The biggest argument for refugee resettlement is that it is a moral imperative, many advocates argue. Refugees are human beings fleeing terrible circumstances; assisting them is just the right thing to do. Foes of taking refugees—most notoriously, White House advisor Stephen Miller, who is quoted as saying that he would “be happy if not a single refugee foot ever touched American soil again” in a new book by a former White House communication aide—point to the perceived costs and dangers of taking in more. Past analyses shows little basis to that fear. In fact, cities with large refugee populations have seen drops in crime, per a previous NAE’s analysis. And according to NBC News, an intelligence assessment that included inputs from the FBI concluded that refugees did not pose a major national security threat. The Trump administration dismissed its findings.

      https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/01/refugee-admissions-resettlement-trump-immigration/580318
      #USA #Etats-Unis #démographie

  • EU leaders consider centers outside bloc to process refugees

    Draft conclusions for the European Council summit next week propose the creation of ‘disembarkation platforms.’

    European Council President Donald Tusk has proposed that EU leaders create “regional disembarkation platforms” outside the European Union, where officials could quickly differentiate between refugees in need of protection and economic migrants who would potentially face return to their countries of origin.

    The proposal is an effort to break the acute political crisis over migration and asylum that has bedeviled EU leaders since 2015 — and even threatened in recent days to topple the German government — even as the numbers of arrivals have plummeted since the peak of the crisis.

    The disembarkation platform concept — which officials said would have to be implemented in cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) — could create a formal mechanism by which the EU can bridge the divide between hard-line leaders calling for tough border controls and those insisting that EU nations obey international law and welcome refugees in need of protection.

    But the idea could also open EU leaders to criticism that they are outsourcing their political problem by creating centers for people seeking entry in countries on the periphery of the bloc. Among the potential partner nations are Tunisia and Albania, but officials say it is far too soon to speculate.

    The idea to create such facilities was suggested in 2016 by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, the strongest critic of the EU’s policies on migration — especially on the relocation of refugees across Europe.

    More recently, French President Emmanuel Macron has endorsed the idea, and on Sunday Italian Foreign Minister Enzo Moavero said Italy wants to officially put the idea on the table at the European Council summit.

    According to the draft guidelines, the new sites would “establish a more predictable framework for dealing with those who nevertheless set out to sea and are rescued in Search And Rescue Operations.”

    The conclusions state: “Such platforms should provide for rapid processing to distinguish between economic migrants and those in need of international protection, and reduce the incentive to embark on perilous journeys.”
    https://www.politico.eu/article/regional-disembarkation-platforms-eu-leaders-consider-camps-outside-bloc-to

    Nouveau #mots, nouvelle absurdité #disembarkation_platform...!!!
    #tri #migrations #migrants_économiques #réfugiés #catégorisation #hotspots #externalisation #novlangue
    #regional_disembarkation_platforms #Tunisie #Albanie #plateformes_régionales_de_désembarquement

    cc @reka @isskein @i_s_

    • European Council meeting (28 J une 2018) – Draft conclusions

      In order to establish a more predictable framework for dealing with those who nevertheless set out to sea and are rescued in Search And Rescue Operations, the European Council supports the development of the concept of regional disembarkation platforms in close cooperation with UNHCR and IOM. Such platforms should provide for rapid processing to distinguish between economic migrants and those in need of international protection , and reduce the incentive to embark on perilous journeys.

      https://g8fip1kplyr33r3krz5b97d1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/draftEucoConclusionsJune.pdf
      #HCR #OIM #IOM

    • Une idée qui vient de la Hongrie...

      From protest to proposal : Eastern Europe tries new migration tactic

      “Asylum procedures should be completed outside the EU in closed and protected hotspots before the first entry on the territory of the EU,” states Orbán’s plan. “Third countries should be supported in establishing a system of reception and management of migratory flows … which should foresee careful on-site screening of refugees and economic migrants,” reads Renzi’s.

      https://www.politico.eu/article/viktor-orban-hungary-slovakia-from-protest-to-propose-eastern-europe-tries-

    • La UE estudia instalar centros de clasificación de inmigrantes en el norte de África

      Un borrador de documento para la cumbre afirma que la idea podría facilitar «un procesamiento rápido que distinga entre migrantes económicos y refugiados»

      La Unión Europea estudia la idea de construir centros para el procesamiento de inmigrantes en el norte de África en un intento por disuadir a la gente de emprender viajes a través del Mediterráneo que puedan poner en riesgo su vida, según indica un documento al que ha tenido acceso The Guardian.

      El Consejo Europeo de líderes de la UE «apoya el desarrollo del concepto de plataformas de desembarque regional», según señala un borrador de conclusiones de la cumbre europea que se llevará a cabo la próxima semana.

      La UE quiere estudiar la viabilidad de instalar estos centros en el norte de África, donde comienza la mayoría de los viajes de los inmigrantes que quieren llegar a suelo europeo. «Estas plataformas podrían facilitar un procesamiento rápido que distinga entre migrantes económicos y aquellos que necesitan protección internacional, y así reducir los incentivos a embarcarse en viajes peligrosos», sostiene el documento.

      La inmigración es un tema prioritario en la agenda de la próxima cumbre de dos días que se iniciará el 28 de junio. Los líderes de la UE intentarán llegar a un consenso sobre cómo manejar la crisis de los miles de refugiados e inmigrantes que llegan a Europa cada mes.

      Los líderes de Alemania y Francia, Angela Merkel y Emmanuel Macron, se han reunido este martes cerca de Berlín para fijar una posición común respecto a la inmigración y la eurozona, en medio de los temores sobre el desmoronamiento del proyecto europeo.

      Antes de la reunión, el ministro de Hacienda francés, Bruno Le Maire, afirmó que Europa está «en proceso de desintegración». «Vemos Estados que se están cerrando, intentando encontrar soluciones nacionales a problemas que requieren soluciones europeas», señaló. Así, llamó a construir «un nuevo proyecto europeo sobre inmigración», así como sobre asuntos económicos y financieros «que consoliden a Europa en un mundo en el que Estados Unidos está a un lado, China al otro y nosotros quedamos atrapados en el medio».

      El ministro de Interior alemán, Horst Seehofer, de línea dura, está presionando a la canciller Angela Merkel para que diseñe un plan europeo para finales de mes. Alemania sigue siendo el país europeo que más solicitudes de asilo recibe. Si no hay avance a nivel europeo, Seehofer quiere que la policía de las fronteras alemanas comience a negar la entrada a los inmigrantes.

      No queda claro cómo se llevaría a la práctica la propuesta europea de «plataformas de desembarque regional», o dónde se instalarían.

      En 2016, la UE llegó a un acuerdo con Turquía que redujo drásticamente el flujo migratorio, pero al bloque le ha resultado más difícil trabajar con los gobiernos del norte de África, especialmente con Libia, punto de partida de la mayoría de las embarcaciones que intentan llegar a Europa por el Mediterráneo.

      La Comisión Europea ha rechazado la posibilidad de llegar a un acuerdo con Libia parecido al de Turquía, debido a la inestabilidad del país. Sin embargo, el anterior Gobierno de Italia pactó con las milicias y tribus libias y colaboró para reconstituir la guardia costera libia. Estas acciones han contribuido a reducir drásticamente el número de personas que intenta cruzar el Mediterráneo, pero los críticos han denunciado un aumento en las violaciones de los derechos humanos.

      Según el documento filtrado, la UE prefiere construir los centros en colaboración con ACNUR, la agencia de la ONU para los refugiados, y con la Organización Internacional para la Migración, otro organismo relacionado con la ONU que con anterioridad ha criticado la escasez de rutas legales que tienen los inmigrantes y refugiados africanos para llegar a Europa.

      https://www.eldiario.es/theguardian/UE-instalar-procesamiento-inmigrantes-Africa_0_783922573.html

    • Commentaire d’Emmanuel Blanchard, via la mailing-list Migreurop :

      Au contraire de ce que suggère le titre choisi par ce journaliste (article ci-dessous), la proposition de créer ces plateformes de débarquement n’est pas vraiment « étonnante » tant elle ressemble aux « #processings_centers » et autres « #centres_d'identification » dont les projets ressurgissent régulièrement depuis le début des années 2000. Il y a cependant des évolutions (ces centres étaient pensés pour cantonner les exilés avant qu’ils prennent la mer et pas pour débarquer les boat-people secourus en mer) et le danger se rapproche : maintenant que ces camps existent sous le nom de hotpsots dans les iles grecques, il apparaît possible de les étendre dans des pays extérieurs ayant besoin du soutien financier ou politique de l’UE.

      #camps #cpa_camps

    • Europe Pushes to Outsource Asylum, Again

      With Dublin reform stalled, European leaders began to cast around for new ideas to solve the ongoing political crisis on migration and settled on a recurring proposition: the creation of asylum processing centres beyond the (strengthened) borders of the European Union.

      What exactly is up for discussion remains unclear. The plans championed by various EU leaders are diverse, yet the details remain fuzzy. What they have in common is a near-universal focus on shifting responsibility for dealing with refugees and migrants upstream. The idea of external processing looks good on paper, particularly in demonstrating to skeptical voters that governments have control over migration flows. But leaders also hope that by reducing inflows to the European Union, they will face less pressure to compromise on sharing responsibility for asylum within the bloc.

      The devil is in the detail. Proposals to externalize the processing of asylum claims are not new, but have largely fallen flat. Previous leaders balked at the idea of such elaborate constructions, especially when confronted with their significant practical complications. But public pressure to further slow arrivals of refugee and migrant boats has mounted in many countries, and leaders feel compelled to find an agreement. The result is a debate on migration increasingly divorced from reality.

      But before sitting down to the negotiating table, EU leaders may want to reflect on the exact model they wish to pursue, and the tradeoffs involved. Critically, does the concept of “regional disembarkation platforms” set out in the draft European Council conclusions offer a potential solution?

      Key Design Questions

      From Austria’s so-called Future European Protection System, to the “centres of international protection in transit countries” suggested by Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, to an outlier idea from the Danish Prime Minister to create centres to host failed asylum seekers in “undesirable” parts of Europe —a variety of models for externalization have been floated in recent weeks.

      Several proposals also envisage the simultaneous creation of joint processing centres within the European Union, coupled with the use of reception centres that restrict residents’ freedom of movement. While it is still unclear how such a plan would unfold, this commentary focuses on the external dimension alone.

      Where Would People Be Stopped and Processed?

      The proposals differ regarding where in the journey they would stop migrants and potential asylum seekers. French President Emmanuel Macron has vaguely referred to centres in key transit countries, such as Niger, Libya, and Chad, as well as closer to regions of origin. Others have focused more squarely on the North African coast.

      Centres operating far away from the European Union would likely function as a form of resettlement, stopping people en route (or even prior to the journey), and offering selected individuals an additional channel of EU entry in hopes that this would discourage the use of smugglers. Indeed, nascent EU efforts to resettle refugees evacuated from Libya to Niger (under the Evacuation Transit Mechanism, or ETM), demonstrate how this might work. At the other extreme, the model championed by Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz would see migrants and refugees returned to “safe zones” in Africa, where they would stay, even after arriving at the external EU border.

      The latter concept is problematic under current EU and international law. By returning arrivals to third countries without giving them the opportunity to submit an asylum claim, governments would be likely to run afoul of the EU Asylum Procedures Directive, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits signatories from the “collective expulsion of aliens.” European Court of Human Rights case law also precludes the pushback of migrants rescued by European boats while crossing the Mediterranean. Conversely, however, if migrants and potential asylum seekers are stopped before entering EU waters, and without the involvement of European-flagged vessels, then no EU Member State has formal legal responsibility.

      A framework for regional cooperation on the disembarkation of migrant boats—being developed by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) —may offer a middle ground. While details are scarce, it seems likely that the proposal would focus first on the development of a system for determining who would rescue migrants crossing the Mediterranean, and where they would be landed. Absent consensus within the European Union on responsibility sharing for asylum claims, UNHCR would attempt to create a new framework for responsibility sharing with both Northern and Southern Mediterranean states on search and rescue. However, to prove palatable to partners, such a scheme would require strong EU support, not least through the creation of regional disembarkation centres across North Africa where migrants and refugees “pulled back” from their journey would be sent. This approach would sidestep the application of EU law. To be viable, the European Union would likely need to offer North African partner states some assurance of support, including resettling some of those found in need of protection (as with the Niger ETM).

      Who Would Do the Processing?

      Once asylum seekers are pulled back, there is the question of who would make determinations regarding their protection. There are three options.

      First, Member States’ own asylum agencies could adjudicate protection claims, as Macron has occasionally suggested. Aside from the logistical challenges of seconding officials outside Europe, the question quickly arises as to who would adjudicate which applications? Member States have very different asylum systems, which produce markedly different outcomes for applicants, and would need extensive coordination.

      As a result, there is growing interest in developing an EU asylum agency capable of undertaking assessments on behalf of Member States. This appears a neat solution. However, governments would have to agree joint procedures and standards for processing claims and have confidence in the decisions made by through a joint processing arrangement. This is, if anything, an option only in the long term, as it would be years before any such agency is operational.

      Should the regional disembarkation idea gain ground, the European Union would have no legal responsibility to undertake assessment. Most Member States would be likely to consider UNHCR a key partner to manage any external process. But doing so could require UNHCR to redeploy limited staff resources from existing resettlement operations or from pressing humanitarian situations elsewhere. Moreover, outsourcing to UNHCR could still raise the issue of trust and transferability of decisions. Many Member States remain reluctant to rely solely on UNHCR to select refugees for resettlement, preferring to send their own teams to do the final selection.

      What Happens Next?

      The issue of what happens to people after their protection claims are assessed remains at the crux of questions around the feasibility of external processing. Proposals here differ starkly.

      On the one hand, some proposals would allow those recognized as in need of protection to subsequently enter the European Union. This is the option that—even if the European Union has circumvented any legal responsibility—would be deemed necessary to host countries as it would give them assurance that they are not overly burdened with providing protection. But doing so would require Member States to agree on some sort of distribution system or quotas for determining who would be settled where—crashing back into a responsibility-sharing problem that has plagued the European Union.

      By contrast, proposals that would explicitly not allow entry to anyone who had attempted to travel to Europe via the Mediterranean, taking a page from Australia’s playbook, are meant to assuage fears that such centres would become magnets for new travellers. Those with protection needs brought to such centres would be settled in countries outside the bloc. The challenges with this model centre squarely on the difficulty finding a “safe” country that would allow the settlement of potentially unlimited number of protection beneficiaries. Neither is likely to be the case in any arrangements the European Union would seek to make with external countries.

      Finally, there is the troubling question of what to do with those denied status or resettlement in the European Union. While the International Organization for Migration (IOM) or another agency might be able to help facilitate voluntary return, some might not be able to return home or may have been denied resettlement but nonetheless have protection needs. They are at risk of becoming a population in limbo, with long-term implications for their well-being and for the host country.


      https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/europe-pushes-outsource-asylum-again
      #schéma #visualisation

    • "L’UE devrait demander à la Tunisie ou l’Algérie d’accueillir des migrants"

      Afin d’éviter toute complicité des ONG, #Stephen_Smith propose notamment une participation des pays du sud de la Méditerranée. « L’Europe se bat un peu la coulpe et a l’impression que tout est pour elle. Or, la Libye a beaucoup de pays voisins. Pourquoi n’a-t-on pas songé à demander le soutien de la Tunisie ou de l’Algérie ? Habituellement, en cas de naufrage, la règle veut que les voyageurs soient transportés vers la prochaine terre sûre. Et, à partir de la Libye, cette terre n’est pas l’Italie. »

      http://www.rts.ch/info/monde/9678271--l-ue-devrait-demander-a-la-tunisie-ou-l-algerie-d-accueillir-des-migran
      #Tunisie #Algérie

    • Macron y Pedro Sánchez proponen «centros cerrados de desembarco» para los inmigrantes que lleguen a Europa

      Con el apoyo de Pedro Sánchez, el presidente francés expone su apuesta para la gestión de las llegadas de migrantes a las costas del sur de Europa

      En estos centros se tratarían los expedientes de los demandantes de asilo o se tramitaría su devolución a los países de origen

      https://www.eldiario.es/desalambre/Macron-propone-centros-desembarco-inmigrantes_0_785321746.html
      #Espagne

    • EU admits no African country has agreed to host migration centre

      The European Union’s most senior migration official has admitted that no north African country has yet agreed to host migrant screening centres to process refugee claims.

      Details of an EU plan to prevent migrants drowning at sea emerged on Thursday after Italy criticised the agenda of an emergency summit for not offering enough to help it cope with arrivals.

      Dimitris Avramopoulos, the European commissioner for migration, said the EU wanted to “intensify cooperation” with Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Niger and Morocco, as he announced the intention to create a “regional disembarkation scheme”.
      Malta’s ’barbaric’ finch traps ruled illegal by EU court
      Read more

      So far no African country had agreed to host screening centres, he confirmed. “It has to be discussed with these countries, he said. “An official proposal has not been put on the table.”

      The idea for offshore migrant processing centres remains sketchy, with numerous political, practical and legal questions unanswered. It remains unclear, for example, whether migrants on a rescue ship in European waters could be returned to a north African country.

      Tahar Cherif, the Tunisian ambassador to the EU said: “The proposal was put to the head of our government a few months ago during a visit to Germany, it was also asked by Italy, and the answer is clear: no!

      “We have neither the capacity nor the means to organise these detention centres. We are already suffering a lot from what is happening in Libya, which has been the effect of European action.”

      He said his country was facing enough problems with unemployment, without wishing to add to them while Niger said its existing centres taking migrants out of detention camps in Libya are already full.

      The idea for the centres was thrown into the mix of EU migration policy before a series of crucial summits on migration in the next week.

      About 10 EU leaders will meet in Brussels on Sunday in a hastily convened emergency meeting aimed at preventing the collapse of the German coalition government.

      But the Italian government has been angered by draft conclusions for the summit, which stress the need to counter “secondary movements” – an issue that affects Germany.

      Under EU rules, a member state usually has responsibility for asylum seekers who have arrived in its territory, a regulation that has put frontline states Italy and Greece under huge pressure.

      But claimants often move to a second EU state, seeking a faster decision or to unite with family members.

      So-called “secondary movements” is the issue driving a wedge between Germany’s ruling coalition. The Bavarian CSU party has set the chancellor, Angela Merkel, a deadline of two weeks to find a solution. The interior minister, Horst Seehofer, has threatened to send away migrants at the border – a breach of EU rules that threatens to unravel the common asylum system.

      Tensions are running high after Italy’s prime minister, Giuseppe Conte, said he was not ready to discuss secondary movements “without having first tackled the emergency of ‘primary movements’ that Italy has ended up dealing with alone”.

      Italy’s far-right interior minister, Matteo Salvini, said: “If anyone in the EU thinks Italy should keep being a landing point and refugee camp, they have misunderstood.”

      The election of a populist government in Italy, combined with tensions in Germany’s ruling coalition, has created a political storm over migration despite the sharp fall in arrivals. In the first six months of this year 15,570 people crossed into Italy, a 77% drop on last year.

      The European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, reluctantly agreed to host the weekend summit to help Merkel, after her governing coalition came close to breaking point.

      Avramopoulos stressed that the summit would be about “consultations” to prepare the ground for decisions to be taken by all 28 EU leaders at a European council meeting next Thursday.

      Warning that the future of the EU’s border-free travel area was at stake, Avramopoulos said: “The European leadership of today will be held accountable in the eyes of future generations if we allow all these forces of populism to blow up what has been achieved”.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/21/eu-admits-no-african-country-has-agreed-to-host-migration-centre
      #cpa_camps

    • IOM-UNHCR Proposal to the European Union for a Regional Cooperative Arrangement Ensuring Predictable Disembarkation and Subsequent Processing of Persons Rescued at Sea

      Approximately 40,000 refugees and migrants have arrived in Europe via maritime routes in 2018 to date. This is almost six times less than over the same period in 2016, following a peak in arrivals by sea in 2015. According to EUROSTAT, approximately 30 per cent of those arriving on the European shores were in need of international protection; moreover, some have faced extreme hardship and abuse at the hands of unscrupulous traffickers during the journey.

      Despite the reduced arrival rates, new challenges resulting from divergent EU Member State views have revealed a need to revisit regional arrangements to relieve front line states from having the sole responsibility for the disembarkation and further processing of people rescued at sea.

      IOM and UNHCR stand ready to support a common approach, and call on all countries in the Mediterranean region to come together to implement a predictable and responsible disembarkation mechanism in a manner that prioritizes human rights and safety first, delinked from the subsequent processing of status and related follow-up responsibilities, post-disembarkation, for those rescued in international waters.

      It is increasingly recognized that disembarkation cannot be the sole responsibility of one country or regional grouping. It should be a shared responsibility across the Mediterranean Basin, with due respect for the safety and dignity of all people on the move. A comprehensive approach is required to realize effective and sustainable responses.

      People on the move to and through the Mediterranean have different migratory status, with the majority of them not qualifying for international or subsidiary protection. Addressing the drivers of forced displacement and irregular migration needs to be given renewed attention through effective conflict-prevention and crisis settlement processes, strengthening good governance, rule of law, and respect for human rights efforts, stabilization and recovery, as well as poverty reduction.

      Priority efforts need to focus on strengthening protection capacities in regions of origin, including through developing sustainable asylum systems; providing sufficient needs-based support for humanitarian operations and adopting a development-oriented approach to assistance; as well as expanding opportunities for resettlement, family reunification and safe pathways for refugees which are currently well below existing needs and pledges being made. Efforts toward opening safe and regular pathways for migrants need also to be undertaken (family reunification, labour and education opportunities, humanitarian visas for vulnerable migrants).

      Against this background, with a focus on the immediate disembarkation concerns at hand, the current proposal for a regional disembarkation mechanism aims to ensure that:

      People rescued-at-sea in international waters are quickly disembarked in a predictable manner in line with international maritime law, in conditions that uphold respect for their rights including non-refoulement, and avoid serious harm or other risks;
      Responsible post-disembarkation processing, supported – as appropriate- by IOM and UNHCR, leads to rapid and effective differentiated solutions and reduces onward movement through an effective cooperative arrangement.

      Functioning of the mechanism is premised on a set of principles and common objectives:

      The effective functioning of maritime commerce requires ships’ masters to have full confidence in prompt and predictable disembarkation;
      Efforts to reduce loss of life at sea are maximized, in line with existing international obligations and frameworks, and saving lives remains the international community’s priority;
      Strengthened efforts to build the capacity of Coast Guards in Mediterranean countries (not just in Libya) to perform effective rescue operations in their respective SAR;
      National Maritime Rescue Coordination Centres (MRCC) are able to carry out their work effectively for the purposes of search and rescue operations based on long- standing and effective practices to save lives;
      People rescued at sea in the Mediterranean are quickly disembarked in safe ports in a predictable manner in line with established rescue at sea arrangements and international maritime law, coordinated through the responsible MRCCs;
      Measures for cooperative arrangements to support States providing for disembarkation are well-established;
      The right to seek asylum is safeguarded, and the human rights of all individuals such as non-refoulement are respected, including the right not to be disembarked in or transferred to a place where there is a risk of persecution, torture, or other serious harm;
      Efforts to address human smuggling and trafficking are reinvigorated, including measures to ensure protection and/or referrals for victims of trafficking and ensuring the effective prosecution of those involved in / or facilitating human trafficking or smuggling;
      Rescue at sea capacity coordinated by effective MRCCs that operate in accordance with international law is reinforced.

      As such, the proposal does not affect existing legal norms and responsibilities applicable under international law (Note 1) Rather it seeks to facilitate their application in accordance with a regional collaborative approach and the principle of international cooperation. This proposal relies on functional arrangements for intra-EU solidarity in managing all consequences of rescue, disembarkation and processing. It also relies on operational arrangements which would need to be sought and formalised through a set of understandings among all concerned States.

      https://www.iom.int/news/iom-unhcr-proposal-european-union-regional-cooperative-arrangement-ensuring-pre

      Question : c’est quoi la différence entre la proposition IOM/HCR et la proposition UE ?

    • THE LEGAL AND PRACTICAL FEASIBILITY OF DISEMBARKATION OPTIONS

      This note presents a first assessment of the legal and practical feasibility of the three different scenarios on disembarkation presented at the Informal Working Meeting of 24 June 2018. Under international maritime law, people rescued at sea must be disembarked at a place of safety. International law sets out elements of what a place of safety can be and how it can be designated, without excluding the possibility of having regional arrangements for disembarkation.


      https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/migration-disembarkation-june2018_en.pdf
      #scénario

    • #Palerme :
      ❝La Commission régionale de l’Urbanisme a rejeté le projet de pré-faisabilité du « #hotspot » à Palerme, confirmant l’avis du Conseil municipal de Palerme. L’avis de la Commission régionale reste technique. Le maire de Palerme a rappelé que "la ville de Palerme et toute sa communauté sont opposés à la création de centres dans lesquels la dignité des personnes est violée (...). Palerme reste une ville qui croit dans les valeurs de l’accueil, de la solidarité et des rencontres entre les peuples et les cultures, les mettant en pratique au quotidien. En cela, notre « non » à l’hotspot n’est pas et ne sera pas seulement un choix technique, mais plutôt un choix relatif à des principes et des valeurs".
      > Pour en savoir plus (IT) : http://www.palermotoday.it/politica/hotspot-zen-progetto-bocciato-regione.html

      –-> Reçu via la mailing-list Migreurop

    • Ne dites pas que ce sont des #camps !

      Les camps devraient être la solution. C’est en Afrique, peut-être en Libye ou au Niger, que les migrants seront arrêtés avant qu’ils puissent commencer leur dangereux voyage en mer vers l’Europe. Ainsi l’a décidé l’UE. Des camps attendront également les réfugiés qui réussiraient toutefois à arriver dans un pays de l’UE. Des camps sur le sol européen. Où seront-ils établis ? Cela n’est pas encore défini, mais ce seront des installations fermées et surveillées parce que les détenus devront être « enregistrés » et les personnes non autorisées seront expulsées. Ils ne pourront pas s’enfuir.

      L’intérêt pour les camps concerne également les responsables politiques allemands. Le gouvernement allemand veut élargir le no man’s land à la frontière germano-autrichienne afin que les réfugiés puissent être arrêtés avant d’entrer officiellement en Allemagne et avoir ainsi droit à une procédure d’asile régulière. Une « fiction de non-entrée » est créée, comme le stipule précisément l’accord. Un État qui magouille. Pendant ce temps, la chancelière Angela Merkel a déclaré que personne ne sera détenu plus de quarante-huit heures, même dans le no man’s land. Il reste encore à voir si l’Autriche y accédera. Le plan est pour l’instant plus un fantasme qu’une politique réalisable, ce qui est bien pire. Bien sûr, tous ces centres fermés de rassemblement de migrants ne peuvent pas être appelés camps. Cela évoquerait des images effrayantes : les camps de concentration nazis, le système des goulags soviétiques, les camps de réfugiés palestiniens de plusieurs générations, le camp de détention de Guantánamo.

      Non, en Allemagne, ces « non-prisons » devraient être appelées « centres de transit ». Un terme amical, efficace, pratique, comme la zone de transit d’un aéroport où les voyageurs changent d’avion. Un terme inventé par les mêmes personnes qui désignent le fait d’échapper à la guerre et à la pauvreté comme du « tourisme d’asile ». Les responsables politiques de l’UE sont encore indécis quant à la terminologie de leurs camps. On a pu lire le terme de « centres de protection » mais aussi celui de « plateformes d’atterrissage et de débarquement », ce qui fait penser à une aventure et à un voyage en mer.

      Tout cela est du vernis linguistique. La réalité est que l’Europe en est maintenant à créer des camps fermés et surveillés pour des personnes qui n’ont pas commis de crime. Les camps vont devenir quelque chose qui s’inscrit dans le quotidien, quelque chose de normal. Si possible dans des endroits lointains et horribles, si nécessaire sur place. Enfermer, compter, enregistrer.

      La facilité avec laquelle tout cela est mis en œuvre est déconcertante. Deux ans seulement après que le public européen a condamné l’Australie pour ses camps brutaux de prisonniers gérés par des sociétés privées sur les îles de Nauru et Manus, dans l’océan Pacifique, nous sommes prêts à abandonner nos inhibitions. Pourquoi ne pas payer les Libyens pour intercepter et stocker des personnes ?

      Derrière le terme allemand « Lager » (« camp ») se cache un ancien mot correspondant à « liegen », qui signifie « être allongé ». Les camps sont ainsi faits pour se reposer. Aujourd’hui, le terme de « camp » implique quelque chose de temporaire : un camp n’est que pour une courte période, c’est pourquoi il peut aussi être rustique, comme un camp de vacances pour les enfants ou un dortoir. Des camps d’urgence sont mis en place après des catastrophes, des inondations, des glissements de terrain, des guerres. Ils sont là pour soulager les souffrances, mais ne doivent pas être permanents.

      Si les responsables politiques participent activement à l’internement de personnes dans des camps en l’absence de catastrophe, alors il s’agit d’autre chose. Il s’agit de contrôle, d’#ordre, de #rééducation, de #domination. Les puissances coloniales tenaient des camps, depuis les camps de barbelés des Britanniques au Kenya jusqu’aux camps de Héréros dans le Sud-Ouest africain. C’est dans des camps que les États-Unis ont enfermé des Américains d’origine japonaise pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Les responsables de ces camps n’avaient pas pour préoccupation le logement, mais bien la garde et la gestion de « personnes problématiques ».

      Dans de tels camps, la #violence extrême et la #déshumanisation des détenus allaient et vont généralement de pair avec une gestion froide. Exploiter un camp nécessite de l’#organisation. La technologie de #contrôle à distance aide le personnel à commettre des atrocités et transforme des gens ordinaires en criminels. Dans son essai controversé « Le siècle des camps », le regretté sociologue #Zygmunt_Bauman qualifie le camp de symptôme de #modernité. Pour lui, l’association d’une #exclusion_brutale et d’une #efficacité dans l’ordre semblable à celle d’un jardinier est une caractéristique de notre époque.

      Que Bauman fasse des camps de concentration nazis un « distillat » d’un problème majeur et moderne pour sa thèse lui a justement valu des critiques. Il ignore la singularité de l’Holocauste. Contrairement aux camps coloniaux, les camps de concentration étaient en effet des camps d’extermination qui n’avaient plus pour fonction d’apprêter des groupes ou de les rééduquer, ni même de les dissuader. Il s’agissait de « violence pour elle-même », comme l’écrit le sociologue #Wolfgang_Sofsky, de folie de la #pureté et d’éradication des personnes #indésirables.

      L’Europe croit être à l’abri de cette folie. Pour les gouvernants allemands, le slogan « Plus jamais de camps en Allemagne » est un slogan ridicule parce qu’il évoque des images qui n’ont rien à voir avec le présent. Dans les différents camps de migrants en Europe et à l’extérieur, il n’est certes pas question d’une extermination mais « seulement » de contrôle de l’accès et de #dissuasion. C’est ce dernier objectif qui est explicitement recherché : répandre dans le monde l’idée de camps de l’horreur au lieu du paradis européen.

      Mais il n’y a pas de raison de maintenir la sérénité. L’analyse de Zygmunt Bauman parlait de la mince couche de #civilisation par-dessus la #barbarie. La leçon tirée de l’expérience des camps du XXe siècle est la suivante : « Il n’y a pas de société ordonnée sans #peur et sans #humiliation ». La #pensée_totalitaire peut à nouveau prospérer, même dans les sociétés apparemment démocratiques.

      https://www.tdg.ch/monde/europe/dites-camps/story/31177430
      #totalitarisme

      Et ce passage pour lequel je suis tentée d’utiliser le tag #frontières_mobiles (#Allemagne et #Autriche) :

      L’intérêt pour les camps concerne également les responsables politiques allemands. Le gouvernement allemand veut élargir le no #man’s_land à la frontière germano-autrichienne afin que les réfugiés puissent être arrêtés avant d’entrer officiellement en Allemagne et avoir ainsi droit à une procédure d’asile régulière. Une « #fiction_de_non-entrée » est créée, comme le stipule précisément l’accord.

      Et sur la question de la #terminologie (#mots #vocabulaire) :

      Bien sûr, tous ces #centres_fermés de rassemblement de migrants ne peuvent pas être appelés camps. Cela évoquerait des images effrayantes : les camps de concentration nazis, le système des goulags soviétiques, les camps de réfugiés palestiniens de plusieurs générations, le camp de détention de Guantánamo.

      Non, en Allemagne, ces « #non-prisons » devraient être appelées « #centres_de_transit ». Un terme amical, efficace, pratique, comme la zone de transit d’un aéroport où les voyageurs changent d’avion. Un terme inventé par les mêmes personnes qui désignent le fait d’échapper à la guerre et à la pauvreté comme du « #tourisme_d’asile ». Les responsables politiques de l’UE sont encore indécis quant à la terminologie de leurs camps. On a pu lire le terme de « #centres_de_protection » mais aussi celui de « #plateformes_d’atterrissage_et_de_débarquement », ce qui fait penser à une aventure et à un voyage en mer.

      Tout cela est du #vernis_linguistique. La réalité est que l’Europe en est maintenant à créer des camps fermés et surveillés pour des personnes qui n’ont pas commis de crime. Les camps vont devenir quelque chose qui s’inscrit dans le quotidien, quelque chose de normal. Si possible dans des endroits lointains et horribles, si nécessaire sur place. Enfermer, compter, enregistrer.

      #shopping_de_l'asile #normalisation
      #cpa_camps

    • L’#Autriche veut proscrire toute demande d’asile sur le territoire de l’Union européenne

      A la veille d’une réunion, jeudi, entre les ministres de l’intérieur de l’UE sur la question migratoire, Vienne déclare vouloir proposer un changement des règles d’asile pour que les demandes soient étudiées hors d’Europe.

      https://mobile.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2018/07/10/l-autriche-veut-proscrire-toute-demande-d-asile-sur-le-territoire-de-

    • Record deaths at sea: will ‘regional disembarkation’ help save lives?
      ❝What is the aim of European policy on Mediterranean migration?

      Europe’s strategic ambition is clear: reduce the number of people who embark on journeys across the Mediterranean by boat. The more European countries struggle to share responsibility for those who are rescued at sea and brought to Europe, the stronger the desire to dissuade migrants from getting on a boat in the first place. Moreover, stemming the departures is said to be the only way of reducing the death toll.

      The challenge, as the European Council put it, is to ‘eliminate the incentive to embark’ on journeys across the Mediterranean. And the new migration agreement proposes a solution: setting up ‘regional disembarkation platforms’ outside the European Union. The logic is that if people rescued at sea are sent back to the coast they left, nobody will take the risk and pay the cost of getting on smugglers’ boats.
      Would this even work?

      Addressing the challenges of irregular migration is truly difficult. Still, it is baffling how the proposal for regional disembarkation platforms is embroiled in contradictions. The agreement itself is scant on specifics, but the challenges will surface as the policy makers have to make key decisions about how these platforms would work.

      First, will they be entry points for seeking asylum in Europe? The agreement suggests that the platforms might play this role. But if the platforms are entry points to the European asylum procedure, they will attract thousands of refugees who currently have no other option to apply for asylum in Europe than paying smugglers to set out to sea.

      This scenario raises a second question: what will be the possible ways of accessing the platforms? If they are reserved for refugees who have paid smugglers and are rescued at sea, access to protection will be just as reliant on smugglers as it is today. But if anyone can come knocking on the gate to the platforms, without having to be rescued first, the asylum caseload would swell. Such an outcome would be unacceptable to EU member states. As a recent EC note remarked, ‘to allow individuals to “apply” for asylum outside the EU […] is currently neither possible nor desirable.

      These two questions lay out the basic scenarios for how the regional disembarkation platforms would operate. Thinking through these scenarios it’s not clear if these platforms can ever be workable. Moreover, putting these platforms in place directly contradicts the European Council’s stated objectives:

      – dissuading smuggling journeys
      – distinguishing individual cases in full respect of international law
      – not creating a pull factor

      How does this relate to broader EU policies on migration?

      In some way, regional disembarkation platforms are a logical next step along the course the EU has been pursuing for years now. To stop refugees and other migrants from reaching its shores, the EU has been using a multi-pronged approach. On the one hand, the bloc has increased the use of aid to tackle the ‘root causes’ of migration – the logic being that if potential migrants are given other opportunities (e.g. skills training), they will be deterred from leaving. Similarly, information campaigns targeting aspiring migrants seek to deter people from setting out on dangerous journeys.

      Another major focus has been that of externalisation of border management – basically shifting border management to countries outside the EU: a key component of the EU-Turkey Deal is Turkey agreeing to take back refugees who crossed into Greece. Externalisation serves two purposes: keeping migrants physically out of Europe, but also as a deterrence measure sending potential migrants the implicit message that it won’t be easy to come to Europe.

      Regional disembarkation platforms are part of this process of externalisation. But there are key differences that make this proposal more extreme than policies pursued so far. Other externalization measures have aimed at preventing potential asylum seekers from reaching the point where they become eligible to launch a claim in Europe. The platforms will apparently serve a different role, by enabling the physical return of asylum seekers who have become Europe’s responsibility after being rescued by European ships in international waters.
      What do we know about efforts to deter irregular migration?

      The dim outlook for regional disembarkation platforms reflects more general limitations of deterrence measures in migration policy. Using decades worth of data, Michael Clemens and colleagues have shown that along the US-Mexico border greater deterrence and enforcement efforts have only reduced irregular migration when accompanied by greater legal migration pathways. Research by ODI has shown that information about deterrence measures and anti-migration messages rarely featured in migrant decision-making process. We will explore this further in our upcoming MIGNEX research project, which includes large-scale analyses of the drivers of migration in ten countries of origin and transit.
      Blocking access to asylum is not a life-saving measure

      The European Council presents regional disembarkation platforms as a strategy for ‘preventing tragic loss of life’. The irony of this argument is that these platforms will only deter sea crossings if they are dead ends where people who are rescued at sea are barred from seeking asylum in Europe. It is difficult to see how such a setup would be legally feasible, or indeed, ‘in line with our principles and values’, as the Council states.

      If the legal obstacles were overcome, there may indeed be fewer deaths at sea. But some of the deaths would simply occur out of sight instead. Refugees flee danger. Blocking access to seeking asylum puts more lives at risk and cannot be justified as a measure to save lives at sea.

      For now, the European Council glosses over the dilemmas that the regional disembarkation platforms will create. Facing the realities of the situation would not make perfect solutions appear, but it would enable an open debate in search of a defensible and effective migration policy.


      $https://blogs.prio.org/2018/07/record-deaths-at-sea-will-regional-disembarkation-help-save-lives

    • Austrian Presidency document: “a new, better protection system under which no applications for asylum are filed on EU territory”

      A crude paper authored by the Austrian Presidency of the Council of the EU and circulated to other Member States’s security officials refers disparagingly to “regions that are characterised by patriarchal, anti-freedom and/or backward-looking religious attitudes” and calls for “a halt to illegal migration to Europe” and the “development of a new, better protection system under which no applications for asylum are filed on EU territory,” with some minor exceptions.

      See: Austrian Presidency: Informal Meeting of COSI, Vienna, Austria, 2-3 July 2018: Strengthening EU External Border Protection and a Crisis-Resistant EU Asylum System (pdf): http://www.statewatch.org/news/2018/jul/EU-austria-Informal-Meeting-%20COSI.pdf

      The document was produced for an ’Informal Meeting of COSI’ (the Council of the EU’s Standing Committee on Operational Cooperation on Internal Security) which took place on 2 and 3 July in Vienna, and the proposals it contains were the subject of numerous subsequent press articles - with the Austrian President one of the many who criticised the government’s ultra-hardline approach.

      See: Austrian president criticises government’s asylum proposals (The Local, link); Austrian proposal requires asylum seekers to apply outside EU: Profil (Reuters, link); Right of asylum: Austria’s unsettling proposals to member states (EurActiv, link)

      Some of the proposals were also discussed at an informal meeting of the EU’s interior ministers on Friday 13 July, where the topic of “return centres” was also raised. The Luxembourg interior minister Jean Asselborn reportedly said that such an idea “shouldn’t be discussed by civilized Europeans.” See: No firm EU agreement on Austrian proposals for reducing migration (The Local, link)

      The Austrian Presidency paper proposes:

      "2.1. By 2020

      By 2020 the following goals could be defined:

      Saving as many human lives as possible;
      Clear strengthening of the legal framework and the operational capabilities of FRONTEX with respect to its two main tasks: support in protecting the Union’s external border and in the field of return;
      Increasing countering and destruction of people smugglers’ and human traffickers‘ business models;
      Significant reduction in illegal migration;
      More sustainable and more effective return measures as well as establishment of instruments that foster third countries’ willingness to cooperate on all relevant aspects, including the fight against people smuggling, providing protection and readmission;
      Development of a holistic concept for a forward-looking migration policy (in the spirit of a “whole of government approach“) and a future European protection system in cooperation with third countries that is supported by all and does not overburden all those involved – neither in terms of resources nor with regard to the fundamental rights and freedoms they uphold.

      2.2. By 2025

      By 2025 the following goals could be realised:

      Full control of the EU’s external borders and their comprehensive protection have been ensured.
      The new, better European protection system has been implemented across the EU in cooperation with third countries; important goals could include:
      no incentives anymore to get into boats, thus putting an end to smuggled persons dying in the Mediterranean;
      smart help and assistance for those in real need of protection, i.e. provided primarily in the respective region;
      asylum in Europe is granted only to those who respect European values and the fundamental rights and freedoms upheld in the EU;
      no overburdening of the EU Member States’ capabilities;
      lower long-term costs;
      prevention of secondary migration.
      Based on these principles, the EU Member States have returned to a consensual European border protection and asylum policy.”

      And includes the following statements, amongst others:

      “...more and more Member States are open to exploring a new approach. Under the working title “Future European Protection System” (FEPS) and based on an Austrian initiative, a complete paradigm shift in EU asylum policy has been under consideration at senior officials’ level for some time now. The findings are considered in the “Vienna Process” in the context of which the topic of external border protection is also dealt with. A number of EU Member States, the EU Commission and external experts contribute towards further reflections and deliberations on these two important topics.”

      “...ultimately, there is no effective EU external border protection in place against illegal migration and the existing EU asylum system does not enable an early distinction between those who are in need of protection and those who are not.”

      “Disembarkment following rescue at sea as a rule only takes place in EU Member States. This means that apprehensions at sea not only remain ineffective (non-refoulement, examination of applications for asylum), but are exploited in people smugglers’ business models.”

      “Due to factors related to their background as well as their poor perspectives, they [smuggled migrants] repeatedly have considerable problems with living in free societies or even reject them. Among them are a large number of barely or poorly educated young men who have travelled to Europe alone. Many of these are particularly susceptible to ideologies that are hostile to freedom and/or are prone to turning to crime.

      As a result of the prevailing weaknesses in the fields of external border protection and asylum, it is to be expected that the negative consequences of past and current policies will continue to be felt for many years to come. As experience with immigration from regions that are characterised by patriarchal, anti-freedom and/or backward-looking religious attitudes has shown, problems related to integration, safety and security may even increase significantly over several generations.”

      See: Austrian Presidency: Informal Meeting of COSI, Vienna, Austria, 2-3 July 2018: Strengthening EU External Border Protection and a Crisis-Resistant EU Asylum System (pdf)

      http://www.statewatch.org/news/2018/jul/eu-austrian-pres-asylum-paper.htm

    • Libya rejects EU plan for refugee and migrant centres

      Blow to Italy as Tripoli snubs proposal to set up processing centres in Africa

      Libya has rejected a EU plan to establish refugee and migrant processing centres in the country, adding that it would not be swayed by any financial inducements to change its decision.

      The formal rejection by the Libyan prime minister, Fayez al-Sarraj, is a blow to Italy, which is regarded as being close to his Tripoli administration.

      In June, Italy proposed reception and identification centres in Africa as a means of resolving divisions among European governments.

      The impasse came as the EU said it was willing to work as a temporary crisis centre to oversee the distribution of refugees and migrants from ships landing in Europe from Libya. Italy has said it is not willing to open its ports and may even reject those rescued by the EU Sophia search and rescue mission, a position that has infuriated other EU states.

      Speaking to the German newspaper Bild, Serraj said: “We are absolutely opposed to Europe officially wanting us to accommodate illegal immigrants the EU does not want to take in.”

      He dismissed accusations that Libya’s coastguard had shot at aid workers in ships trying to rescue people from the Mediterranean.

      “We save hundreds of people off the coast of Libya every day – our ships are constantly on the move,” he said. In practice, Libya is already running detention camps, largely as holding pens, but they are not run as EU processing centres for asylum claims.

      European foreign ministers agreed at a meeting on Monday to do more to train the Libyan coastguard by setting up the EU’s own training team inside Libya.

      The European parliament president, Antonio Tajani, said after a trip to Niger, one of the chief funnels for people into Libya, that the EU needed to plough more money into the Sahel region to reduce the need to leave the area. He said the number of people reaching Libya from Niger was collapsing.

      Tajani said: “Until 2016, 90% of irregular migrants travelled through the Niger to Libya and Europe. In just two years, Niger reduced migration flows by 95%, from over 300,000 to about 10,000 in 2018.”

      He said he would host a European conference in Brussels in October to support democratic elections in Libya scheduled for December.

      At the same time, Italy is to host a further conference in Rome in September seen as a follow-on to a conference held in May by the French president, Emmanuel Macron, that led to a commitment to hold elections this year.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/20/libya-rejects-eu-plan-for-migrant-centres?CMP=Share_iOSApp_OtherSpeakin

    • UNHCR ed OIM discutono con la Commissione europea sulle piattaforme di sbarco, ma gli stati dicono no.

      Lunedì 30 luglio si svolgerà a Ginevra un incontro di rappresentanti dell’UNHCR e dell’OIM con la Commissione Europea per discutere sulle piattaforme di sbarco che Bruxelles vorrebbe imporre nei paesi di transito, come gli stati nordafricani, e negli stati di sbarco, soprattutto in Italia. Per selezionare rapidamente migranti economici e richiedenti asilo, e dunque procedere al respingimento immediato dei primi, senza alcuna garanzia di difesa, ed all’avvio delle procedure di asilo, per gli altri, senza alcuna garanzia di resettlement o di relocation ( ricollocazione) in un paese diverso da quello di primo ingresso. La Commissione dichiara che, soltanto dopo avere trovato un “approccio comune a livello europeo “, si rivolgeranno proposte ai paesi terzi. Gli stati nordafricani hanno però respinto in blocco questa proposta, e le autorità locali dei paesi di primo ingresso più interessati dagli sbarchi, confernano la loro opposizione a nuovi Hotspot. Le risorse previste per questa esternalizzazione delle frontiere sono ridicole. Per non parlare dei costi in termini di vite e di sfregio dei diritti umani.

      Un progetto che si salda strettamente con l’incremeno degli aiuti alla sedicente Guardia costiera “libica”, alla quale si affida già adesso, nella prassi quotidiana, un numero sempre più elevato di intercettazioni in acque internazionali, di fatto respingimenti collettivi, perchè realizzati con il coordinamento e l’assistenza di unità militari della Marina italiana che ha una base a Tripoli, nell’ambito della missione Nauras. Intanto la accresciuta assistenza italiana alla Marina ed alla Guardia costiera di Tripoli rischia di contribuire all’inasprimento del conflitto tra le diverse milizie ed allontana le probabilità di una reale pacificazione, premessa indispensabile per lo svolgimento delle elezioni. Le stesse milizie che continuano a trattenere in Libia, in condizioni disumane, centinaia di migliaia di persone.

      Dietro la realizzazione delle “piattaforme di sbarco” in Nordafrica, proposte anche dal Consiglio europeo del 28 giugno scorso, il ritiro dalle responsabilità di coordinamento dei soccorsi in acque internazionali da parte degli stati che fin qui ne sono stati responsabili in conformità al diritto internazionale generalmente riconosciuto. Per ragioni diverse, nè la Tunisia, ne la Libia, possono essere riconosciuti come “paesi terzi sicuri” con porti di sbarco che siano qualificabili come place of safety. Come avveniva fino a qualche mese fa, secondo il diritto internazionale, dopo i soccorsi in acque internazionali, i naufraghi vanno sbarcati non nel porto più vicino, na nel porto sicuro più vicino. Ma questa regola, a partire dal caso della nave Aquarius di SOS Mediterraneè, il 10 giugno scorso, è stata continuamente violata dal governo italiano e dalle autorità amministrative e militari che questo governo controlla. Molto grave, ma prevedibile, il comportamento di chiusura da parte di Malta, che continua a trattenere sotto sequstro due navi umanitarie, la Lifeline e la Seawatch. Sempre più spesso le dispute tra stati che negano a naufraghi un porto sicuro di sbarco rischiano di fare altre vittime

      La soluzione che si prospetta adesso con la nave SAROST 5,dopo gli appelli delle ONG tunisine, lo sbarco a Zarzis dei migranti soccorsi il 15 luglio, un caso eccezionale ben diverso da altri soccorsi operati in precedenza in acque internazionali, non costituisce un precedente, perchè la SAROST 5 batte bandiera tunisina. Dunque i naufraghi a bordo della nave si trovavano già in territorio tunisino subito dopo il loro recupero in mare. In futuro, quando i soccorsi in acque internazionali saranno comunque operati da imbarcazioni miitari o private ( incluse le ONG) con diversa bandiera, il problema del porto sicuro di sbarco si proporrà in termini ancora più gravi, con un ulteriore incremento delle vittime e delle sofferenze inflitte ai sopravvissuti, a fronte dei dinieghi degli stati che non rispettano il diritto internazionale ed impediscono la individuazione, nei tempi più rapidi, di un vero “place of safety”.

      Nel 2013 il caso del mercantile turco SALAMIS, che sotto cooordinamento della Centrale operativa (IMRCC) di Roma, aveva soccorso naufraghi a sud di Malta, in acque internazionali, si era concluso con lo sbarco in Italia, in conformità del diritto internazionale. Con lo sbarco dei migranti soccorsi dalla SAROST 5 nel porto di Zarzis,in Tunisia, per ragioni di emergenza sanitaria, si consuma invece una ennesima violazione del diritto internazionale, dopo i rifiuti frapposti dalle autorità italiane e maltesi. Stati che creano sofferenze, come strumento politico e di propaganda, fino al punto da costringere i comandanti delle navi a dichiarare lo stato di emergenza. Alla fine il governo tunisino, nel giorno della fiducia al governo e dell’insediamento del nuovo ministro dell’interno, ha ceduto alle pressioni internazionali, ed ha accettato per ragioni umanitarie lo sbarco di persone che da due settimane erano bloccate a bordo di un rimorchiatore di servizio ad una piattaforma petrolifera, in condizioni psico-fisiche sempre più gravi. Un trattamento inumano e degradante imposto da quelle autorità e di quegli stati che, immediatamente avvertiti dal comandante della SAROST 5 quando ancora si trovava in acque internazionali, hanno respinto la richiesta di garantire in tempi più rapidi ed umani un porto di sbarco sicuro.

      Di fronte al probabile ripetersi di altri casi di abbandono in acque internazionali, con possibili pressioni ancora più forti sulla Tunisia, è importante che l’UNHCR e l’OIM impongano agli stati membri ed all’Unione Europea il rispetto del diritto internazionale e l’obbligo di soccorso in mare, nel modo più immediato. Le prassi amministraive di “chiusura dei porti” non sono sorrette ada alcuna base legale, e neppure sono concretizzate in provvedimenti amministrativi, motivati ed impugnabili davanti ad una qualsiasi autorità giurisdizionale. Non si può continuare a governare tratendo in inganno il corpo elettorale, distorcendo persino le posizioni delle grandi organizzazioni internazionali. Fino ad un mese fa sia l’UNHCR che l’OIM avevano respinto la proposta della Commissione che voleva creare piattaforme di sbarco al di fuori dei confini europei. Una proposta che adesso viene ripresentata con vigore ancora maggiore, sotto la presidenza UE affidata all’Austria di Kurz, con la spinta di Orban e di Salvini verso la “soluzione finale” verso migranti ed ONG.

      Le Nazioni Unite conoscono bene la situazione in Libia. Occorre garantire a tutti i naufraghi soccorsi in acque internazionali un porto sicuro di sbarco, che non deve essere quello più vicino, se non offre la piena garanzia di una tutela effettiva dei diritti fondamentali e del diritto di chiedere asilo delle persone sbarcate. Non basta la presenza fisica di operatori dell’UNHCR e dell’OIM in alcuni punti di sbarco, come si sta verificando da mesi in Tripolitania, per riconoscere l’esistenza di un place of safety in paesi che anche secondo le grandi istituzioni internazionali, come per i tribunali italiani, non sono in grado di garantire place of safety in conformità alle Convenzioni internazionali.

      Se si dovesse decidere di riportare i migranti intercettati in acque internazionali e sbarcati nei paesi nordafricani, ammesso che posa succedere( anche se i migranti considerati “illegali” in Nordafrica saranno costretti a firmare una richiesta di resettlement, se non di rimpatrio volontario), magari per essere riportati indietro in un campo profughi in Niger, sarebbero violati i principi base di protezione delle persone, in quanto eseri umani, ai quali si ispirano le Convenzioni internazionali e la Costituzione italiana. La Convenzione di Ginevra non esclude il diritto dei richeidenti asilo a rivolgersi ad paese piuttosto che ad un altro. L’evacuazione dalle aree di crisi non esclude il diritto di accesso alle frontiere di un paese europeo perchè la richiesta di asilo sua valutata con le garanzie sostanziali e procedurali previste dalla normativa interna e sovranazionale.

      Se l’UNHCR e l’OIM cederanno alle pressioni dei governi, diventeranno complici degli abusi che i migranti continuano a subire nei paesi del nordafrica nei quali vengono respinti e detenuti.

      Le Organizzazioni non governative che, insieme ai naufraghi che soccorrono, continuano ad essere bersaglio di una campagna di odio che non accenna ad attenuarsi, continueranno, nei limiti dei propri mezzi a denunciare quanto accade ed a soccorrere le persone che in acque internazionali potranno raggiungere prima che facciano naufragio. La loro attività di ricerca e salvataggio appare tuttavia fortemente ridotta, anche per la illegittima “chiusura dei porti” decisa dal governo italiano, in assenza di qualsiasi provvedimento che ne fornisca una base legale, tale almeno da potere essere impugnato. Una lesione forse irreversibile dello stato di diritto (rule of law) alle frontiere marittime.Una responsabilità ancora maggiore per le autorità militari alle quali sarebbe affidato il coordinamento delle attività di ricerca e soccorso in mare (SAR). La percentuale delle vittime calcolate sul numero dei migranti che ancora riescono a fuggire dalla Libia non è mai stata tanto alta. Non si deve ridurre il valore del rispetto della vita umana alla riduzione numerica degli arrivi o dei soccorsi in mare.

      Dietro la conclamata esigenza di contrastare i trafficanti si cela una micidiale arma elettorale che sta permettendo il capovolgimento della narrazione dei fatti e la criminalizzazione della solidarietà. Il ruolo delle città dell’accoglienza e dei rappresentanti politici che ancora si oppongono a questa deriva disumana contro i migranti e le ONG, devono passare dalle parole ai fatti e dare concretezza alle dichiarazioni di solidarietà ed all’impegno di aprire i porti, ed aprire le città. Tutti i cittadini solidali sono chiamati ad esporsi in prima persona, saldando il ruolo delle autonomie locali con la capacità di autorganizzazione. Sarà una stagione lunga e dolorosa di conflitto, senza una rappresentanza polkitica capace di praticare una vera opposizione. Ma non ci sono possibilità di mediazione con chi dimostra di valutare una parte dell’umanità come “untermenschen” ( sottouomini), praticando l’abbandono in mare ed il respingimento collettivo verso luoghi di internamento e tortura, in modo da creare le premesse per una discriminazione istituzionale che nei territori si sta già traducendo in una violenza diffusa contro i più deboli. Oggi tocca ai migranti, dai naufraghi a quelli accolti nei centri in Italia, domani saranno nel mirino le componenti minoritarie dell’intera popolazione.

      https://www.a-dif.org/2018/07/29/unhcr-ed-oim-discutono-con-la-commissione-europea-sulle-piattaforme-di-sbarco

    • Libya rejects establishment of reception centres for irregular migrants on its territory

      Foreign Minister of the Presidential Council’s government Mohamed Sayala said Libya refuses the idea of setting up reception centres for irregular migrants on its territory, as did Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco.

      “The country’s immigrant housing centres are sheltering around 30,000 immigrants, and Libya has cooperated with the European Union to return migrants to their countries of origin, but some countries refused to receive them,” Sayala said to the Austrian newspaper Die Presse.

      “Libya has signed agreements with Chad, Niger and Sudan to enhance the security of the crossing borders in order to curb the flow of migrants,” the Foreign Minister added.

      https://www.libyaobserver.ly/inbrief/libya-rejects-establishment-reception-centres-irregular-migrants-its-t

    • Juncker says N.Africa migrant “camps” not on EU agenda

      European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said on Friday that a suggestion that the European Union might try to set up migrant camps in North Africa was no longer on the agenda.

      EU member states are in disagreement over how the bloc should deal with tens of thousands of migrants arriving every year in Europe, the bulk of them by sea from Turkey and North Africa.

      In June, a summit of all EU leaders asked the Commission to study ways to set up “regional disembarkation platforms” in North African countries, including Tunisia, for migrants rescued by European vessels in the Mediterranean.

      However, there has been little appetite in Africa and EU officials have long questioned the legality and practicality of such camps — a view underlined in Juncker’s blunt reply.

      “This is no longer on the agenda and never should have been,” Juncker told a news conference in Tunis with Tunisian Prime Minister Youssef Chahed.

      http://news.trust.org/item/20181026131801-1t7he
      #cpa_camps

    • Juncker says North Africa migrant ’camps’ not on EU agenda

      European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said on Friday that a suggestion that the European Union might try to set up migrant camps in North Africa was no longer on the agenda.

      EU member states are in disagreement over how the bloc should deal with tens of thousands of migrants arriving every year in Europe, the bulk of them by sea from Turkey and North Africa.

      In June, a summit of all EU leaders asked the Commission to study ways to set up “regional disembarkation platforms” in North African countries, including Tunisia, for migrants rescued by European vessels in the Mediterranean.

      However, there has been little appetite in Africa and EU officials have long questioned the legality and practicality of such camps — a view underlined in Juncker’s blunt reply.

      “This is no longer on the agenda and never should have been,” Juncker told a news conference in Tunis with Tunisian Prime Minister Youssef Chahed.


      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-africa/juncker-says-north-africa-migrant-camps-not-on-eu-agenda-idUSKCN1N01TU

    • Refugee centers in Tunisia ’out of the question’, president says

      The Tunisian President, Beji Caid Essebsi, has said his country will not host EU refugee reception centers. He also told DW that Tunisia was a safe country, despite a terrorist attack in the capital earlier this week.

      President Essebsi made the statement in Berlin, where he attended Chancellor Angela Merkel’s African business summit. In an interview with DW’s Dima Tarhini, the 91-year-old leader said opening refugee reception centers in countries such as Tunisia was “out of the question.”

      “Tunisia has much more experience with refugees than many European countries. After the Libyan revolution, more than 1.3 million refugees from various countries streamed into Tunisia. Fortunately, most of them returned to their home countries with our help. Europe has never experienced anything comparable. And we, unlike Europe, do not have the capacities to open reception centers. Every country needs to pull its own weight on this issue.”

      The European Union wants greater cooperation on migration with North African nations Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Niger and Morocco. Earlier this year, the EU migration commissioner announced a plan for a “regional disembarkation scheme”. Under the proposed deal, African countries would host migrant screening centers to process refugee claims. The Tunisian government has already expressed opposition to the idea.

      Despite terrorism, a ’safe country’

      During President Essebsi’s visit to Berlin, a 30-year-old woman blew herself up with a homemade bomb in the Tunisian capital, injuring at least eight people.

      “We thought we had eradicated terrorism, but it turns out that it still exists and that it can strike in the heart of the capital,” President Essebsi said in a statement to the press.

      The suicide attack led to renewed questions about whether Tunisia should be considered a safe country of origin for asylum seekers.

      Tarhini: In Germany, in the context of repatriating asylum-seekers, it has been questioned just how safe Tunisia really is. Tunisia is considered a safe North African country. What is your opinion on this?

      Beji Caid Essebsi: "Tunisia is a safe country; that is the truth. It is much safer than many other countries. Regarding refugees and the problem that they pose for Europe and other regions: Tunisia guarantees the freedom of its citizens, no matter what their conduct. If Tunisians abroad do something wrong and are sent back, then we will take them in. But not citizens of other countries.

      http://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/13062/refugee-centers-in-tunisia-out-of-the-question-president-says?ref=tw
      #Tunisie
      ping @_kg_

    • Les plateformes de débarquement pour migrants enterrées ?

      « Les Plateformes de débarquement en Afrique ne sont plus à l’ordre du jour et n’auraient jamais dû l’être », a déclaré le président de la Commission européenne Juncker, ce 26 octobre, lors d’une conférence de presse à Tunis avec le Premier ministre tunisien, Youssef Chahed .

      Etonnant ? Rembobinons la bande-son 4 mois en arrière...

      Les plateformes de débarquement sont une proposition de la Commission européenne faite, à Bruxelles, le 28 juin lors d’un Conseil européen. Son objectif était d’empêcher l’arrivée des personnes migrantes, dites irrégulières, sur le sol européen. Comment ? En les bloquant, en amont, dans des centres fermés, le temps d’examiner leur profil et demande. Et en y débarquant systématiquement les naufragés repêchés en Méditerranée. Ces plates-formes seraient situées sur les côtes africaines notamment en Tunisie et au Maroc. L’Egypte a été également évoquée.

      Cette proposition s’inscrivait dans l’approche dominante de « l’externalisation » de la gestion des frontières prônée de façon croissante par les institutions européennes et ses membres depuis une vingtaine d’années. Depuis 2015, cette approche constitue l’une des orientations majeures des politiques migratoires européennes.

      Pourquoi dès lors, la Commission fait-elle marche arrière quant à ce projet ? Plusieurs raisons peuvent être avancées.

      La première réside dans le fait que cette approche n’atteint pas ses objectifs (endiguer les départs et augmenter les expulsions des personnes en situation irrégulière). Il suffit de voir la situation dans les hotspots d’Italie et de Grèce depuis 2015. A Moria, sur l’île de Lesbos, MSF parle de crise humanitaire due au surpeuplement, aux infrastructures et conditions d’accueil déplorables, ainsi qu’à l’insécurité mettant à mal l’ensemble des droits fondamentaux des personnes, notamment ceux des femmes et des mineurs. Les plus vulnérables se retrouvent dans un cul-de-sac.
      « Moria est devenu pour beaucoup un lieu de transit prolongé le temps que leur demande d’asile soit étudiée », souligne Dimitris Vafeas, le directeur adjoint du camp de Moria. D’autres exemples sont ceux du Niger ou encore de la Libye qui laissent les personnes migrantes dans une situation « d’encampement » permanent ou d’errance circulaire sans fin, faute de voies légales de migrations.

      La seconde explication trouve sa source dans le fait que cette approche ne respecte pas le droit international. En effet, d’une part, selon la Convention de Genève, chacun a le droit de quitter son pays et de demander l’asile dans un pays où sa sécurité sera assurée. Le droit international, s’il autorise un pays à refuser l’immigration, prohibe l’instauration du délit d’émigration : la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme stipule ainsi en son article 13 le droit de « quitter tout pays y compris le sien ». De plus, le droit maritime prévoit que tout naufragé sauvé en mer doit être conduit vers le port proche le plus sûr, ce qui implique que les personnes rescapées au large des côtes européennes doivent y être conduite. Enfin, plusieurs pays, à commencer par la Libye, ne représentent en aucun cas des « lieux sûrs », au regard des conditions auxquelles y font face les migrants. Même au Maroc, il y a quelques semaines, le GADEM, association marocaine de défense des droits de l’homme, sortait un rapport dramatique faisant état des violences multiples qu’encourent les personnes migrantes au Maroc.

      La troisième raison est que la majorité des pays en développement ne veulent pas entendre parler de ces plates-formes. Ils accueillent déjà 85 % des personnes réfugiées alors que l’Europe n’en accueille que 6%. Les pays africains tentent donc de faire bloc afin d’installer un rapport de force face aux Européens. Ils savent qu’ils sont désormais des acteurs incontournables du dossier migratoire sur la scène internationale. Cependant, les sommes mises sur la table, tels que les budgets de l’APD, risquent à terme d’effriter ce bloc d’argile, même si ces montants doivent être mis en regard des transferts des diasporas (remittances), nettement plus importants et qui rendent donc les dirigeants des pays d’origine enclins à favoriser les migrations.

      Il est donc temps, vu cet échec, que la Commission européenne change de cap et axe ses politiques non pas sur l’externalisation des questions de l’asile et de la migration, mais sur le renforcement de la solidarité intra-européenne dans l’accueil et sur la mise en œuvre de nouvelles voies sûre et légales de migration. Cela lui permettrait, enfin, de respecter le droit international et de consacrer son APD à la réalisation des Objectifs de développement plutôt qu’à la lutte contre les migrations, fussent-elles irrégulières.

      https://www.cncd.be/Les-plateformes-de-debarquement

    • L’UE bat partiellement en retraite sur les hotspots en Afrique

      Le Conseil voulait débarquer les migrants sauvés en Méditerranée sur les côtes africaines. Face à l’opposition des États africains, le projet a été abandonné, mais l’UE fait toujours pression sur les pays de transit.

      Au sommet du Conseil de juin dernier, les dirigeants européens ont demandé à la Commission d’étudier la possibilité d’instaurer des « plateformes de débarquement régionales » en Afrique, afin d’y envoyer les migrants repêchés par des bateaux européens en Méditerranée.

      L’initiative a tourné court. Dans les jours qui ont suivi le sommet, le Maroc et l’Union africaine se sont mobilisés pour assurer un rejet généralisé des « hotspots » sur les territoires africains.

      Nasser Bourita, le ministre marocain aux Affaires étrangères, a accusé les dirigeants européens de réagir de manière excessive, et souligné que le nombre de migrants tentant d’entrer en Europe a largement chuté. À ce jour, ils sont 80 000 à être arrivés cette année, contre 300 000 en 2016.

      La société civile s’est aussi opposée au projet, estimant que ces camps de migrants seraient contraires aux engagements de l’UE en termes de droits de l’Homme.

      Lors d’une visite en Tunisie le 26 octobre, Jean-Claude Juncker, président de la Commission européenne, a assuré que l’UE ne tentait pas de mettre en place des camps de réfugiés dans le nord de l’Afrique. « Ce n’est plus au programme, et ça n’aurait jamais dû l’être », a-t-il indiqué lors d’une conférence de presse avec le Premier ministre tunisien, Youssef Chahed.

      Une semaine après, la porte-parole de la Commission, Natasha Bertaud, a expliqué que l’exécutif européen préférait à présent parler d’« arrangements de débarquement régionaux ». L’UE a donc commencé à préparer des accords spécifiques avec chacun des pays concernés, dont un échange de financements contre un meilleur contrôle migratoire. Le but est ainsi d’empêcher les migrants d’arriver en Europe.

      Accords en négociations

      Depuis le mois de septembre, des discussions sont en cours entre Bruxelles et le gouvernement égyptien d’Abdel Fattah al-Sissi. Un accord « cash contre migrants » devrait être finalisé avant le sommet UE-Ligue arabe qui aura lieu en février au Caire.

      S’il parait évident que l’Europe ne répétera pas son offre de 4 milliards à la Turquie, l’Égypte devrait demander une aide considérable et des prêts avantageux en échange d’un durcissement du contrôle migratoire. Des accords similaires devraient être conclus avec le Maroc, la Tunisie et la Libye.

      Le timing n’est pas dû au hasard, puisque Abdel Fattah al-Sissi succédera en janvier au Rwandais Paul Kagame à la présidence de l’Union africaine, et que le sommet de février sera centré sur l’immigration.

      Ce n’est pourtant pas parce que l’idée des « hotspots » a été abandonnée que les pays africains échappent aux pressions européennes.

      Le 1er novembre, Reuters indiquait que le ministère marocain des Affaires étrangères avait mis en place une nouvelle obligation pour les ressortissants du Congo Brazzaville, de Guinée et du Mali, qui devront à présent demander un permis de voyage quatre jours avant leur arrivée au Maroc. La plupart des migrants espérant atteindre l’Europe via le Maroc sont guinéens ou maliens.

      L’Espagne fait en effet pression sur Rabat pour réduire le nombre d’arrivées de migrants, notamment via ses enclaves de Ceuta et Melilla.

      Redéfinitions à venir

      Par ailleurs, les conditions de renvoi des migrants seront redéfinies dans le texte qui remplacera l’accord de Cotonou, mais il est clair que l’Europe ne voudra pas les rendre plus strictes. Les discussions entre l’UE et les pays d’Afrique, des Caraïbes et du Pacifique, viennent de commencer.

      L’accord, qui expire en 2020, prévoit que les États africains réintègrent les migrants qui n’obtiennent pas l’autorisation de rester en Europe, une mesure qui n’a cependant pas été mise en pratique. « Les dirigeants africains ne respecteront jamais ces articles sur la migration », indique une source proche des négociations.

      L’Union africaine n’est pas parvenue à unir ses membres pour négocier le successeur de l’accord de Cotonou sur la base d’une position commune face à l’UE, mais les avis sont plus convergents sur la question migratoire. Selon une représentante de la société civile, son plan d’action sur l’immigration est « l’un des meilleurs documents sur la migration ».

      Contrairement à l’UE, divisée entre des pays plutôt accueillants et d’autres comme la Hongrie, la Pologne ou l’Italie, qui défendent des règles extrêmement strictes, les membres de l’Union africaine sont sur la même longueur d’onde sur le sujet. « L’UE n’est pas en position de négocier sur l’immigration, mais l’Union africaine l’est », conclut cette même source.

      Pour montrer à ses citoyens qu’elle agit, l’UE pourrait donc finir par mettre en place des arrangements de contrôle migratoire fragmentés et chers.

      https://www.euractiv.fr/section/migrations/news/eu-lowers-its-ambitions-on-african-migration-control

    • EP lawyers back EU plans for migrant centres in Africa

      Lawyers working at the European Parliament on Tuesday (27 November) struggled to provide a detailed analysis of whether stalled EU plans to offload rescued migrants in north Africa were legal - but ultimately backed the controversial concept.

      “It was at least a brave attempt to piece together, sort of like bits of circumstantial evidence from a kind of a crime scene, to see what the hell this is,” British centre-left MEP Claude Moraes said of their efforts.

      Speaking at the parliament’s civil liberties committee, a lawyer from the legal service was only able to provide an oral summary of their report, citing confidentiality issues.

      But EUobserver has obtained a full copy of the 10-page confidential report, which attempted to provide a legal analysis of stalled EU plans to set up so-called ’regional disembarkation platforms’ in north Africa and controlled centres in Europe.

      The report broadly rubber stamps the legality of both concepts, but with conditions.

      It says “controlled centres and/or disembarkation platforms of a similar nature could be, in principle, lawfully established in the European Union territory.”

      It states disembarkation platforms “could lawfully be established outside of the European Union, in order to receive migrants rescued outside the territory of the Union’s member states.”

      It also says EU law does not apply to migrants rescued at high sea, even with a boat flying an EU-member state flag.

      “We can’t consider a vessel flying a flag of a member state to be an extension of a member state,” the lawyer told the MEPs.

      EU law is also not applied if the migrant is rescued in the territorial waters of an African coastal state, states the report.

      It also notes that people rescued in EU territorial waters cannot then be sent to disembarkation platforms in an non-EU state.

      Morocco and other bordering coastal states must apply the 1951 Geneva Convention and must be considered safe before allowing them to host any disembarkation platform.

      Earlier this year, the European Commission tasked the EU’s asylum support office to analyse the safety of both Morocco and Tunisia.

      But neither country has voiced any interest in hosting such platforms.

      The two countries were then presented over the summer by EU heads of state and government as a possible solution to further stem boat migrants from taking to the seas in their efforts to reach Europe.

      The concepts, initially hatched by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) and the UN refugee agency (UNHCR), were met with disdain by north African states, who viewed them as a veiled attempt by the EU to outsource its problem back onto them.

      Furthermore, not a single EU state has expressed any interest to host a controlled centre.

      Human rights defenders have also raised alarm given the poor treatment of thousands of refugees and migrants stuck in over-crowded camps on the Greek islands.

      Attempting to replicate similar camps or centres elsewhere has only heightened those fears.

      But the EU says it is pressing ahead anyway.

      “The disembarkation arrangement, the discussion, is proceeding in the Council,” said Vincet Piket, a senior official in the EU’s foreign policy branch, the EEAS.

      https://euobserver.com/migration/143513

    • Et il y a des personnes, qui travaillent pour le HCR, ici #Vincent_Cochetel, qui croient en les plateformes de désembarquement évidemment...

      Good statement of search and rescue organisations, but I would like to see the same advocacy efforts with North African countries. A predictable regional disembarkation mechanism must be a shared responsibility on both sides of the Mediterranean.

      https://twitter.com/cochetel/status/1073190725473484801?s=19

    • African Union seeks to kill EU plan to process migrants in Africa

      Exclusive: Leaked paper shows determination to dissuade coastal states from cooperating.

      The African Union is seeking to kill off the EU’s latest blueprint for stemming migration, claiming that it would breach international law by establishing “de facto detention centres” on African soil, trampling over the rights of those being held.

      A “#common_African_position_paper” leaked to the Guardian reveals the determination of the 55-member state body, currently headed by Egypt, to dissuade any of its coastal states from cooperating with Brussels on the plan.

      The EU set plans for “regional disembarkation platforms” in motion last summer to allow migrants found in European waters to have their asylum requests processed on African soil.

      Brussels has a similar arrangement in place with Libya, where there are 800,000 migrants, 20,000 of whom are being held in government detention centres. The Libyan authorities have been accused of multiple and grave human rights abuses. A UN report recently stated that migrants in the country faced “unimaginable horrors”.

      Some northern states, including Morocco, have already rejected the EU’s proposal over the new “platforms”, but there are concerns within the African Union (AU) that other member governments could be persuaded by the offer of development funds.

      Italy’s far-right interior minister Matteo Salvini has called for the centres to be based around the Sahel region, in Niger, Chad, Mali and Sudan. An inaugural summit between the EU and the League of Arab States is being held in Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt on Sunday and Monday, and migration is expected to be discussed.

      “When the EU wants something, it usually gets it,” said a senior AU official. “African capitals worry that this plan will see the establishment of something like modern-day slave markets, with the ‘best’ Africans being allowed into Europe and the rest tossed back – and it is not far from the truth.”

      They added: “The feelings are very, very raw about this. And it feels that this summit is about the EU trying to work on some countries to cooperate. Bilaterally, some countries will always look at the money.”

      EU officials, in turn, have been coy about the purposes of the summit, insisting that it is merely an attempt to engage on issues of joint importance.

      The leaked draft joint position of the AU notes that Brussels has yet to fully flesh out the concept of the “regional disembarkation platforms”. But it adds: “The establishment of disembarkation platforms on the African Continent for the processing of the asylum claims of Africans seeking international protection in Europe would contravene International Law, EU Law and the Legal instruments of the AU with regard to refugees and displaced persons.

      “The setup of ‘disembarkation platforms’ would be tantamount to de facto ‘detention centres’ where the fundamental rights of African migrants will be violated and the principle of solitary among AU member states greatly undermined. The collection of biometric data of citizens of AU Members by international organisations violates the sovereignty of African Countries over their citizens.”

      The AU also criticises Brussels for bypassing its structures and warns of wider repercussions. “The AU views the decision by the EU to support the concept of ‘regional disembarkation platforms’ in Africa and the ongoing bilateral consultation with AU member states, without the involvement of the AU and its relevant institutions, as undermining the significant progress achieved in the partnership frameworks and dialogues between our two unions,” the paper says.

      Confidential legal advice commissioned by the European parliament also raises concerns about the legality of establishing processing centres on African soil for those found in European waters.

      The paper, seen by the Guardian, warns that “migrants, after they have been rescued (or a fortiori after they have been brought back on to European Union territory), could not be sent to platforms outside of the European Union without being granted access to the EU asylum procedures and without being granted the possibility to wait for the complete examination of their request”.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/24/african-union-seeks-to-kill-eu-plan-to-process-migrants-in-africa