*métaliste sur les différentes tentatives de différentes pays européens d’externalisation non…

/900122

  • Von der Leyen’s EU group plans Rwanda-style asylum schemes

    Centre-right European People’s party says it wants to create deportation deals with non-EU countries to head off rise of far right.

    The European Commission chief, #Ursula_von_der_Leyen, has given her support to controversial migration reforms that would involve deporting people to third countries for asylum processing and the imposition of a quota system for those receiving protection in EU countries.

    Manfred Weber, the leader of the European People’s party (EPP), said the policies – similar to the UK’s Rwanda scheme – had been worked out with all the parties in the EPP political group, which includes von der Leyen’s Christian Democrat Union in Germany.

    Warning that “the far right wants to destroy Europe from the inside”, Weber said the EPP would be “crystal clear” about its desire to reduce immigration in the campaign for the European elections in June.

    Asked if von der Leyen – who is expected to be nominated as the EPP’s candidate for European Commission president at its annual congress in Romania – backed these policies, Weber said: “All the programmatic positions of the European People’s party are [supported] also by Ursula von der Leyen … We do this as a team together.

    He added: “What European people expect from us – and here the European People’s party will be, in the campaign, crystal clear – you have to lower the numbers of arrivals. And we have to separate the visitors who are refugees and asylum seekers who should get the protection they need.”

    The policy is seen as an initiative to head off the rise of far-right and extremist parties such as the AfD in Germany. It envisages the EU doing a series of deals with non-EU states with a view to deporting people who have arrived via irregular migration routes for asylum processing in those “safe” third countries.

    The draft law advocating the fundamental change in European asylum regime will be considered at the EPP’s annual congress in Bucharest on Wednesday as part of the party’s manifesto discussions.

    The hardening of migration policy is likely to inflame tensions within the parliament and create external political risks for von der Leyen, who must represent the interests of the entire EU and not one political bloc in parliament, where the EPP is the largest grouping.

    She is expected to be formally selected as the EPP’s official candidate for the European Commission presidency in a vote in Romania on Thursday, meaning that it will back her for a second term in office.

    One Brussels insider said “the socialists will go mad with this” – a reference to the Socialists and Democrats, the second-biggest voting bloc in the European parliament.

    Sophie in ’t Veld, a Dutch MEP and the lead representative for the liberal Renew group on the parliament’s committee for civil liberties, justice and home affairs, called the measure “yet another unsavoury EPP chunk of red meat, meant to attract the far-right vote”.

    She added: “It will not work. All the EPP strategy has achieved over the past years is making the far right bigger. So if they know it doesn’t work, why do they stubbornly repeat the same tactics each time?”

    The EPP represents centre-right parties across Europe, including government parties in Greece, Poland, Ireland, Latvia, Croatia, Lithuania, Sweden, Romania, Finland and Luxembourg.

    Its manifesto says: “We want to implement the concept of safe third countries. Anyone applying for asylum in the EU could also be transferred to a safe third country and undergo the asylum process there.” However, in what could be seen as an effort to set itself apart from the UK’s controversial Rwanda policy, the manifesto stresses that the “criteria for safe countries shall be in line with the core obligations of the Geneva refugee convention and the European convention on human rights”.

    It says that neither of the conventions “include the right to freely choose the country of protection”.

    Developing the theme further, it says that after the “implementation of the third country concept”, it proposes the EU then “admit a quota of people in need of protection through annual humanitarian quotas of vulnerable individuals”.

    The publication of the manifesto and the launch of the EPP campaign could be start of a tricky period for von der Leyen. “I don’t think she will have any difficulty among member states, but the parliamentary vote is another game altogether,” said one diplomat.

    While very little legislation is left to negotiate, the bumps on the road to June act as a reminder of how von der Leyen came to power in 2019 – as a last-minute compromise candidate who was voted in with a wafer-thin majority.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/06/eu-group-european-peoples-party-von-der-leyen-migration-reforms

    #UE #externalisation #Union_européenne #EU #procédure_d'asile #externalisation_de_la_procédure #modèle_australien #Rwanda #Rwanda-style

    –—

    ajouté à la #métaliste sur les tentatives de différentes pays européens d’#externalisation non seulement des contrôles frontaliers (►https://seenthis.net/messages/731749), mais aussi de la #procédure_d'asile dans des #pays_tiers :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

  • Expulsion vers le #Rwanda. La #Suisse, pionnière d’une externalisation illégale ?

    Alors que la Cour suprême britannique a jugé illégal le plan du gouvernement britannique de délocaliser ses procédures d’asile au Rwanda, la Suisse doit examiner, lors de la prochaine session d’hiver, une #motion du Conseiller aux Etats #Damian_Müller (PLR) demandant d’y renvoyer les réfugié·es érythréen·nes débouté·es. Le contenu de la motion est truffée d’approximations et d’informations erronées quant à la légalité de la mesure qui devraient questionner les parlementaires sur le sérieux de la démarche. La réponse du Conseil fédéral apporte certains éléments factuels. Nous proposons ci-dessous des compléments utiles au débat public.

    La tentation de l’externalisation… et ses écueils

    La question de l’externalisation de tout ou partie des procédures d’asile est régulièrement thématisée par les gouvernements européens. Leur objectif vise généralement avant tout à donner un « signal » dissuasif à l’extérieur. Au Danemark, les tractations avec le Rwanda annoncées en grande pompe en 2021 ont été abandonnées en janvier 2023. L’annonce récente d’un accord par le gouvernement italien de Georgia Meloni avec l’Albanie suscite l’inquiétude du Haut Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugié-es (HCR), qui rappelle sa position sur la question de l’externalisation. Le HCR a du reste salué l’arrêt de la Cour suprême britannique.
    Une motion suisse illégale, coûteuse et à la portée réduite

    C’est dans ce contexte que le Conseil national devra examiner la motion 23.3176 déposée en mars 2023 par le Conseiller aux Etats PLR Damian Müller. Sa visée électorale ne fait aucun doute, pas plus que les motivations des membres du Conseil des États. Ceux-ci l’ont acceptée lors de la session d’été en dépit de son caractère manifestement illégal, coûteux et à la portée pratique réduite, comme le soulignait le Conseil fédéral dans sa réponse. Le coût d’image, pour la Suisse, n’avait alors pas été considéré. Il devrait, néanmoins, aussi être mis dans la balance par les membres du Conseil national lorsqu’ils devront voter en décembre. Ceux-ci devraient notamment considérer les points suivants :

    - Le nombre très restreint de personnes concernées par cette motion (300 personnes en Suisse)
    - Le coût de la mesure, incertain. Londres a déboursé plus de 120 millions de livres sterling dans le cadre de son accord, qui vient d’être jugé illégal.
    - Ce qu’implique de se lier les mains avec un État tiers dans le cadre de ces accords d’externalisation. Les précédents dans l’histoire récente européenne sont la Libye et la Turquie, pays qui n’ont pas manqué d’instrumentaliser le dossier migratoire dans le cadre de crises politiques. La volonté active du Rwanda auprès des États européens de jouer ce rôle de gestion migratoire doit être comprise à travers le prisme de ces enjeux géostratégiques.
    - Le Rwanda n’est pas un pays sûr : les risques de refoulements vers le pays d’origine des requérant·es sont présents et ont été documentés dans le cadre d’accords avec d’autres pays par le passé. C’est ce qu’a conclu la Haute cour de justice britannique et c’est aussi ce qu’a reproché le HCR à cet accord.
    - L’illégalité de la mesure : pour procéder à un renvoi forcé vers un État tiers, la Suisse est tenue d’examiner le lien des personnes concernées avec le pays en question selon la loi. Elle devrait aussi garantir le respect des normes de droits humains par l’Etat tiers, ici le Rwanda, et devrait pour cela obtenir des garanties de Kigali. Or l’approche des élections rwandaises en 2024 a été marquée par des violations des droits humains.

    La « légalité » de la délocalisation. Une argumentation factuellement fausse
    Que dit la motion ?

    Le 15 mars 2023, le Conseiller aux États Damian Müller, a déposé une motion invitant le Conseil fédéral à lancer un projet pilote visant à renvoyer les personnes déboutées dans un État tiers. Le projet s’attaque aux ressortissant·es érythréen·nes débouté·es. Il rappelle que les concerné·es ne peuvent pas être renvoyés sous la contrainte en Érythrée, le gouvernement érythréen refusant de telles expulsions. Damian Müller demande d’identifier rapidement un pays prêt à accueillir les ressortissant·es érythréen·nes débouté·es et cite le Rwanda en exemple. Un mécanisme comprenant une compensation financière serait à mettre en place, ainsi qu’une évaluation.

    Concernant l’externalisation que prône la motion, à savoir le renvoi vers un État tiers de personnes déboutées, et en particulier le Rwanda, l’auteur de la motion estime que ces mesures sont légales, s’appuyant sur deux éléments factuellement faux. La formulation de Damian Müller montre qu’il n’a lui-même aucune idée de la légalité ou non de la mesure !

    Affirmation fausse #1 – L’exemple erroné du HCR au Rwanda

    L’auteur de la motion affirme qu’il serait légal de mener l’ensemble de la procédure d’asile à l’étranger, citant en exemple le HCR qui « externalise déjà au Niger et au Rwanda les procédures d’asile des requérants en provenance de Libye ».

    - Pourquoi c’est faux – Le HCR a utilisé ces deux pays pour évacuer les réfugié·es vulnérables de Libye en raison des conditions de violence et de détention dans lesquelles elles étaient plongées. Il s’agissait d’une solution transitoire de mise à l’abri. L’Emergency Transit Mechanism vise à pouvoir traiter leur cas et trouver ainsi une solution durable pour elles, notamment un lieu de réinstallation. Evacuees from Libya – Emergency Transit Mechanism – UNHCR Rwanda. Lire aussi la fiche d’information sur la situation dans les deux ETM (juin 2023) : Document – UNHCR Flash Update ETM Niger and Rwanda

    Affirmation fausse #2 – L’accord avec le Sénégal de 2003

    L’auteur de la motion s’appuie sur une tentative d’accord de transit avec le Sénégal de 2003 pour estimer pouvoir « part[ir] donc du principe que la légalité du renvoi des requérants d’asile vers des pays tiers a déjà été examinée ».

    - Pourquoi c’est faux – Le Conseil fédéral rappelle dans sa réponse que l’accord en question visait au « transit » des personnes déboutées qui ne pouvaient rentrer directement dans leur pays d’origine, et que l’accord en question stipulait un retour en Suisse en cas d’impossibilité pour ces personnes de poursuivre leur voyage. La motion en question « irait beaucoup plus loin » puisqu’il s’agirait d’une relocalisation dans un Etat tiers, « pratique qui n’est suivie par aucun Etat européen ».

    La délocalisation au Rwanda est illégale selon la Cour suprême britannique

    Le plan Rwanda du gouvernement britannique a été enterré par la Cour suprême du Royaume-Uni le 15 novembre 2023. Le projet phare de Rishi Sunak visant à délocaliser la procédure d’asile au Rwanda pour les personnes entrant par voie irrégulière dans le pays a été jugée illégale. Le Rwanda n’est pas un pays sûr confirment les juges et le risque de renvoi vers leur pays d’origine des personnes expulsées violerait le principe de non-refoulement consacré par le droit international. Les 120 millions de livres sterling déjà versés par Londres à Kigali dans le cadre de cet accord ne serviront pas les objectifs du gouvernement anglais. Si celui-ci a déjà annoncé vouloir passer outre la décision de la Haute cour (!), il collectionne pour l’heure les déboires judiciaires, avec la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme qui a ordonné la suspension du vol collectif organisé par Londres en juin 2022 puis l’annulation par la Haute cour des décisions de refoulement individuelles en décembre de la même année.

    https://asile.ch/2023/11/27/la-suisse-pionniere-dune-externalisation-illegale

    #externalisation #réfugiés #asile #migrations #réfugiés_érythréens #procédure_d'asile #externalisation_de_la_procédure #modèle_australien

    –—

    ajouté à la métaliste sur les tentatives de différentes pays européens d’#externalisation non seulement des contrôles frontaliers (►https://seenthis.net/messages/731749), mais aussi de la #procédure_d'asile dans des #pays_tiers
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

  • Austria to work with UK on Rwanda-style plan for asylum seekers

    Suella Braverman signs ‘migration and security agreement’ with Austrian counterpart in move to work more closely together.

    Austria is seeking to adopt a Rwanda-style deal to deport asylum seekers to a third country, having agreed a deal to work with the UK on migration.

    #Suella_Braverman signed a “migration and security agreement” with her Austrian counterpart, #Gerhard_Karner, in which the two countries agreed to work more closely together.

    It is the first EU country to sign such a deal with the #UK, whose £140m Rwanda deportation scheme is on hold pending the outcome of a supreme court judgment on its legality.

    Austria’s offshoring scheme would differ from the UK’s in that people deported to a third country would be allowed to return to Austria if their asylum applications were successful. Those rejected would be returned to their home countries.

    Under the UK’s proposed Rwanda scheme, people would be deported on a one-way ticket to the central African country to claim asylum, unless they can show that it would expose them to a risk of “serious and irreversible harm”.

    Rishi Sunak and the home secretary are pushing European partners to overhaul international asylum agreements, including the refugee convention and European convention on human rights (ECHR) in the face of a worldwide migration crisis.

    The supreme court is expected to rule on the legality of the UK’s Rwanda policy in mid-December. If successful, the Home Office hopes to have the first deportation flights in the air in February.

    If it is ruled unlawful on the basis that there is a risk of asylum seekers being returned to their home country in breach of their human rights, Sunak will come under intense pressure from many Tory MPs, including at least eight members of his cabinet, to quit the ECHR.

    Austria has also been pushing the EU to adopt a Rwanda-style scheme across Europe as part of changes to deal with the rise in arrivals from across the Mediterranean and its eastern borders.

    Karner, Austria’s interior minister, said: “The UK has a lot of experience when it comes to processing asylum applications outside of Europe in the future. That was an important theme in my meeting with the home secretary in Vienna because Austria can benefit from this experience.

    “We will continue to make a consistent effort for the EU Commission to advance and enable such procedures outside of Europe.”

    Braverman said: “The global migration crisis is the challenge of our age, with the UK and the European continent seeing huge movements of people travelling illegally across our borders. This is placing an unprecedented burden on our communities and public services.

    “Austria is a close ally in tackling illegal migration, and we have already begun sharing knowledge of our actions and strategies such as third country removals. This joint statement is a commitment to work more closely together to achieve our aims, and enhance our cooperation on a wide range of security challenges.”

    Denmark is the only other country that has previously drawn up plans to deport asylum seekers to third countries but its proposals have been on hold.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/02/austria-seeks-to-adopt-uk-rwanda-style-plan-for-asylum-seekers
    #Autriche #asile #migrations #réfugiés #externalisation #Rwanda #accord #Angleterre #migration_and_security_agreement

    –-

    ajouté à la métaliste sur les différentes tentatives de différentes pays européens d’#externalisation non seulement des contrôles frontaliers, mais aussi de la #procédure_d'asile dans des #pays_tiers
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

  • Meloni, accordo con Rama prevede 2 centri migranti in Albania

    “L’accordo prevede di allestire centri per migranti in Albania che possano contenere fino a 3mila persone”. Lo ha detto la premier Giorgia Meloni dopo l’incontro a Palazzo Chigi con il primo ministro dell’Albania Edi Rama. “L’accordo che sigliamo oggi – ha aggiunto - arricchisce di un ulteriore tassello la collaborazione” tra i due Paesi e “quando ne abbiamo iniziato a discutere siamo partiti dall’idea che l’immigrazione illegale di massa è un fenomeno che nessuno Stato Ue può affrontare da solo e la collaborazione tra Stati Ue e Stati per ora extra Ue – per ora - è fondamentale”. “In questi due centri” i migranti resteranno “il tempo necessario per le procedure e una volta a regime nei centri ci potrà essere un flusso annuale complessivo di 36 mila persone”. “L’accordo non riguarda i minori e donne in gravidanza ed i soggetti vulnerabili – precisa – la giurisdizione sarà italiana. L’Albania collabora sulla sorveglianza esterna delle strutture. All’accordo che disegna la cornice, seguiranno una serie di protocolli. Contiamo di rendere operativi i centri in primavera”. (ANSA).

    https://it.euronews.com/2023/11/06/meloni-accordo-con-rama-prevede-2-centri-migranti-in-albania

    #Italie #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Albanie #accord #externalisation #centres

    ajouté à la Métaliste sur l’#accord entre #Italie et #Albanie pour la construction de #centres d’accueil (sic) et identification des migrants/#réfugiés sur le territoire albanais...
    https://seenthis.net/messages/1043873

    –-

    Et ajouté à la métaliste sur les différentes tentatives de différentes pays européens d’#externalisation non seulement des contrôles frontaliers, mais aussi de la #procédure_d'asile dans des #pays_tiers
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

    • Migranti, accordo Italia-Albania. Meloni: “Centri italiani nel loro Paese”. Il Pd: “Un pericoloso pasticcio”. Ue: “L’Italia rispetti il diritto comunitario”

      Il premier Edi Rama ricevuto a Palazzo Chigi dove è stato siglato un protocollo d’intesa in materia di gestione dei flussi. Accoglieranno fino a 3mila persone, solo coloro che saranno salvati in mare. Protestano + Europa e Avs

      La presidente del Consiglio Giorgia Meloni ha ricevuto a Palazzo Chigi il primo ministro dell’Albania Edi Rama. «Sono contenta di annunciare con lui un protocollo d’intesa tra Italia e Albania in materia di gestione dei flussi migranti. L’Italia è il primo partner commerciale dell’Albania. C’è una strettissima collaborazione che già esiste nella lotta all’illegalità – dice Meloni durante le dichiarazioni congiunte con il collega albanese – L’accordo prevede di allestire due centri migranti in Albania che possano contenere fino 3mila persone. E arricchisce di un ulteriore tassello la collaborazione» tra i due Paesi e «quando ne abbiamo iniziato a discutere siamo partiti dall’idea che l’immigrazione illegale di massa è un fenomeno che nessuno Stato Ue può affrontare da solo e la collaborazione tra stati Ue e stati - per ora - è fondamentale».

      Un accordo contro cui si scagliano le opposizioni e che il Pd definisce “un pericoloso pasticcio”. Mentre da Bruxelles un portavoce della Commissione europea all’Adnkronos dice: «Siamo stati informati di questo accordo, ma non abbiamo ancora ricevuto informazioni dettagliate: l’accordo operativo deve ancora essere tradotto in legge dall’Italia e ulteriormente implementato. È importante che qualsiasi accordo di questo tipo rispetti pienamente il diritto comunitario e internazionale».

      L’incontro tra i due primi ministri è stata anche l’occasione per ribadire il sostegno dell’Italia all’ingresso di Tirana in Ue. "L’Albania si conferma una nazione amica e nonostante non sia ancora parte dell’Unione si comporta come se fosse un paese membro e questa è una delle ragioni per cui sono fiera che l’Italia sia da sempre uno dei paesi sostenitori dell’allargamento ai Balcani occidentali”. E ancora. «L’Ue non è un club. Quindi, io non parlo di ingressi ma di riunificazione dei Balcani occidentali che sono Paesi Ue a tutti gli effetti», osserva Meloni. Che ricorda anche come l’Italia sia «il primo partner commerciale dell’Albania. Il nostro interscambio vale circa il 20% del Pil albanese. Ci sono intensi rapporti culturali e sociali. È una strettissima collaborazione che già esiste nella lotta all’illegalità. L’accordo di oggi arricchisce questa collaborazione con un ulteriore tassello», conclude la premier.
      Le reazioni

      Se la destra plaude all’intesa tra l’Italia e l’Albania, le opposizioni insorgono. «L’accordo che il governo Meloni ha raggiunto con il governo albanese sembra configurarsi come un pericoloso pasticcio, parecchio ambiguo. Se infatti si è, come sembra, di fronte a richiedenti asilo, appare assolutamente inimmaginabile compiere con personale italiano e senza esborso di risorse, come annunciato, le procedure di verifica delle domande d’asilo», attacca Pierfrancesco Majorino, responsabile Politiche migratorie della segreteria nazionale del Pd. “Praticamente si crea una sorta di Guantanamo italiana, al di fuori di ogni standard internazionale, al di fuori dell’Ue senza che possa esserci la possibilita’ di controllare lo stato di detenzione delle persone rinchiuse in questi centri"., protesta Riccardo Magi, segretario di Più Europa. E Angelo Bonelli di Alleanza Verdi e Sinisra aggiunge: Quello che il governo ha definito come un ’importantissimo protocollo di intesa’ non è altro che una politica di respingimento mascherata da cooperazione internazionale. Il governo italiano –prosegue - sta delegando la gestione dei migranti irregolari, di fatto esternalizzando le proprie responsabilità, con il rischio di creare campi di permanenza che potrebbero non assicurare standard adeguati di accoglienza e rispetto per la dignità umana".

      Ma il ministro degli Esteri Antonio Tajani replica: «L’accordo rafforza il nostro ruolo da protagonista in Europa ed apre nuove strade di collaborazione nell’Adriatico. Contrasto all’immigrazione irregolare e bloccare la tratta di esseri umani. Queste le priorita’ della nostra politica estera».
      Il protocollo d’intesa

      Il protocollo d’intesa tra Italia e Albania in materia di gestione dei flussi migratori siglato oggi, secondo quanto si apprende da fonti di palazzo Chigi, non si applica agli immigrati che giungono sulle coste e sul territorio italiani ma a quelli salvati in mare, fatta eccezione per minori, donne in gravidanza e soggetti vulnerabili. Le strutture realizzate, viene spiegato, potranno accogliere complessivamente fino a 3mila immigrati, per una previsione di 39mila persone accolte in un anno. L’accordo si pone un obiettivo di dissuasione rispetto alle partenze e di deterrenza rispetto al traffico di esseri umani.

      La giurisdizione dei due centri per migranti in Albania sarà italiana, spiega ancora Palazzo Chigi. I migranti, viene precisato, sbarcheranno a Shengjin e l’Italia si occuperà delle procedure di sbarco e identificazione e realizzerà un centro di prima accoglienza e screening; a Gjader realizzerà una struttura modello Cpr per le successive procedure. L’Albania collaborerà con le sue forze di polizia per la sicurezza e sorveglianza. L’Albania, sottolinea ancora Palazzo Chigi, già vede un’importante presenza di forze dell’Ordine e magistrati italiani.
      Rama: “Se l’Italia chiama l’Albania c’è”

      “Se l’Italia chiama l’Albania c’è – risponde Rama – Non sta a noi giudicare il merito politico di decisioni prese in questo luogo e altre istituzioni, a noi sta rispondere ’Presente’ quando si tratta di dare una mano. Questa volta significa aiutare a gestire con un pizzico di respiro in più una situazione e difficile per l’Italia". «La geografia è diventata una maledizione per l’Italia, quando si entra in Italia si entra in Ue – spiega il premier Albanese – Noi non abbiamo la forza e la capacità di essere la soluzione ma abbiamo un dovere verso l’Italia e la capacità di dare una mano. L’Albania non fa parte dell’Unione ma è uno Stato europeo, ci manca la U davanti ma ciò non ci impedisce di essere e vedere il mondo come europei».

      https://www.repubblica.it/politica/2023/11/06/news/migranti_meloni_accordo_albania_edi_rama-419723671

      #Gjader #Shengjin #débarquement #identification #screening #premier_accueil #CPR

    • Migrants, accord Italie-Albanie. Meloni : « Des centres italiens dans leur pays ». Adhésion de Tirana à l’UE : « Nous l’avons toujours soutenue »

      Le Premier ministre Giorgia Meloni a reçu le Premier ministre de l’Albanie au Palazzo Chigi Edi Rama. “Je suis heureux d’annoncer avec lui un mémorandum d’accord entre l’Italie et l’Albanie sur la gestion des flux migratoires. L’Italie est le premier partenaire commercial de l’Albanie. Il existe déjà une collaboration très étroite dans la lutte contre l’illégalité – a déclaré Meloni lors de la réunion conjointe déclarations avec son collègue albanais – L’accord prévoit la création de centres de migrants en Albanie pouvant accueillir jusqu’à 3 mille personnes. Et il enrichit la collaboration « entre les deux pays avec une étape supplémentaire » et « lorsque nous avons commencé à en discuter, nous sommes partis du l’idée que l’immigration clandestine de masse est un phénomène auquel aucun État de l’UE ne peut lutter seul et que la collaboration entre les États de l’UE est – pour l’instant – fondamentale”.

      La rencontre entre les deux premiers ministres a également été l’occasion de réitérer le soutien de l’Italie à l’entrée de Tirana dans l’UE. “L’Albanie se confirme comme une nation amie et même si elle ne fait pas encore partie de l’Union, elle se comporte comme si elle en était un pays membre et c’est une des raisons pour laquelle je suis fier que l’Italie ait toujours été l’un des pays qui soutiennent l’élargissement. aux Balkans occidentaux”. Et encore. “L’UE n’est pas un club. Je ne parle donc pas d’entrées, mais de la réunification des Balkans occidentaux, qui sont à tous égards des pays de l’UE”, observe encore Meloni. Il rappelle également que l’Italie est “le premier partenaire commercial de l’Albanie. Nos échanges commerciaux représentent environ 20 % du PIB albanais. Il existe des relations culturelles et sociales intenses. C’est une collaboration très étroite qui existe déjà dans la lutte contre l’illégalité. L’accord d’aujourd’hui enrichit cette collaboration d’une étape supplémentaire”, conclut le Premier ministre.

      Le protocole d’accord entre l’Italie et l’Albanie sur la gestion des flux migratoires signé aujourd’hui, selon ce que l’on apprend de sources au Palazzo Chigi, ne s’applique pas aux immigrants arrivant sur les côtes et le territoire italiens mais à ceux secourus en mer, à l’exception de les mineurs, les femmes enceintes et les sujets vulnérables. Les structures créées, explique-t-on, pourront accueillir au total jusqu’à 3 mille immigrants, pour une prévision de 39 mille personnes accueillies par an. L’accord vise à dissuader les départs et à décourager la traite des êtres humains.

      « Si l’Italie appelle l’Albanie, elle est là – répond Rama – Ce n’est pas à nous de juger du mérite politique des décisions prises dans ce lieu et dans d’autres institutions, c’est à nous de répondre ‘Présent’ lorsqu’il s’agit de prêter un main. Cette fois, il s’agit d’aider à gérer une situation difficile pour l’Italie avec un peu plus de répit.” “La géographie est devenue une malédiction pour l’Italie, quand vous entrez en Italie, vous entrez dans l’UE – explique le Premier ministre Albanese – Nous n’avons pas la force et Nous avons la capacité d’être la solution, mais nous avons un devoir envers l’Italie et la capacité de lui donner un coup de main. L’Albanie ne fait pas partie de l’Union mais c’est un Etat européen, il nous manque le U devant mais cela ne nous empêche pas d’être et de voir le monde en Européens”.

      https://fr.italy24.press/local/1061085.html

    • Migrants: two structures to manage illegal flows, this is what the Italy-Albania #memorandum_of_understanding provides

      Two structures in Albanian territory under Italian jurisdiction which will serve to manage illegal migratory flows. This is the fulcrum of the memorandum of understanding signed today by Italy and Albania and announced by the Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and the counterpart Edi Rama. Rama’s “surprise” visit was not officially announced until this morning when a brief note from Palazzo Chigi announced that the two heads of government would meet in the afternoon and that they would subsequently make statements to the press. The discretion of the two governments prevailed and, consequently, also the surprise effect at the time of the announcement. “It is an agreement that enriches the friendship between the two nations,” said Meloni at the time of the announcement, subsequently explaining the details of the agreement which focuses on three primary objectives: combating human trafficking, preventing it and welcoming who has the right to protection. “Albania will grant some areas of the territory”, where Italy will be able to create “two structures” for the management of illegal migrants: “they will initially be able to accommodate up to three thousand people who will remain here for the time necessary to process asylum applications and , possibly, for the purposes of repatriation", said Meloni, specifying that the agreement does not concern minors, pregnant women and vulnerable subjects.

      The prime minister also provided details on the areas which will host the two structures which, hopefully, will be ready by spring 2024. “In the port of Shengjin (the seaport located north of Albania) disembarkation and identification procedures will be taken care of, while in another more internal area another structure based on the Repatriation Retention Centers model will be created (Cpr)”, explained Meloni, adding that the Albanian police forces will cooperate to guarantee “the security and external surveillance of the structures”. According to Meloni, the agreement signed today is a further step in the close bilateral cooperation. “Mass illegal immigration is a phenomenon that EU member states cannot face alone and cooperation between EU states and, for now, non-EU states can be decisive,” said the Prime Minister, according to whom Albania confirms itself as a friend not only of Italy but also of the European Union. “Despite not yet being formally part of the EU, Albania is a candidate country but behaves as if it were already a de facto member country of the Union and this is one of the reasons why I am proud of the fact that Italy is has always been one of the greatest supporters of the entry of Albania and the Western Balkans into the Union", added Meloni, who defined the memorandum of understanding “an innovative solution” in the hope that “it can become the model for other agreements of this type”.

      Speaking at the end of Meloni’s statements, Prime Minister Rama – underlining that the idea for the agreement was born during the Prime Minister’s summer holiday in Vlore – he immediately wanted to point out that “when Italy calls, Albania is there”. “Albania is not an EU state, but it is in Europe. It is a European state, and this does not prevent us from seeing the world as Europeans,” said Rama. “We would not have made this agreement with any other EU state. There is an important relationship of a historical, cultural, but also emotional nature, which links Albania with Italy", continued the prime minister. “We can lend a hand and help manage a situation which, as everyone sees, is difficult for Italy. When you enter Italy, you enter Europe, the EU, but when it comes to managing this entry as an EU we know well how things go,” said Rama. “We don’t have the strength to be a solution, but I believe we have a duty towards Italy and a certain ability to lend a hand”, added Rama who then recalled how his country can boast a tradition of hospitality, which began by the thousands of Italians protected after the Second World War. “We have a history of hospitality”, Rama underlined, recalling that Albania welcomed more than half a million war refugees and those fleeing to survive the ethnic cleansing from Kosovo. “We also gave refuge to thousands of Afghan women when NATO abandoned Afghanistan, and to a few thousand Iranians,” added the Albanian prime minister.

      https://www.agenzianova.com/en/news/migrants-two-structures-to-manage-illegal-flows%2C-this-is-what-the-Ita
      #MoU

    • Migranti: Un #Protocollo_d’intesa con l’Albania, opaco, disumano e privo di basi legali

      Con l’ennesimo annuncio propagandistico del govern si apprende che Giorgia Meloni avrebbe concluso con il premier albanese Edi Rama un Memorandum d’intesa , che prevede – la realizzazione in Albania di due centri per il rimpatrio, che dovrebbero ospitare ogni mese fino a 3000 persone definite “irregolari”, ma solo se soccorse nel Mediterraneo da navi militari italiane, come quelle della Marina Militare e della Guardia di Finanza. Più precisamente, “l’Albania darà possibilità all’Italia di utilizzare alcune aree del territorio albanese dove l’Italia potrà realizzare, a proprie spese, due strutture dove allestire centri per la gestione di migranti illegali. Inizialmente potrà accogliere fino a 3mila persone che rimarranno il tempo necessario per espletare le procedure delle domande di asilo ed eventualmente rimpatrio”. I naufraghi saranno sbarcati a Shengjin e l’Italia si occuperà delle procedure di sbarco e identificazione e realizzerà un “centro di prima accoglienza e screening” a Gjader, che di fatto sarà una “struttura modello Cpr” per le successive procedure. I due centri dovrebbero servire per processare in 28-30 giorni le richieste di asilo e per detenere coloro che si vedranno respinta la richiesta di protezione, in vista del rimpatrio nei paesi di origine. Come ha annunciato Giorgia Meloni “Dei due centri, quello al porto si occuperà delle procedure di sbarco e di identificazione con una prima attività di screening mentre il centro che verrà realizzato nell’area più interna sarà una struttura modello Cpr”.

      Secondo quanto annunciato dalle stesse fonti governative in un anno si penserebbe addirittura di fare transitare in queste nuove strutture detentive, che dovrebbero essere sotto giurisdizione italiana, ma con “sorveglianza esterna” affidata alle autorità albanesi, circa 36.000 persone. Nulla è stato comunicato sulle modalità di rimpatrio e sulle autorità che saranno incaricate di eseguire gli accompagnamenti forzati, nè su quali autorità efettueranno i trasferimenti sotto scorta dai punti di sbarco in Albania ai centri di detenzione “sotto giurisdizione italiana”. Di certo, fin dal momento dello sbarco in Albania i migranti, già ritenuti comunque “illegali”, saranno totalmente privati della libertà personale. Come impone la sentenza n.105/2001 della Corte Costituzionale qualunque procedura di allontanamento forzato attuata da autorità italiane attraverso il trattenimento in un centro di detenzione deve essere convalidata dalla decisione di un giudice. Come sarà possibile realizzare queste garanzie in territorio albanese?

      La consegna delle persone soccorse in mare alle autorità albanesi, al momento dello sbarco, fino, presumibilmente, all’ingresso nei centri di detenzione, che si asserisce sarebbero “sotto giurisdizione italiana” potrebbe costituire una ipotesi di respingimento collettivo analoga a quella riscontrata e condannata dalla Corte europea dei diritti dell’Uomo nel caso Hirsi, quando nel 2009 una motovedetta della Guardia di finanza riconsegno alle autorità libiche, entrando nel porto di Tripoli, decine di naufraghi socorsi in acque internazionali (pratica illegale che comunque si protrasse fino al 2010, con trasbordi più discreti in alto mare, piuttosto che con l’ingresso delle unità militari italiane nei porti libici). In quell’occasione la Corte di Strasburgo affermò che sebbene il soccorso fosse avvenuto in acque internazionali, il codice della navigazione italiano, oltre che il diritto internazionale, riconoscono che sulla nave militare in alto mare si applica la giurisdizione dello stato della bandiera. Dunque, in quella occasione, tra il momento in cui i profughi venivano accolti a bordo delle navi italiane e quello in cui gli stessi erano consegnati alle autorità libiche a Tripoli, le autorità italiane avevano esercitato su di essi un controllo de facto che impegnava la responsabilità dello stato italiano per qualunque violazione dei diritti sanciti dalla Convenzione europea. La stessa considerazione potrà valere in futuro quando le autorità italiane consegneranno alle forze di polizia albanese i cittadini stranieri soccorsi in mare da unità militari italiane, ai fini del loro trasferimento forzato e dell’eventuale rimpatrio. Secondo il premier albanese, “Chi non ha diritto viene rimpatriato. Ma se l’Italia non riesce a fare i rimpatri dovrà riprenderseli”. La prova più evidente della riduzione delle persone a rifiuti da smaltire, la cifra morale e politica condivisa da Giorgia Meloni e da Edi Rama.

      Un progetto impraticabile e privo di basi legali, quanto previsto dal Memorandum sottoscritto dalla Meloni con il premier albanese, alla luce dei tempi previsti per le procedure nei centri di detenzione, e soprattutto a causa delle difficoltà di esecuzione delle misure di allontanamento forzato da tutti i paesi europei, anche per la mancanza di accordi di riammissione tra l’Albania e molti paesi di origine dei naufraghi che, dopo essere soccorsi in mare, dovranno affrontare in stato di detenzione procedure”accelerate” per il riconoscimento di uno status di protezione, ed una possibile deportazione. Senza potere fare valere i diritti di difesa e le garanzie della libertà personale previsti dalla Costituzione italiana (a partire dal’art.13 che impone la tempestiva convalida da parte di un giudice di ogni misura di trattenimento amministrativo attuata sotto la giurisdizione italiana) e dalle norme sovranazionali dettate dalle Nazioni Unite a protezione dei richiedenti asilo, e dall’Unione Europea in materia di rimpatri e procedure per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale. E poi, se pensiamo ai migranti soccorsi intercettati nel mare Ionio, ma anche a quelli provenienti dalla Libia o dalla Tunisia, quanti di loro provengono da paesi terzi veramente “sicuri” ? Il governo italiano non può creare una evidente disparità di trattamento tra persone soccorse nel Mediterraneo da navi civili e altre soccorse da navi militari, che per questa sola ragione verrebbero esposte a procedure accelerate in territorio extra-UE, a differenza di quelle sbarcate in Italia,soprattutto se si tratta di persone che non provengono da paesi terzi sicuri, per cui in Italia si prevedono procedure ordinarie e sistemi di prima e seconda accoglienza.

      Non si comprende neppure quali saranno i criteri per “selezionare” i naufraghi soccorsi nel Mediterraneo dalle navi militari italiane, e se queste attività di “trasporto” verso l’Albania riguarderanno anche le navi italiane impegnate nell’operazione europea Eunavfor Med- IRINI, ammesso che svolgano qualche volta attività di salvatagio. Soprattutto non si comprende come le navi militari italiane possano fare fronte, dopo soccorsi di massa in axque internazionali, al trasporto di centinaia di persone verso l’Albania, che rimane alquanto decentrata rispetto alle rotte migratorie che attraversano il Mediterraneo centrale dal nord-africa. Forse si vorranno imporre giorni e giorni di navigazione su imbarcazioni poco adatte al trasporto di naufraghi, o si risoverà tutto nel’ennesimo effetto annuncio ?

      Come è avvenuto anche in passato, il contenuto del Memorandum, e degli accordi che seguiranno, resta avvolto nell’opacità più totale, e tutto sembra rimesso a successive intese operative segrete, che matureranno tra le autorità italiane e quelle albanesi. Ma colpisce immediatamente la portata disumanizzante dell’accordo, se solo si mette in evidenza l’uso pregiudiziale del termine “irregolari”, quando non addirittura “illegali”, per indicare tutte le persone soccorse in mare da navi militari italiane e condotte in Albania, ad eccezione di donne in gravidanza, persone vulnerabili e minori. In palese violazione delle norme interne ed europee che impongono per tutti lo sbarco in un porto sicuro indicato dall’autorità che coordina le attività di ricerca e salvataggio, e comunque riconoscono a tutte le persone, senza differenze a seconda della natura e della nazionalità della nave soccorriitrice, il diritto di chiedere protezione internazionale secondo regole fissate da Direttive e Regolamenti europei, oltre che dalla Convenzione di Ginevra del 1951 in materia di asilo, Regole che non possono essere derogate da un Memorandum d’intesa che, come altri che lo hanno preceduto, nel 2016 con il Sudan (governo Renzi), e nel 2017 (governo Gentiloni) con la Libia, neppure sarà portato all’approvazione del Parlamento, come imporebbe l’art. 80 della Costituzione. Approvazione che del resto, anche quando fosse richiesta, sarebbe probabilmente un ennesimo atto di forza della maggioranza, su una opposizione divisa, come in passato, sul tema, oggi ancora più scottante, degli accordi con i paesi terzi per realizzare le politiche di esternalizzazione dei controlli di frontiera. Ma per Giorgia Meloni, dopo il fallimento del Memorandum d’intesa tra Unione europea e la Tunisia, le difficoltà nei rapporti con i governi libici ancora in conflitto, e la caduta di qualsiasi ipotesi di collaborazione con i paesi africani, il Piano Mattei per l’Africa, rimasto congelato dopo la crisi in Niger, paese che si pensava di utilizzare come partner per operazioni di deportazione, e infine, per la ventata anti-occidentale che si respira in tutti i paesi del Sahel dopo l’esplosione del conflitto in Palestina, occorreva una dimostrazione di forza. Magari l’ennesimo annuncio, di un piano che dovrebbe andare a regime, secondo le intenzioni dei governi non prima della primavera del 2024, giusto in tempo prima delle elezioni europee.

      Per il ministro per gli affari europei Raffaele Fitto, il Memorandum sarebbe “in linea con la priorità accordata alla dimensione esterna della migrazione e con i dieci punti del piano della presidente della Commissione von der Leyen”. Da Bruxelles, un portavoce della Commissione europea all’Adnkronos ha invece affermato: “Siamo stati informati di questo accordo, ma non abbiamo ancora ricevuto informazioni dettagliate: l’accordo operativo deve essere tradotto in legge dall’Italia e ulteriormente implementato. È importante che qualsiasi accordo di questo tipo rispetti pienamente il diritto comunitario e internazionale“. Non si vede come la Commissione europea possa dare sostegno a questo Memorandum d’intesa, anche se l’approssimarsi della scadenza delle elezioni europee potrebbe fare schierare opportunisticamente alcuni leader nazionali(sti) o pezzi della Commisione UE a fianco di Giorgia Meloni. Il riconoscimento dell’Albania come “paese terzo sicuro” non potrà certo legittimare respingimenti collettivi, vietati dall’art. 19 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali del’Unione Europea, pratiche illegali di privazione dela libertà personale o procedure di rimpatrio vietate dalla Direttiva 2008/115/CE, e dalle Direttive n. 32 e 33 del 2013, in materia di procedure e di accoglienza per richiedenti asilo.

      Appare ben strano che un paese aderente all’Unione Europea possa deportare persone soccorse in acque internazionali da proprie navi militari verso un paese che non appartiene all’Unione Europea e che dunque non è soggetto al rispetto degli obblighi e delle garanzie stabilite dalla normativa eurounitaria. Se poi si considerasse il diritto internazionale del mare, le persone soccorse in alto mare dovrebbero essere sbarcate in un porto sicuro nel paese che ha coordinato le attività di ricerca e salvataggio. In ogni caso le attività degli assetti militari in mare, con riferimento al soccorso dei naufraghi ed al contrasto dell’immigrazione irregolare, non possono prescindere dagli obblighi imposti dal Regolamento europeo n.656 del 2014. O, forse, le operazioni di ricerca e soccorso si trasformeranno in attività di intercettazione ed “manovre cinematiche di interposizione”, come quelle condotte poste in essere nel 1997 dal comandante di Nave Sibilla, dopo gli accordi di Prodi con il governo albanese di allora, quando la nave militare italiana, nel tentativo di attuare un maldestro blocco navale, speronava un barcone carico di migranti provenienti dall’Albania, mandandolo a fondo? Ci saranno altri casi simili sotto esame da parte dei Tribunali penali italiani?

      La Corte europea dei diritti dell’Uomo ha già sanzionato l’Italia nel 2014 sul caso Sharifi per i respjgimenti collettivi effettuati verso un paese terzo “sicuro”, come poteva esserlo nel 2009 la Grecia, e sentenze più recenti hanno condannato su diversi casi il nostro paese per trattenimenti informali o “de facto“, senza la tempestiva convalida giurisdizionale imposta in precisi termini temporali, oltre che dall’art. 13 della Costituzione italiana, dagli articoli 5, 6 e 13 della Convenzione europea a salvaguardia dei diritti dell’Uomo. Qualunque forma di detenzione praticata da un paese aderente alla suddetta Convenzione deve avere una espressa previsione legale (riserva di legge), e deve essere convalidata da un giudice davanti al quale ogni persona migrante possa fare valere i suoi diritti di difesa (riserva di giurisdizione). Si prevede la presenza di giudici italiani nei nuovi centri di detenzione che si vorrebbero aprire in Albania “sotto giurisdizione italiana” ?

      Non sembra che il Memorandum d’intesa firmato dalla Meloni e da Edi Rama, alla caccia di appoggi per l’ingresso dell’Albania nell’Unione Europea, abbia tenuto conto di queste regole che, semmai si riuscisse davvero ad applicare quanto annunciato, potrebbero essere lese dalle autorità italiane sotto la cui giurisdizione resterebbero le persone deportate in Albania. E saranno tutte da verificare quali saranno le conseguenze per il traballante governo albanese di un Memorandum d’intesa che rischia di produrre migliaia di persone costrette alla clandestinità in territorio albanese, quando al termine dei trenta giorni di detenzione previsti non potranno essere rimpatriati. Un ennesimo esempio di come gli accordi tra governi possano agevolare le bande criminali che in Albania sono sempre più attive e che potrebbero lucrare sulla clandestinità, che sarebbero meglio contrastate se si garantisse alle persone migranti canali legali di ingresso e il diritto di chiedere asilo in un paese sicuro per davvero, secondo le regole fissate dalle Convenzioni internazionali e dalla normativa dell’Unione europea.

      https://www.osservatoriorepressione.info/migranti-un-protocollo-dintesa-lalbania-opaco-disumano-pri

    • Naufraghi e richiedenti protezione. In collisione con i diritti

      È sbagliato evocare Guantanamo e la detenzione extraterritoriale dei sospetti terroristi negli Usa, ma di certo l’accordo a sorpresa tra Italia e Albania per l’accoglienza di una parte delle persone tratte in salvo dal mare è destinato a far discutere. Il governo Meloni aveva bisogno di riprendere l’iniziativa su un dossier identitario come quello della politica dell’asilo, i cui risultati sono finora rimasti lontani dalle promesse elettorali, e ha servito all’opinione pubblica una soluzione che può presentare come “innovativa”. Ma l’innovazione può entrare in collisione con i diritti sanciti dalla Costituzione italiana e dai trattati europei e internazionali.

      Anzitutto, il patto Meloni-Rama ha un sottofondo post-coloniale, come l’accordo britannico con il Ruanda a cui sembra ispirarsi: un Paese del “Primo mondo”, forte delle sue risorse politiche ed economiche, dirotta su un Paese meno fortunato e più bisognoso di appoggi l’onere di accogliere sul suo territorio i migranti sgraditi. Si immagina paradossalmente che Paesi con meno risorse e istituzioni più fragili possano ricevere degnamente i profughi che da noi sono visti come un problema. Infatti, quasi tradendo il sottotesto punitivo dell’accordo, si prevede che vengano esentati dal trasferimento in Albania donne in gravidanza, minori, soggetti vulnerabili. E il governo non ha esitato a parlare di una misura finalizzata alla deterrenza nei confronti di quelli che si ostina a definire come immigrati illegali, al pari del modello britannico.

      In realtà nel 2022 il 48% dei richiedenti l’asilo ha ottenuto uno status legale in prima istanza, e ad essi si aggiunge il 72% di coloro che hanno presentato un ricorso giurisdizionale. Dunque, rischiamo di mandare in Albania delle persone che hanno diritto all’asilo. Proprio l’esempio britannico mostra che le corti di giustizia, nazionali ed europee, l’hanno finora bloccato, e la capacità di reggere al vaglio della magistratura sarà un arduo banco di prova dell’accordo.

      Qualcosa non quadra poi riguardo ai numeri: si prevede di realizzare due strutture sul territorio albanese, una per l’identificazione allo sbarco, l’altra per l’accoglienza temporanea, con una capacità di 3.000 posti complessivi, e si prevede di trattare complessivamente 36-39.000 profughi all’anno. Si lascia intendere che basteranno quattro settimane per decidere della loro domanda di asilo, mentre oggi il tempo medio è di circa 18 mesi, senza contare la possibilità di ricorso. È probabile che i profughi languiranno a lungo in Albania e che i numeri dei casi trattati rimarranno assai più bassi di quelli annunciati.

      Ma i problemi più spinosi riguardano l’integrazione dei “deportati”. Se otterranno la protezione internazionale, averli lasciati in un Paese terzo non avrà di certo preparato la strada per la loro futura integrazione in Italia, sotto il profilo della possibilità di apprendere e praticare la lingua italiana, di conoscere la società in cui dovranno inserirsi, di orientarsi nel mercato del lavoro e nel sistema dei servizi. Se invece riceveranno un diniego, occorre chiedersi che ne sarà di loro. La bassissima capacità di rimpatrio forzato da parte delle nostre istituzioni (4.304 persone nel 2022), peraltro simili in questo agli altri Paesi europei, è un dato ormai noto. Se ne occuperanno le autorità albanesi? Con quale protezione dei loro diritti umani inalienabili, per esempio il diritto alle cure mediche necessarie e urgenti, o a non morire di fame?

      La politica dell’immigrazione ci ha abituato da tempo a dichiarazioni enfatiche – basti ricordare i più volte annunciati accordi con la Tunisia – e presunte soluzioni che si rivelano inattuabili. Anche l’accordo Italia-Albania rischia ora di entrare nella serie. O meglio: se non sarà attuato, sarà l’ennesima pseudo-ricetta venduta all’opinione pubblica; se dovesse essere attuato, anche solo parzialmente, tratterà soltanto una minoranza dei casi e sferrerà comunque una picconata alla già traballante architettura giuridica dei diritti umani fondamentali.

      https://www.avvenire.it/opinioni/pagine/in-collisione-con-i-diritti

    • Accord migratoire Italie-Albanie : l’#ONU appelle au respect du #droit_international

      L’agence de l’ONU pour les réfugiés (HCR) a appelé mardi au « respect du droit international relatif aux réfugiés » après l’accord signé lundi entre l’Italie et l’Albanie visant à délocaliser dans ce pays l’accueil de migrants sauvés en mer et l’examen de leur demande d’asile.

      « Les modalités de transfert des demandeurs d’asile et des réfugiés doivent respecter le droit international relatif aux réfugiés », a exhorté le HCR dans un communiqué publié à Genève.

      L’accord signé lundi à Rome par la cheffe du gouvernement italien Giorgia Meloni et son homologue albanais Edi Rama prévoit que l’Italie va ouvrir dans ce pays, candidat à l’adhésion à l’UE, deux centres pour accueillir des migrants sauvés en mer afin de « mener rapidement les procédures de traitement des demandes d’asile ou les éventuels rapatriements ».

      Ces deux centres gérés par l’Italie, opérationnels au printemps 2024, pourront accueillir jusqu’à 3.000 migrants, soit environ 39.000 par an selon les prévisions. Les mineurs, les femmes enceintes et les personnes vulnérables ne seraient pas concernés.

      Le HCR, qui dit n’avoir « pas été informé ni consulté sur le contenu de l’accord », estime que « les retours ou les transferts vers des pays tiers sûrs ne peuvent être considérés comme appropriés que si certaines normes sont respectées - en particulier, que ces pays respectent pleinement les droits découlant de la Convention relative au statut des réfugiés et les obligations en matière de droits de l’Homme, et si l’accord contribue à répartir équitablement la responsabilité des réfugiés entre les nations, plutôt que de la déplacer ».

      Un membre du gouvernement italien a précisé mardi que les migrants seraient emmenés directement vers ces centres, sans passer par l’Italie, et que ces structures seraient placées sous l’autorité de Rome en vertu d’« un statut d’extraterritorialité ». Mais de nombreuses questions sur le fonctionnement d’un tel projet restent en suspens.

      L’Italie est confrontée à un afflux de migrants depuis janvier (145.000 contre 88.000 en 2022 sur la même période). Les règles européennes prévoient que d’une manière générale, le premier pays d’entrée d’un migrant dans l’UE est responsable du traitement de sa demande d’asile, et les pays méditerranéens se plaignent de devoir assumer une charge disproportionnée.

      https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/fil-dactualites/071123/accord-migratoire-italie-albanie-l-onu-appelle-au-respect-du-droit-interna

    • Accordo Italia-Albania: un altro patto illegale, un altro tassello della propaganda del governo

      #Fulvio_Vassallo_Paleologo: «Un protocollo opaco, disumano e privo di basi legali»

      “Un’intesa storica”, “È un accordo che arricchisce un’amicizia storica”, “I nostri immigrati in Albania”, “Svolta sugli sbarchi”. E’ un tripudio di frasi altisonanti e di affermazioni risolutive quelle che hanno accompagnato in questi giorni la diffusione del protocollo d’intesa firmato da Meloni e dal primo ministro albanese, Edi Rama, per l’apertura in Albania di due centri italiani per la gestione dei richiedenti asilo. Strutture in cui dovranno essere trattenute persone migranti, ad esclusione di donne e minori, soccorse nel Mediterraneo centrale da navi militari italiane, come quelle della Marina Militare e della Guardia di Finanza.

      Alcuni dettagli dell’operazione sono emersi da un testo (scarica qui) di nove pagine scarse e 14 articoli che indicano come funzioneranno e verranno gestiti i centri. L’accordo ha una durata di cinque anni e sarà rinnovato automaticamente a meno che una delle due parti non comunichi il proprio dissenso entro sei mesi dalla scadenza. In un anno dovrebbero essere accolte-trattenute circa 36.000 persone. I costi, dalle spese di detenzione alla sicurezza interna, saranno tutti in capo all’Italia, mentre l’Albania fornirà gratuitamente gli spazi in cui verranno costruiti i centri: uno al porto di Shengjin, circa 70 chilometri a nord di Tirana, e un altro a Gjader, nell’entroterra. I due centri dovrebbero servire per processare entro 30 giorni le richieste di asilo e per trattenere coloro a cui verrà negata la richiesta di protezione, in vista del rimpatrio nei paesi di origine oppure del probabile invio in Italia. Come ha annunciato Giorgia Meloni “dei due centri, quello al porto si occuperà delle procedure di sbarco e di identificazione con una prima attività di screening mentre il centro che verrà realizzato nell’area più interna sarà una struttura modello Cpr”.
      L’Italia dovrà farsi carico anche di tutte le spese legate alla costruzione dei centri che dovranno essere aperti per la primavera del 2024. Il Post riporta che il sito albanese Gogo.al ha indicato sommariamente dei costi iniziali (vedi il documento diffuso): “l’Italia verserà all’Albania entro 3 mesi un primo fondo pari a 16,5 milioni. Si prevede che oltre 100 milioni di euro saranno congelati in un conto bancario di secondo livello come garanzia”.

      La presidente del Consiglio doveva battere un colpo, dare un messaggio al suo elettorato e alla maggioranza: il “problema immigrazione”, con gli sbarchi che non accennano a diminuire 1 e il flop dell’accordo con la Tunisia, è sempre una priorità della sua agenda politica, a tal punto che è lei stessa, senza coinvolgere nessun altro ministro, a intestarsi l’operazione e dichiarare il nuovo “punto di svolta”. E’ perciò evidente che questo protocollo si inserisce dentro il solco della narrazione mediatica e normativa, dal decreto Piantedosi sulle Ong, al cosiddetto decreto Cutro, fino alla proclamazione dello stato di emergenza dell’11 aprile e alle altre modifiche ai danni di minori e richiedenti asilo, dove vale tutto per raggiungere l’obiettivo dichiarato di ostacolare gli arrivi delle persone migranti.

      Tuttavia, tutti questi tentativi, dall’esternalizzare le frontiere e le procedure di asilo fino a portare fisicamente le persone in Paesi extra Ue, non sono una prerogativa solo del governo Meloni, ma hanno avuto in questi anni diversi promotori e, pur con delle differenze tra loro, una stessa matrice ideologica anti-migranti: per esempio, i respingimenti a catena dall’Italia alla Bosnia-Erzegovina, non hanno poi uno scopo così diverso dagli accordi tra Inghilterra e Ruanda.

      Secondo l’avvocato Fulvio Vassallo Paleologo si tratta dell’ennesimo annuncio propagandistico del governo in quanto il protocollo d’intesa è «opaco, disumano e privo di basi legali».

      «Nulla infatti – fa notare l’esperto di diritto di asilo e immigrazione – è stato comunicato sulle modalità di rimpatrio e sulle autorità che saranno incaricate di eseguire gli accompagnamenti forzati, né su quali autorità effettuano i trasferimenti sotto scorta dai punti di sbarco in Albania ai centri di detenzione “sotto giurisdizione italiana”. Di certo, fin dal momento dello sbarco in Albania i migranti, già ritenuti comunque “illegali”, saranno totalmente privati della libertà personale. Come impone la sentenza n.105/2001 della Corte Costituzionale qualunque procedura di allontanamento forzato attuata da autorità italiane attraverso il trattenimento in un centro di detenzione deve essere convalidata dalla decisione di un giudice. Come sarà possibile realizzare queste garanzie in territorio albanese?», si domanda.

      Nel protocollo – si legge nel testo – le autorità italiane avranno piena responsabilità all’interno dei centri, mentre le autorità albanesi dovranno garantire la sicurezza all’esterno dei centri e durante il trasferimento dei migranti: potranno entrare nei centri solo «in caso di incendio o di altro grave e imminente pericolo che richiede un immediato intervento».

      «La consegna delle persone soccorse in mare alle autorità albanesi – spiega l’esperto – al momento dello sbarco, fino, presumibilmente, all’ingresso nei centri di detenzione, potrebbe costituire una ipotesi di respingimento collettivo analoga a quella riscontrata e condannata dalla Corte europea dei diritti dell’Uomo nel caso Hirsi, quando nel 2009 una motovedetta della Guardia di finanza riconsegnò alle autorità libiche, entrando nel porto di Tripoli, decine di naufraghi soccorsi in acque internazionali (pratica illegale che comunque si protrasse fino al 2010, con trasbordi più discreti in alto mare, piuttosto che con l’ingresso delle unità militari italiane nei porti libici)».

      «In quell’occasione – prosegue Paleologo – la Corte di Strasburgo affermò che sebbene il soccorso fosse avvenuto in acque internazionali, il codice della navigazione italiano, oltre che il diritto internazionale, riconoscono che sulla nave militare in alto mare si applica la giurisdizione dello stato della bandiera. Dunque, in quella occasione, tra il momento in cui i profughi venivano accolti a bordo delle navi italiane e quello in cui gli stessi erano consegnati alle autorità libiche a Tripoli, le autorità italiane avevano esercitato su di essi un controllo de facto che impegnava la responsabilità dello stato italiano per qualunque violazione dei diritti sanciti dalla Convenzione europea. La stessa considerazione potrà valere in futuro quando le autorità italiane consegneranno alle forze di polizia albanese i cittadini stranieri soccorsi in mare da unità militari italiane, ai fini del loro trasferimento forzato e dell’eventuale rimpatrio. Secondo il premier albanese, “chi non ha diritto viene rimpatriato. Ma se l’Italia non riesce a fare i rimpatri dovrà riprenderseli”. La prova più evidente della riduzione delle persone a rifiuti da smaltire, la cifra morale e politica condivisa da Giorgia Meloni e da Edi Rama».

      Anche rispetto la procedura di cosiddetto “sbarco selettivo” tra donne, minori e uomini ci sono diversi problemi di legittimità giuridica in quanto si tratta di una palese violazione delle norme interne ed europee che impongono per tutti lo sbarco in un porto sicuro indicato dall’autorità che coordina le attività di ricerca e salvataggio. Anche su questo punto Paleologo è chiaro: «Il diritto di chiedere protezione internazionale è regolato secondo regole fissate da Direttive e Regolamenti europei, oltre che dalla Convenzione di Ginevra del 1951 in materia di asilo. Regole che non possono essere derogate da un Memorandum d’intesa che, come altri che lo hanno preceduto, nel 2016 con il Sudan (governo Renzi), e nel 2017 (governo Gentiloni) con la Libia, neppure se sarà portato all’approvazione del Parlamento, come imporrebbe l’art. 80 della Costituzione. Approvazione che del resto, anche quando fosse richiesta, sarebbe probabilmente un ennesimo atto di forza della maggioranza, su una opposizione divisa, come in passato, sul tema, oggi ancora più scottante, degli accordi con i paesi terzi per realizzare le politiche di esternalizzazione dei controlli di frontiera».

      Da Bruxelles, la Commissione UE non esclude del tutto la validità dell’accordo, affermando che il caso è diverso dall’accordo Regno Unito-Ruanda, in quanto si applicherebbe alle persone che non hanno ancora raggiunto le coste italiane. Sempre secondo l’avvocato Paleologo «il riconoscimento dell’Albania come “paese terzo sicuro” non potrà certo legittimare respingimenti collettivi, vietati dall’art. 19 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione Europea, pratiche illegali di privazione della libertà personale o procedure di rimpatrio vietate dalla Direttiva 2008/115/CE, e dalle Direttive n. 32 e 33 del 2013, in materia di procedure e di accoglienza per richiedenti asilo.

      Appare ben strano che un paese aderente all’Unione Europea possa deportare persone soccorse in acque internazionali da proprie navi militari verso un paese che non appartiene all’Unione Europea e che dunque non è soggetto al rispetto degli obblighi e delle garanzie stabilite dalla normativa eurounitaria. Se poi si considerasse il diritto internazionale del mare, le persone soccorse in alto mare dovrebbero essere sbarcate in un porto sicuro nel paese che ha coordinato le attività di ricerca e salvataggio».

      «La Corte europea dei diritti dell’Uomo ha già sanzionato l’Italia nel 2014 sul caso Sharifi per i respingimenti collettivi effettuati verso un paese terzo “sicuro”, come poteva esserlo nel 2009 la Grecia, e sentenze più recenti hanno condannato su diversi casi il nostro paese per trattenimenti informali o “de facto“, senza la tempestiva convalida giurisdizionale imposta in precisi termini temporali, oltre che dall’art. 13 della Costituzione italiana, dagli articoli 5, 6 e 13 della Convenzione europea a salvaguardia dei diritti dell’Uomo. Qualunque forma di detenzione praticata da un paese aderente alla suddetta Convenzione deve avere una espressa previsione legale (riserva di legge), e deve essere convalidata da un giudice davanti al quale ogni persona migrante possa fare valere i suoi diritti di difesa (riserva di giurisdizione). Si prevede la presenza di giudici italiani nei nuovi centri di detenzione che si vorrebbero aprire in Albania “sotto giurisdizione italiana”? Non sembra che il Memorandum d’intesa firmato dalla Meloni e da Edi Rama, alla caccia di appoggi per l’ingresso dell’Albania nell’Unione Europea, abbia tenuto conto di queste regole che, semmai si riuscisse davvero ad applicare quanto annunciato, potrebbero essere lese dalle autorità italiane sotto la cui giurisdizione resterebbero le persone deportate in Albania. E saranno tutte da verificare quali saranno le conseguenze per il traballante governo albanese di un Memorandum d’intesa che rischia di produrre migliaia di persone costrette alla clandestinità in territorio albanese, quando al termine dei trenta giorni di detenzione previsti non potranno essere rimpatriati.
      Un ennesimo esempio di come gli accordi tra governi possano agevolare le bande criminali che in Albania sono sempre più attive e che potrebbero lucrare sulla clandestinità, che sarebbero meglio contrastate se si garantisse alle persone migranti canali legali di ingresso e il diritto di chiedere asilo in un paese sicuro per davvero, secondo le regole fissate dalle Convenzioni internazionali e dalla normativa dell’Unione europea», conclude Paleologo.

      https://www.meltingpot.org/2023/11/accordo-italia-albania-un-altro-patto-illegale-un-altro-tassello-della-p

    • L’accordo Italia-Albania sui migranti? Solo propaganda!

      Il nuovo memorandum d’intesa tra Italia e Albania sulla gestione dei migranti? Probabilmente solo un « ennesimo annuncio propagandistico » secondo Fulvio Vassallo Paleologo che firma su ADIF [1] un dettagliato articolo che analizza l’annuncio di Giogia Meloni ( non il provvedimento perché questo non esiste ).

      In altre parole, « per Giorgia Meloni, dopo il fallimento del Memorandum d’intesa tra Unione europea e la Tunisia, le difficoltà nei rapporti con i governi libici ancora in conflitto, il “Piano Mattei per l’Africa”, rimasto congelato dopo la crisi in Niger, paese che si pensava di utilizzare come partner per operazioni di deportazione, e infine, per la ventata anti-occidentale che si respira in tutti i paesi del Sahel dopo l’esplosione del conflitto in Palestina, occorreva una dimostrazione di forza. Magari l’ennesimo annuncio, di un piano che dovrebbe andare a regime, secondo le intenzioni dei governi non prima della primavera del 2024, giusto in tempo prima delle elezioni europee ».

      Possibile che il giurista abbia ragione, ma è anche possibile che il fine sia creare terrore in chi in Italia è già; I CPR, ancor di più se in Albani, sono strumentali a schiavizzare i migranti.

      L’avvocato e attivista pro migranti Fulvio Vassallo Paleologo, nell’articolo solleva pure una serie di perplessità giuridiche del progetto della presidente del consiglio italiano di realizzare un CPR in Albania.

      Una tra queste: « qualunque forma di detenzione praticata da un paese aderente alla Convenzione europea a salvaguardia dei diritti dell’Uomo [e quindi l’Italia, NdR] deve avere una espressa previsione di legge, e deve essere convalidata da un giudice davanti al quale ogni persona migrante possa fare valere i suoi diritti di difesa » [1].

      Come possa assicurarsi, in Albania, la difesa legale del migrante e un procedimento di convalida firmato da un magistrato italiano rappresenta un grande punto interrogativo. « Come sarà possibile realizzare queste garanzie in territorio albanese? », scrive infatti il giurista nell’articolo.

      Precisa poi Fulvio Vassallo Paleologo come « il contenuto del Memorandum, e degli accordi che seguiranno, resta avvolto nell’opacità più totale, e tutto sembra rimesso a successive intese operative segrete, che matureranno tra le autorità italiane e quelle albanesi ».

      Il giudizio finale dell’autore rispetto all’annuncio della Meloni non può, quindi, che essere negativo e drastico: « appare ben strano che un paese aderente all’Unione Europea possa deportare persone soccorse in acque internazionali da proprie navi militari verso un paese che non appartiene all’Unione Europea e che dunque non è soggetto al rispetto degli obblighi e delle garanzie stabilite dalla normativa eurounitaria. Se poi si considerasse il diritto internazionale del mare, le persone soccorse in alto mare dovrebbero essere sbarcate in un porto sicuro nel paese che ha coordinato le attività di ricerca e salvataggio ».

      Tagliente anche il giudizio rispetto alla firma del leader albanese, Edi Rama: « il Memorandum d’intesa rischia di produrre migliaia di persone costrette alla clandestinità in territorio albanese, quando al termine dei trenta giorni di detenzione previsti non potranno essere rimpatriati. Un ennesimo esempio di come gli accordi tra governi possano agevolare le bande criminali che in Albania sono sempre più attive e che potrebbero lucrare sulla clandestinità ».

      La differenza tra la verità di Fulvio Vassallo Paleologo e la propaganda della Meloni, tuttavia, la fanno le “visualizzazioni” del sito ADIF rispetto a quelli di Repubblica, La Stampa, Libero, Il Giornale, La Verità, Il Gazzettino, etc dove l’effetto “annuncio” è passato senza commenti critici.

      Fonti e Note:

      [1] ADIF, 7 novembre 2023, Fulvio Vassallo Paleologo, “Un Protocollo d’intesa con l’Albania, opaco, disumano e privo di basi legali”.

      https://www.pressenza.com/it/2023/11/laccordo-italia-albania-sui-migranti-solo-propaganda

    • Un Protocollo d’intesa con l’Albania, opaco, disumano e privo di basi legali

      Con l’ennesimo annuncio propagandistico del govern si apprende che Giorgia Meloni avrebbe concluso con il premier albanese Edi Rama un Memorandum d’intesa , che prevede – la realizzazione in Albania di due centri per il rimpatrio, che dovrebbero ospitare ogni mese fino a 3000 persone definite “irregolari”, ma solo se soccorse nel Mediterraneo da navi militari italiane, come quelle della Marina Militare e della Guardia di Finanza. Più precisamente, “l’Albania darà possibilità all’Italia di utilizzare alcune aree del territorio albanese dove l’Italia potrà realizzare, a proprie spese, due strutture dove allestire centri per la gestione di migranti illegali. Inizialmente potrà accogliere fino a 3mila persone che rimarranno il tempo necessario per espletare le procedure delle domande di asilo ed eventualmente rimpatrio”. I naufraghi saranno sbarcati a Shengjin e l’Italia si occuperà delle procedure di sbarco e identificazione e realizzerà un “centro di prima accoglienza e screening” a Gjader, che di fatto sarà una “struttura modello Cpr” per le successive procedure. I due centri dovrebbero servire per processare in 28-30 giorni le richieste di asilo e per detenere coloro che si vedranno respinta la richiesta di protezione, in vista del rimpatrio nei paesi di origine. Come ha annunciato Giorgia Meloni “Dei due centri, quello al porto si occuperà delle procedure di sbarco e di identificazione con una prima attività di screening mentre il centro che verrà realizzato nell’area più interna sarà una struttura modello Cpr”.

      Secondo quanto annunciato dalle stesse fonti governative in un anno si penserebbe addirittura di fare transitare in queste nuove strutture detentive, che dovrebbero essere sotto giurisdizione italiana, ma con “sorveglianza esterna” affidata alle autorità albanesi, circa 36.000 persone. Nulla è stato comunicato sulle modalità di rimpatrio e sulle autorità che saranno incaricate di eseguire gli accompagnamenti forzati, nè su quali autorità efettueranno i trasferimenti sotto scorta dai punti di sbarco in Albania ai centri di detenzione “sotto giurisdizione italiana”. Di certo, fin dal momento dello sbarco in Albania i migranti, già ritenuti comunque “illegali”, saranno totalmente privati della libertà personale. Come impone la sentenza n.105/2001 della Corte Costituzionale qualunque procedura di allontanamento forzato attuata da autorità italiane attraverso il trattenimento in un centro di detenzione deve essere convalidata dalla decisione di un giudice. Come sarà possibile realizzare queste garanzie in territorio albanese?

      La consegna delle persone soccorse in mare alle autorità albanesi, al momento dello sbarco, fino, presumibilmente, all’ingresso nei centri di detenzione, che si asserisce sarebbero “sotto giurisdizione italiana” potrebbe costituire una ipotesi di respingimento collettivo analoga a quella riscontrata e condannata dalla Corte europea dei diritti dell’Uomo nel caso Hirsi, quando nel 2009 una motovedetta della Guardia di finanza riconsegno alle autorità libiche, entrando nel porto di Tripoli, decine di naufraghi socorsi in acque internazionali (pratica illegale che comunque si protrasse fino al 2010, con trasbordi più discreti in alto mare, piuttosto che con l’ingresso delle unità militari italiane nei porti libici). In quell’occasione la Corte di Strasburgo affermò che sebbene il soccorso fosse avvenuto in acque internazionali, il codice della navigazione italiano, oltre che il diritto internazionale, riconoscono che sulla nave militare in alto mare si applica la giurisdizione dello stato della bandiera. Dunque, in quella occasione, tra il momento in cui i profughi venivano accolti a bordo delle navi italiane e quello in cui gli stessi erano consegnati alle autorità libiche a Tripoli, le autorità italiane avevano esercitato su di essi un controllo de facto che impegnava la responsabilità dello stato italiano per qualunque violazione dei diritti sanciti dalla Convenzione europea. La stessa considerazione potrà valere in futuro quando le autorità italiane consegneranno alle forze di polizia albanese i cittadini stranieri soccorsi in mare da unità militari italiane, ai fini del loro trasferimento forzato e dell’eventuale rimpatrio. Secondo il premier albanese, “Chi non ha diritto viene rimpatriato. Ma se l’Italia non riesce a fare i rimpatri dovrà riprenderseli”. La prova più evidente della riduzione delle persone a rifiuti da smaltire, la cifra morale e politica condivisa da Giorgia Meloni e da Edi Rama.

      Un progetto impraticabile e privo di basi legali, quanto previsto dal Memorandum sottoscritto dalla Meloni con il premier albanese, alla luce dei tempi previsti per le procedure nei centri di detenzione, e soprattutto a causa delle difficoltà di esecuzione delle misure di allontanamento forzato da tutti i paesi europei, anche per la mancanza di accordi di riammissione tra l’Albania e molti paesi di origine dei naufraghi che, dopo essere soccorsi in mare, dovranno affrontare in stato di detenzione procedure”accelerate” per il riconoscimento di uno status di protezione, ed una possibile deportazione. Senza potere fare valere i diritti di difesa e le garanzie della libertà personale previsti dalla Costituzione italiana (a partire dal’art.13 che impone la tempestiva convalida da parte di un giudice di ogni misura di trattenimento amministrativo attuata sotto la giurisdizione italiana) e dalle norme sovranazionali dettate dalle Nazioni Unite a protezione dei richiedenti asilo, e dall’Unione Europea in materia di rimpatri e procedure per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale. E poi, se pensiamo ai migranti soccorsi intercettati nel mare Ionio, ma anche a quelli provenienti dalla Libia o dalla Tunisia, quanti di loro provengono da paesi terzi veramente “sicuri” ? Il governo italiano non può creare una evidente disparità di trattamento tra persone soccorse nel Mediterraneo da navi civili e altre soccorse da navi militari, che per questa sola ragione verrebbero esposte a procedure accelerate in territorio extra-UE, a differenza di quelle sbarcate in Italia,soprattutto se si tratta di persone che non provengono da paesi terzi sicuri, per cui in Italia si prevedono procedure ordinarie e sistemi di prima e seconda accoglienza.

      Non si comprende neppure quali saranno i criteri per “selezionare” i naufraghi soccorsi nel Mediterraneo dalle navi militari italiane, e se queste attività di “trasporto” verso l’Albania riguarderanno anche le navi italiane impegnate nell’operazione europea Eunavfor Med- IRINI, ammesso che svolgano qualche volta attività di salvatagio. Soprattutto non si comprende come le navi militari italiane possano fare fronte, dopo soccorsi di massa in axque internazionali, al trasporto di centinaia di persone verso l’Albania, che rimane alquanto decentrata rispetto alle rotte migratorie che attraversano il Mediterraneo centrale dal nord-africa. Forse si vorranno imporre giorni e giorni di navigazione su imbarcazioni poco adatte al trasporto di naufraghi, o si risoverà tutto nel’ennesimo effetto annuncio ?

      Come è avvenuto anche in passato, il contenuto del Memorandum, e degli accordi che seguiranno, resta avvolto nell’opacità più totale, e tutto sembra rimesso a successive intese operative segrete, che matureranno tra le autorità italiane e quelle albanesi. Ma colpisce immediatamente la portata disumanizzante dell’accordo, se solo si mette in evidenza l’uso pregiudiziale del termine “irregolari”, quando non addirittura “illegali”, per indicare tutte le persone soccorse in mare da navi militari italiane e condotte in Albania, ad eccezione di donne in gravidanza, persone vulnerabili e minori. In palese violazione delle norme interne ed europee che impongono per tutti lo sbarco in un porto sicuro indicato dall’autorità che coordina le attività di ricerca e salvataggio, e comunque riconoscono a tutte le persone, senza differenze a seconda della natura e della nazionalità della nave soccorriitrice, il diritto di chiedere protezione internazionale secondo regole fissate da Direttive e Regolamenti europei, oltre che dalla Convenzione di Ginevra del 1951 in materia di asilo, Regole che non possono essere derogate da un Memorandum d’intesa che, come altri che lo hanno preceduto, nel 2016 con il Sudan (governo Renzi), e nel 2017 (governo Gentiloni) con la Libia, neppure sarà portato all’approvazione del Parlamento, come imporebbe l’art. 80 della Costituzione. Approvazione che del resto, anche quando fosse richiesta, sarebbe probabilmente un ennesimo atto di forza della maggioranza, su una opposizione divisa, come in passato, sul tema, oggi ancora più scottante, degli accordi con i paesi terzi per realizzare le politiche di esternalizzazione dei controlli di frontiera. Ma per Giorgia Meloni, dopo il fallimento del Memorandum d’intesa tra Unione europea e la Tunisia, le difficoltà nei rapporti con i governi libici ancora in conflitto, e la caduta di qualsiasi ipotesi di collaborazione con i paesi africani, il Piano Mattei per l’Africa, rimasto congelato dopo la crisi in Niger, paese che si pensava di utilizzare come partner per operazioni di deportazione, e infine, per la ventata anti-occidentale che si respira in tutti i paesi del Sahel dopo l’esplosione del conflitto in Palestina, occorreva una dimostrazione di forza. Magari l’ennesimo annuncio, di un piano che dovrebbe andare a regime, secondo le intenzioni dei governi non prima della primavera del 2024, giusto in tempo prima delle elezioni europee.

      Per il ministro per gli affari europei Raffaele Fitto, il Memorandum sarebbe “in linea con la priorità accordata alla dimensione esterna della migrazione e con i dieci punti del piano della presidente della Commissione von der Leyen”. Da Bruxelles, un portavoce della Commissione europea all’Adnkronos ha invece affermato: “Siamo stati informati di questo accordo, ma non abbiamo ancora ricevuto informazioni dettagliate: l’accordo operativo deve essere tradotto in legge dall’Italia e ulteriormente implementato. È importante che qualsiasi accordo di questo tipo rispetti pienamente il diritto comunitario e internazionale“. Non si vede come la Commissione europea possa dare sostegno a questo Memorandum d’intesa, anche se l’approssimarsi della scadenza delle elezioni europee potrebbe fare schierare opportunisticamente alcuni leader nazionali(sti) o pezzi della Commisione UE a fianco di Giorgia Meloni. Il riconoscimento dell’Albania come “paese terzo sicuro” non potrà certo legittimare respingimenti collettivi, vietati dall’art. 19 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali del’Unione Europea, pratiche illegali di privazione dela libertà personale o procedure di rimpatrio vietate dalla Direttiva 2008/115/CE, e dalle Direttive n. 32 e 33 del 2013, in materia di procedure e di accoglienza per richiedenti asilo.

      Appare ben strano che un paese aderente all’Unione Europea possa deportare persone soccorse in acque internazionali da proprie navi militari verso un paese che non appartiene all’Unione Europea e che dunque non è soggetto al rispetto degli obblighi e delle garanzie stabilite dalla normativa eurounitaria. Se poi si considerasse il diritto internazionale del mare, le persone soccorse in alto mare dovrebbero essere sbarcate in un porto sicuro nel paese che ha coordinato le attività di ricerca e salvataggio. In ogni caso le attività degli assetti militari in mare, con riferimento al soccorso dei naufraghi ed al contrasto dell’immigrazione irregolare, non possono prescindere dagli obblighi imposti dal Regolamento europeo n.656 del 2014. O, forse, le operazioni di ricerca e soccorso si trasformeranno in attività di intercettazione ed “manovre cinematiche di interposizione”, come quelle condotte poste in essere nel 1997 dal comandante di Nave Sibilla, dopo gli accordi di Prodi con il governo albanese di allora, quando la nave militare italiana, nel tentativo di attuare un maldestro blocco navale, speronava un barcone carico di migranti provenienti dall’Albania, mandandolo a fondo? Ci saranno altri casi simili sotto esame da parte dei Tribunali penali italiani?

      La Corte europea dei diritti dell’Uomo ha già sanzionato l’Italia nel 2014 sul caso Sharifi per i respjgimenti collettivi effettuati verso un paese terzo “sicuro”, come poteva esserlo nel 2009 la Grecia, e sentenze più recenti hanno condannato su diversi casi il nostro paese per trattenimenti informali o “de facto“, senza la tempestiva convalida giurisdizionale imposta in precisi termini temporali, oltre che dall’art. 13 della Costituzione italiana, dagli articoli 5, 6 e 13 della Convenzione europea a salvaguardia dei diritti dell’Uomo. Qualunque forma di detenzione praticata da un paese aderente alla suddetta Convenzione deve avere una espressa previsione legale (riserva di legge), e deve essere convalidata da un giudice davanti al quale ogni persona migrante possa fare valere i suoi diritti di difesa (riserva di giurisdizione). Si prevede la presenza di giudici italiani nei nuovi centri di detenzione che si vorrebbero aprire in Albania “sotto giurisdizione italiana” ?

      Non sembra che il Memorandum d’intesa firmato dalla Meloni e da Edi Rama, alla caccia di appoggi per l’ingresso dell’Albania nell’Unione Europea, abbia tenuto conto di queste regole che, semmai si riuscisse davvero ad applicare quanto annunciato, potrebbero essere lese dalle autorità italiane sotto la cui giurisdizione resterebbero le persone deportate in Albania. E saranno tutte da verificare quali saranno le conseguenze per il traballante governo albanese di un Memorandum d’intesa che rischia di produrre migliaia di persone costrette alla clandestinità in territorio albanese, quando al termine dei trenta giorni di detenzione previsti non potranno essere rimpatriati. Un ennesimo esempio di come gli accordi tra governi possano agevolare le bande criminali che in Albania sono sempre più attive e che potrebbero lucrare sulla clandestinità, che sarebbero meglio contrastate se si garantisse alle persone migranti canali legali di ingresso e il diritto di chiedere asilo in un paese sicuro per davvero, secondo le regole fissate dalle Convenzioni internazionali e dalla normativa dell’Unione europea.

      https://www.a-dif.org/2023/11/07/un-protocollo-dintesa-con-lalbania-opaco-disumano-e-privo-di-basi-legali

    • Accordo Italia-Albania sui migranti, la UE chiede i dettagli

      L’Italia realizzerà in Albania due centri per la gestione dei migranti che potranno gestire un flusso annuale di 36mila persone. Lo ha dichiarato oggi la premier Giorgia Meloni in conferenza stampa con il primo ministro albanese Edi Rama. Ne parliamo con Genthiola Madhi, ricercatrice di Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso, e con Andrea Spagnolo, professore di Diritto internazionale e umanitario all’Università di Torino.

      https://www.radio24.ilsole24ore.com/programmi/luogo-lontano/puntata/trasmissione-7-novembre-2023-160500-2404283315532563

    • Ecco perché l’accordo tra Italia e Albania è illegale: tutte le procedure che violano il diritto europeo

      Rappresenta il punto più estremo dell’esternalizzazione delle frontiere e del diritto di asilo. Le tutele per le persone bisognose di protezione, invece che garantite, vengono ridotte al minimo.

      Il Protocollo stipulato tra Italia ed Albania “per il rafforzamento della cooperazione in materia migratoria” è il punto finora più estremo (ma, come si vedrà, anche incoerente) a cui l’Italia è giunta nel processo di esternalizzazione delle frontiere e del diritto di asilo.

      Trattandosi di un’intesa avente una chiara natura politica, che richiede oneri finanziari, e che altresì riguarda la condizione giuridica degli stranieri, quindi una materia coperta dalla riserva di legge di cui all’art. 10 co.2 della Costituzione, il Protocollo e i suoi atti attuativi devono essere ratificati dal Parlamento ai sensi dell’art. 80 della Costituzione. Prive di alcun pregio mi sembrano le argomentazioni di chi ritiene che non occorre alcuna ratifica trattandosi di una sorta rinforzo ad accordi pre-esistenti.

      Scopo del Protocollo è quello di trasportare coattivamente in Albania cittadini di paesi terzi per “i quali deve essere accertata la sussistenza o è stata accertata l’insussistenza dei requisiti per l’ingresso, il soggiorno o la residenza” (art.1) in Italia. In Albania, in “aree di proprietà demaniale” (art.1) albanesi, quindi in territorio albanese a tutti gli effetti, nel quale i migranti rimarrebbero confinati “al solo fine di effettuare le procedure di frontiera o di rimpatrio previste dalla normativa italiana ed europea e per il tempo strettamente necessario alle stesse” (art.4.3).

      Il testo non esclude che l’ingresso in Albania avvenga anche in via diversa da quella marittima, quindi riguardi anche persone straniere bloccate sulle vie terrestri, magari nei Balcani, purché tale trasporto avvenga “esclusivamente con i mezzi delle competenti autorità italiane” (art. 4.4). Le autorità italiane assicurano “la permanenza dei migranti all’interno delle aree impedendo la loro uscita non autorizzata” (art. 6.5) e il periodo di permanenza in Albania “non può essere superiore al periodo massimo di trattenimento consentito dalla normativa italiana” (art. 9.1).

      Al termine delle procedure le autorità italiane “provvedono all’allontanamento dei migranti dal territorio albanese” (art. 9) ovvero al rientro in Italia. Molta enfasi è stata posta sul fatto che l’accordo sia finalizzato al trasferimento forzato in Albania dei soccorsi in mare al fine di esaminare le domande di asilo dei naufraghi; tuttavia nel protocollo non c’è alcun riferimento alla procedura di asilo né alla protezione internazionale e le uniche parole che richiamano l’asilo riguardano il rinvio a non meglio definite procedure di frontiera.

      Obiettivo non secondario del protocollo, risulterebbe dunque essere l’utilizzo del territorio albanese per farvi dei centri di detenzione amministrativa per stranieri espulsi dall’Italia, ma che verrebbero trattenuti in Albania al fine di eseguire coattivamente il rimpatrio nel paese di origine. Nonostante il ministro Piantedosi si affanni a dichiarare che non si tratterà di CPR (Centri per il Rimpatrio) il testo del Protocollo dice diversamente.

      Emerge dunque evidente il rischio che l’operazione intenda nascondere una strategia per realizzare CPR inaccessibili, lontani da sguardi indiscreti e da inchieste giornalistiche, liberandosi dell’incubo di dover trovare un luogo dove aprirli in Italia, dove nessun amministratore, di qualsiasi colore politico li vuole. Esaminiamo ora l’ipotesi che il Protocollo venga applicato principalmente a persone soccorse in mare che verrebbero portate in Albania al solo scopo di detenerle e di esaminare le loro domande di asilo.

      Nel testo del protocollo si fa riferimento esplicito all’espletamento delle procedure di frontiera previste dal diritto italiano ed europeo. Prima ancora di verificare se gli standard e le garanzie previste dal diritto dell’Unione possano essere rispettate, ciò che bisogna chiedersi è se sia possibile esaminare le domande di asilo presentate da coloro che vengono deportati dal territorio italiano in cui si trovano (le navi ed altri mezzi delle autorità italiane) nel territorio albanese.

      La risposta non può che essere negativa, dal momento che il diritto dell’Unione sull’asilo (o protezione internazionale) si applica nel territorio degli Stati membri, alle frontiere, nelle zone di transito e nelle acque territoriali. Non si applica al di fuori dell’Unione. Un’applicazione extra-territoriale del diritto dell’UE non pare possibile, come del tutto correttamente messo in luce anche dal documento “Preliminary Comments on the Italy-Albania Deal” pubblicato il 9.11.23 dall’autorevole E.C.R.E. (European Council on Refugees and Exiles).

      Analogo ragionamento vale anche per ciò che attiene l’ipotesi di usare i centri per l’esecuzione del trattenimento degli stranieri espulsi regolato dal diritto dell’Unione con la Direttiva 115/2008/CE. Anche in tal caso non ne risulta possibile alcuna applicazione extra territoriale al di fuori del territorio degli stati membri dell’Unione.

      Va sempre considerato che non ci troviamo di fronte alla questione di come consentire l’accesso alla procedura di asilo da parte di uno straniero che si trova all’estero, e di come si possa esaminare, almeno in fase preliminare, la sua domanda di asilo al fine di consentire un suo successivo ingresso nel territorio di uno stato membro: in altri termini, di come creare delle procedure di ingresso protette a persone con un chiaro bisogno di protezione.

      All’esatto opposto, il protocollo tra Italia e Albania configura una situazione nella quale persone che sono già sotto la giurisdizione italiana, per essere stati soccorsi e trasportati da navi dello Stato, vengono subito dopo tradotte in un paese terzo al solo scopo di impedirne l’ingresso nel territorio nazionale e predeterminare delle condizioni di esame delle domande di asilo con garanzie procedurali ridotte al minimo.

      Ammettiamo ora, come mero esercizio, che si possa sostenere che il diritto dell’Unione sia applicabile all’esame delle domande di asilo in Albania ed esaminiamo le principali questioni che si aprono: la consegna dei migranti dalle mani delle autorità italiane a quelle albanesi, allo sbarco e fino all’ingresso nei centri di detenzione, che, nonostante l’asserita giurisdizione italiana, si trovano in territorio albanese, potrebbe configurare un respingimento collettivo vietato dal diritto dell’Unione Europea. Per i respingimenti collettivi attuati con la Libia nel 2009 l’Italia è stata condannata dalla Corte Europea dei diritti umani il 23.02.2013 nella causa Hirsi Jamaa.

      Nessuna valutazione sulla condizione delle persone salvate in mare può essere condotta a bordo delle navi italiane, e dunque ogni procedura giuridica dovrebbe iniziare in territorio albanese all’interno di centri sotto la giurisdizione italiana (ma anche albanese). La restrizione della libertà personale di coloro che vi verrebbero rinchiusi, per essere conforme all’art. 13 Costituzione, va convalidato dall’autorità giudiziaria con un esame caso per caso a seguito del quale il provvedimento di trattenimento viene convalidato o meno.

      Come garantire dentro il microcosmo del campo a gestione italiana il corretto funzionamento della procedura, tra cui ovviamente il diritto del richiedente che si intende trattenere di essere assistito da un legale italiano di fiducia? In ogni caso deve essere esclusa la possibilità di un trattenimento generalizzato di tutti i richiedenti asilo perché tassativamente vietato dal diritto dell’Unione che vieta agli Stati di applicare misure di limitazione della libertà personale nei confronti dei richiedenti asilo “per il solo fatto di essere un richiedente” (Direttiva 2013/33/UE articolo 7 paragrafo 1).

      Come noto, il diritto dell’Unione prevede che il trattenimento venga disposto solo in casi molto limitati e “salvo se non siano applicabili efficacemente misure alternative meno coercitive” (articolo 8, paragrafo 2), misure che comunque in Albania non sarebbero mai praticabili.

      La larga maggioranza dei richiedenti asilo, sicuramente tutte le situazioni vulnerabili e i minori, ma anche tutti coloro cui non sarebbe applicabile la procedura accelerata di frontiera, non potrebbero dunque in nessun caso essere trattenuti, ma poiché non possono neppure rimanere in Albania al di fuori dal centro, dovrebbero essere trasportati in Italia immediatamente per continuare l’accoglienza e l’esame ordinario della loro domanda di asilo sul territorio nazionale.

      Nei confronti di coloro che rimarrebbero rinchiusi nei centri in Albania va garantito senza eccezioni l’esercizio dei diritti fondamentali, tra cui il diritto di ricevere “le informazioni sulla procedura con riguardo alla situazione particolare del richiedente” nonché di comunicare con “organizzazioni che prestino assistenza legale o altra consulenza ai richiedenti” (Direttiva 2013/32/UE art. 19).

      In caso di diniego il richiedente deve poter pienamente esercitare il suo diritto alla difesa, costituzionalmente garantito (Cost. articolo 24) e ha diritto ad un “ricorso effettivo” (Direttiva 2013/32/UE art. 46 par.1) che per essere tale deve garantire alla persona la libertà di consultare un legale e di sceglierlo.

      Nell’ambito delle procedure accelerate di frontiera il giudice mantiene la possibilità di concedere la sospensiva nelle more della decisione di merito ovvero “autorizzare o meno la permanenza del richiedente nel territorio dello Stato membro” (art.46 par.6 lettera d). Ma, in caso di autorizzazione il richiedente non si trova affatto sul territorio dello Stato membro (!) bensì in Albania, il che comporta l’immediato trasferimento in Italia del richiedente da parte delle autorità italiane e la prosecuzione dell’iter della domanda in Italia.

      Il Protocollo appare dunque un incredibile coacervo di procedure radicalmente illegittime rispetto al diritto dell’Unione vigente e che comunque non potrebbero essere applicate in modo razionale e rispettoso di garanzie procedurali e di tutela dei diritti fondamentali degli stranieri coinvolti, sia che si tratti di naufraghi prima e richiedenti asilo poi, che di stranieri espulsi e poi trattenuti in Albania.

      https://www.unita.it/2023/11/10/ecco-perche-laccordo-tra-italia-e-albania-e-illegale-tutte-le-procedure-che-vi

    • Ancora lui, ancora Edi

      Periodicamente il primo ministro albanese si occupa dei flussi migratori italiani. Ripassare quali siano le sue motivazioni è utile, anche perché questa volta, forse, ha esagerato. Un commento

      Edi Rama governa l’Albania da più di dieci anni. Le prime elezioni le vinse nel 2013, pochi mesi dopo il “siamo arrivati primi ma non abbiamo vinto” di Pierluigi Bersani. Da noi la sinistra pareggiava con un Berlusconi terminale; sull’altra sponda dell’Adriatico, invece, Edi l’artista, Edi il socialista, l’ex sindaco di Tirana che aveva colorato i palazzi, archiviava per sempre la stagione di Sali Berisha. Voltava pagina. “Come sono avanti questi albanesi”, è il qualunquismo mezzo di sinistra e mezzo di disprezzo che da allora dedichiamo ai nostri vicini. E su questa carenza di conoscenza, da più di un decennio, periodicamente, Edi Rama lucra politica. Non lo vediamo perché per vederlo bisogna considerare l’Albania uno stato. E invece per noi l’Albania è un luogo dell’immaginario, e i sogni non sono portatori di interessi. Non lo vediamo, perché la fiction italo-albanese è utile a mascherare la povertà della nostra politica estera.

      L’ultimo gioco di prestigio Rama lo ha regalato lunedì scorso a Palazzo Chigi, questa volta il complice non è stato l’«amico Renzi» (2014), né l’«amico Di Maio» (2021), siccome siamo nel 2023 è stata «l’amica Giorgia Meloni». Non sono certo che commentare il memorandum (https://www.ilpost.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/08/1699429572-Protocollo-Italia-Albania-.pdf?x19465) firmato dai due governi sia utile, non solo perché è evidentemente poco praticabile sul piano pratico e giuridico, ma perché seguo da diversi anni le relazioni tra Italia e Albania e non credo più alle parole che si dicono le due diplomazie. A chi non avesse seguito, basti sapere che nel corso della conferenza stampa (https://www.governo.it/it/articolo/il-presidente-meloni-incontra-il-primo-ministro-della-repubblica-d-albania/24178), la Presidente del Consiglio ha dichiarato che l’Albania “concederà all’Italia alcune zone del suo territorio” (sic!), sulle quali l’Italia potrà realizzare “a proprie spese e sotto la propria giurisdizione” due strutture “per la gestione dei migranti illegali”. Per l’esattezza il governo ipotizza di portare in Albania tremila persone al mese, che dovrebbero rimanere in questi centri durante la domanda di asilo, negata la quale il richiedente verrebbe allontanato dal territorio albanese (non si capisce per andare dove, se si rimpatria dall’Italia o dall’Albania). Flusso complessivo annuale stimato: 36.000 persone. Come alla fine delle pubblicità dei farmaci, Meloni in chiusura ha messo le avvertenze – “Il protocollo disegna la cornice politica, all’accordo dovranno seguire i provvedimenti normativi conseguenti” – e ha fornito una vaga data di inizio progetto: primavera 2024. Tradotto: questo accordo non esiste, è pura propaganda.

      Nulla di nuovo sotto il sole italo-albanese. Qualcosa di simile era già avvenuto nel 2018, quando la crisi della nave Diciotti bloccata da Salvini nel porto di Catania venne “risolta” dai media manager del governo albanese, che promise su twitter l’accoglienza di 20 migranti, venendo immediatamente ripreso dall’account della Farnesina, e quindi da tutte le agenzie stampa. Anche allora i ministri Salvini e Di Maio (il governo era gialloverde) enfatizzarono la condotta del piccolo paese balcanico “più europeo e più solidale degli stati membri”: a sinistra ci si cullò nel sogno di un paese povero ma ospitale, a destra ci si vantò dei frutti dell’intransigenza del ministro degli Interni, che con il suo “no” aveva imposto una redistribuzione, peraltro a un paese che con il suo gesto ripagava finalmente l’accoglienza degli italiani (come se la Lega Nord degli anni Novanta fosse stata accogliente verso gli albanesi). Giorni di dichiarazioni allucinanti e vuote, perché nessun asilante della Diciotti arrivò mai in Albania (https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/aree/Albania/Nessun-asilante-della-Diciotti-e-mai-arrivato-in-Albania-192453), né alcuna autorità si pose mai il problema che ciò accadesse, essendo illegale il trasferimento di un migrante giunto in Ue in uno stato terzo, fuori dal sistema di asilo europeo.

      Ed è proprio qui che la sparata di Meloni supera quella di Salvini: perché per evitare l’obiezione dell’illegalità di un trasferimento forzato fuori dall’Ue, a questo giro si dice che il porto di Shëngjin e le sue strutture saranno “territorio italiano”, e che da quel territorio i migranti dislocati in Albania potranno chiedere asilo all’Italia. Ammesso e non concesso che sia possibile trasportare i migranti intercettati, poniamo, al largo della Sicilia in un porto a 700 km di mare delle rotte del Mediterraneo centrale (non certo l’approdo più vicino imposto dalle Convenzioni internazionali sul soccorso in mare), davvero non si capisce come sia possibile realizzare una Italia extraterritoriale, capace di organizzare un’accoglienza rispettosa del diritto internazionale fuori dai propri confini. Ma sto contravvenendo al buon proposito di non commentare un memorandum che non diventerà mai operativo. Torniamo alla politica, e in particolare alla politica albanese. Perché, ciclicamente, Edi Rama si occupa delle nostre questioni migratorie?

      Per lo stesso motivo per cui nel 2020 sceneggiò di inviare una squadra di infermieri in Lombardia per aiutare le nostre terapie intensive intasate dal Covid-19 (https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/aree/Albania/Dare-un-senso-alla-solidarieta-del-governo-albanese-200768): il video sulla pista dell’aeroporto di Tirana (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYtgeZjtIko

      ), con i poveri medici già inscafandrati è degno della Corea del Nord (per la cronaca, si trattava di ragazzi inesperti, come emerse negli ospedali del bresciano dove vennero dislocati, sostanzialmente per apprendere le tecniche di contrasto al virus, nel momento in cui la pandemia divampava anche in Albania). Nel 2018, come nel 2020 come nel 2023, per Edi Rama l’obiettivo è sempre uno solo: entrare nel flusso narrativo delle vicende europee, accreditarsi tra i partner come leader d’area e dipingere presso le opinioni pubbliche l’Albania come membro di fatto dell’Unione europea. Cose che aiutano a far dimenticare che su ogni singolo dossier dei negoziati di adesione il suo paese arranca.

      La conferenza stampa di Rama e Meloni non ha raccontato l’avvenimento di un fatto diplomatico. È essa stessa il fatto diplomatico. Dinanzi agli italiani, Rama ha offerto a Meloni la possibilità di fingere che l’Italia abbia una politica estera assertiva (una funzione che lo stato albanese ha svolto altre volte nella storia d’Italia), dinanzi agli europei, Meloni ha offerto a Rama ciò che tutti i governi italiani garantiscono a prescindere dal colore politico: il certificato di europeità. “Non solo l’Albania si conferma una nazione amica dell’Italia – ha dichiarato la Presidente – ma anche una nazione amica dell’Unione europea. Nonostante sia solo un paese candidato si comporta già come un paese membro dell’Unione”. Insomma, da dieci anni il copione è lo stesso, ma i nostri governi cambiano ed ereditano il discorso dal precedente, mentre Rama resta e continua ad affinare la sua interpretazione: “Preferisco far riposare il traduttore”, dice prima di sfoderare il suo italiano, con lo sguardo umile di chi vorrebbe fare di più. E poi va dritto al cuore, dritto sul senso di colpa della sinistra, dritto sul complesso di superiorità della destra: “Non avremmo fatto questo accordo con nessuno stato Ue. Il debito che abbiamo con l’Italia non si paga, ma se l’Italia chiama l’Albania c’è. Se ci sono domande bene, se non ci sono firmiamo e andiamo in vita dopo aver fatto il nostro dovere”.

      Da dieci anni, Edi Rama governa il suo paese con i media stranieri e il consenso che miete all’estero, da Bruxelles ad Ankara (perché esiste anche un copione “orientalista” consolidato, ma questa è un’altra storia: https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/aree/Albania/Albania-candidata-all-Europa-o-provincia-ottomana-195112). Oggi in Albania manca una opposizione credibile, sia a livello nazionale che municipale, principalmente perché opporsi non conviene. La criminalità organizzata è scesa a patti con questo nuovo, singolo, potere. La corruzione non dilaga, è endemica, l’unico metodo possibile. Le riforme richieste dall’Ue arrancano, gli albanesi emigrano in massa: senza barconi, ma chiedendo asilo in nord Europa, come gli eritrei della Diciotti.

      Per tutti questi motivi Edi (che è cresciuto a Rai e Mediaset e conosce il potere ipnotico che l’estero esercita sulla periferia albanese e che il ricordo della migrazione albanese esercita su di noi) ogni tanto un giretto in Italia se lo fa. E proprio per questi motivi, proprio perché l’Albania reale, nonostante la nostra cooperazione e le nostre politiche, oggi è un paese così, noi abbiamo bisogno di un’Albania che ci racconti quanto siamo stati bravi. Che ci confermi che stiamo raccogliendo i frutti dell’accoglienza seminata trenta anni fa. Che ci rassicuri sul fatto che sappiamo stare nel Mediterraneo, e che sul Mare Nostrum disponiamo di tavoli e relazioni che ci consentono di farci ascoltare in Europa. Questa volta, forse, l’hanno sparata troppo grossa. La ricorrente bugia italo-albanese è un’impostura morale che interessa a poche persone, ma sta oltrepassando le soglie della sostenibilità. Il risveglio rischia di essere molto brusco.

      https://www.balcanicaucaso.org/aree/Albania/Ancora-lui-ancora-Edi-228139

    • Albania Agrees to Host Centres Processing Migrants to Italy

      Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama has signed an agreement in Rome pledging to host centers that will process the claims of thousands of migrants rescued by Italy at sea.

      Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her Albanian counterpart, Edi Rama, on Monday in Rome signed an important memorandum of understanding under which Albania has agreed to host centres managing thousands of would-be migrants to Italy rescued at sea.

      “Mass illegal immigration is a phenomenon that no EU state can deal with alone, and collaboration between EU states and non-EU states, for now, is fundamental,” Meloni said.

      “The memorandum has three main goals”, she explained; to combat people smuggling and illegal migration, and to welcome only those that have rights to international protection.

      Under the deal, Italy will set up two centres in Albania, which Meloni said in the end might handle “a total annual flow of 36,000 people”.

      Jurisdiction over the centres will be Italian.

      “Albania will grant some areas of territory”, where Italy will create “two structures” for the management of illegal migrants: “they will initially be able to accommodate up to 3,000 people who will remain there for the time needed to process asylum applications and, possibly, for the purposes of repatriation,” said Meloni, Italy’s ANSA news agency reported.

      One centre will be at the northwestern Albanian port of Shëngjin, which will handle disembarkation and identification procedures and where Italy will set up a first reception and screening centre.

      In Gjader, also in north-western Albania, it will set up a second, pre-removal centre, CPR, structure for subsequent procedures, ANSA added.

      The deal does not apply to immigrants arriving on Italian territory but to those rescued in the Mediterranean by Italian official ships – not those rescued by NGOs. It does not apply to minors, pregnant women and vulnerable persons.

      Albania will collaborate on the external surveillance of the centres. A series of protocols will follow that outline the framework. The plan is to make the centres operational in the spring of 2024, Meloni said.

      Since Meloni’s far-right government came into power, one of its priorities has been to reduce the number of people arriving illegally in Italy through the Central Mediterranean or Western Balkan migration routes.

      This goal explains Italy’s renewed political interest in the Balkans. Several top Italian political figures, including Meloni herself and Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani, have been regularly meeting counterparts in Slovenia, Croatia and Albania in the last months. A central point of these meetings has been migration.

      Data published by the Italian Department of Public Safety show that the number of irregular arrivals in Italy in 2023 until November 1, 2023, was 145,314, a 165-per-cent increase compared to 2021, and 64 per cent higher than 2022.

      Albania’s Rama said Albania could not reach a similar agreement with any other country in the EU, citing the unique connections between Albania and Italy and Italians and Albanians.

      Sa far, Albania has had limited capacities to host migrants, most of whom use it as transit country to reach EU countries.

      Rama added that Albania owes the Italian people a debt for “what they did to us from the first day that we arrived on the shores of [Italy] to find support and to imagine and have a better life”.

      After the fall of communism of Albania in 1991, many Albanians fled to Italy’s southern coasts by boat. According to data published in 2021 by the Italian National Institute of Statistic, 230,000 Albanian citizens have acquired Italian citizenship since 1991.

      https://balkaninsight.com/2023/11/06/albania-agrees-to-host-centres-processing-migrants-to-italy

    • Italy-Albania agreement adds to worrying European trend towards externalising asylum procedures

      “The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Italy and Albania on disembarkation and the processing of asylum applications, concluded last week, raises several human rights concerns and adds to a worrying European trend towards the externalisation of asylum responsibilities,” said today the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović.

      “The MoU raises a range of important questions on the impact that its implementation would have for the human rights of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants. These relate, among others, to timely disembarkation, impact on search and rescue operations, fairness of asylum procedures, identification of vulnerable persons, the possibility of automatic detention without an adequate judicial review, detention conditions, access to legal aid, and effective remedies. The MoU creates an ad hoc extra-territorial asylum regime characterised by many legal ambiguities. In practice, the lack of legal certainty will likely undermine crucial human rights safeguards and accountability for violations, resulting in differential treatment between those whose asylum applications will be examined in Albania and those for whom this will happen in Italy.

      The MoU is indicative of a wider drive by Council of Europe member states to pursue various models of externalising asylum as a potential ‘quick fix’ to the complex challenges posed by the arrival of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants. However, externalisation measures significantly increase the risk of exposing refugees, asylum seekers and migrants to human rights violations. The shifting of responsibility across borders by some states also incentivises others to do the same, which risks creating a domino effect that could undermine the European and global system of international protection.

      Ensuring that asylum can be claimed and assessed on member states’ own territories remains a cornerstone of a well-functioning, human rights compliant system that provides protection to those who need it. It is therefore important that member states continue to focus their energy on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of their domestic asylum and reception systems, and that they do not allow the ongoing discussion about externalisation to divert much-needed resources and attention away from this. Similarly, it is crucial that member states ensure that international co-operation efforts prioritise the creation of safe and legal pathways that allow individuals to seek protection in Europe without resorting to dangerous and irregular migration routes.”

      https://www.coe.int/en/web/commissioner/view/-/asset_publisher/ugj3i6qSEkhZ/content/id/261934338

    • German Chancellor Scholz to examine Italy-Albania asylum deal

      The German leader has signalled an openness to study Italy’s recent agreement to hold asylum seekers in centers in Albania. The deal has raised human rights concerns, including from the Council of Europe.

      German Chancellor Scholz has said he will look “closely” at Italy’s plans to establish centers in Albania to hold migrants. Speaking on the sidelines of the congress of European Socialists in the Spanish city of Malaga, he noted that Albania is a candidate for EU membership and that challenges like migration needed to be addressed on a European level, reported Reuters.

      “Bear in mind that Albania will quite soon, in our view, be a member of the EU, implying that we are talking about the question of how can we jointly solve challenges and problems within the European family,” Scholz told reporters on Saturday (November 11).

      The Memorandum of Understanding between the Italian and Albanian governments, announced last week, will see tens of thousands of migrants who were rescued in the Mediterranean housed in closed centers in Albania while authorities assess their asylum requests.

      “Such deals, that have been eyed there, are possible, and we will all look at that very closely,” Scholz stated during the briefing, according to Reuters.

      He emphasized that a clear European course in migration policy was needed “to correct things that have not been right in the past (and) to establish a solidarity mechanism so that not each country on its own has to try and master the challenges alone.”
      ’It becomes less attractive for them to pay big money to smugglers’

      If the Italy-Albania deal is implemented, it would be the first time that such an idea would actually be put in place, Ruud Koopmans, a professor for migration studies and advisor to the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, BAMF, told DW in an interview. He referred to unsuccessful attempts by Denmark and the UK to try something similar in Rwanda.

      From a legal perspective, the Italy-Albania deal could become problematic if people who are rescued on Italian territory instead of in international waters are sent to Albania, Koopmans noted. “When people from the Sahara come to Italy and are then sent to Albania, there is no prior connection to Albania. This could be legally problematic.”

      Koopmans said that it could also become difficult to send people back who are rejected. “…(T)his is not easy in practice, as home countries often do not cooperate and documents are missing. This is a problem that Albania will also face. But if people know that they will have to wait in Albania if they are rejected, it becomes less attractive for them to pay big money to smugglers,” he said.

      Discussions on finding solutions to increasing asylum numbers are gaining momentum, Koopmans said. “More and more countries are looking for solutions. Denmark, Austria, the Netherlands and Germany are having discussions along these lines.” Deals like the Italy-Albania agreement could present an opportunity for countries neighboring the EU, in that they could help their efforts to join the bloc, he added.

      Deal could undermine human rights safeguards, Mijatović

      Italy’s deal has raised concerns among Italy’s opposition as well as rights groups who see it as an attack on the right to asylum. The NGO Emergency said that the deal is “in reality, ...a way to block migrants from arriving on Italian soil – and therefore European soil – to ask for asylum, as required by European and international law. (This is) yet another attack on asylum rights and the provisions of Article 10 of our Constitution.”

      Concerns were also expressed by Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović. She warned that the deal’s legal ambiguities could undermine human rights safeguards and accountability. “The MoU is indicative of a wider drive by Council of Europe member states to pursue various models of externalizing asylum as a potential ’quick fix’ to the complex challenges posed by the arrival of refugees,” she said in a press release on November 13.

      Mijatović urged member states to focus on improving domestic asylum and reception systems and to prioritize safe and legal pathways for protection in Europe.

      Germany announces streamlined asylum process

      The chancellor’s remarks in Malaga came on the heels of an agreement with Germany’s 16 states on a tougher migration policy and increased funding for refugee hosting capacities.

      Faced with an increase in the number of asylum cases filed in Germany, estimated to reach 300,000 this year, the government has announced it will accelerate procedures.

      At all BAMF offices, the procedure for registering asylum seekers now includes photographing and fingerprinting, allowing for immediate data checks to rule out potential multiple identities. The system allows other agencies involved in the asylum process to access biometric data as well, according to BAMF. Arabic names will be transferred into the Latin alphabet to prevent differences in spelling and other mix-ups.

      Furthermore, mobile phone searches will only be conducted on a case-by-case basis, BAMF said, and queries to the Schengen Information System (SIS) will be reduced: if the last SIS search was within 14 days, an additional inquiry is waived.

      A spokesperson from BAMF said that these specific measures would make procedures more efficient, while maintaining high-security standards. The asylum procedure is meant to last 6.7 months on average. However, when considering negative decisions, administrative court proceedings take on average 21.8 months in the first instance, the spokesperson noted.

      https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/53194/german-chancellor-scholz-to-examine-italyalbania-asylum-deal

    • Accordo Italia-Albania, ASGI: è incostituzionale non sottoporlo al Parlamento

      La Costituzione italiana prevede che la ratifica di trattati internazionali spetti al Presidente della Repubblica, previa, quando occorra, l’autorizzazione con legge del Parlamento (art. 87, Cost.).

      Tutti i tipi di trattati internazionali costituiscono una delle fonti del diritto internazionale, la cui efficacia nell’ambito nazionale deriva da un ordine di esecuzione dato per effetto della loro ratifica che fa sorgere l’obbligo internazionale della loro attuazione interna.

      Come ha ricordato il Ministero degli affari esteri nella sua circolare n. 2/2021 del 30 luglio 2021 “quale che sia la loro denominazione formale (trattati, accordi, convenzioni, memorandum, etc.), i trattati internazionali possono essere conclusi tramite documenti a firma congiunta, scambi di note, scambi di lettere o altre modalità, essendo riconosciuto dal diritto internazionale il principio della libertà delle forme.”

      Gli atti per i quali l’art. 80 Cost. prescrive la preventiva legge di autorizzazione alla ratifica sono i «trattati che sono di natura politica, o prevedono arbitrati o regolamenti giudiziari, o importano variazioni del territorio od oneri alle finanze o modificazioni di leggi».

      La dottrina giuridica afferma che si tratti di una forma di controllo democratico della politica estera e di compartecipazione delle Camere al potere estero del Governo. Anche per tale rilevanza politica complessiva l’art. 72, comma 4 Cost. prescrive che i disegni di legge per la ratifica siano esaminati sempre con procedura legislativa ordinaria.

      Inoltre, è bene ricordare che, in generale, qualsiasi norma non costituzionale deve essere interpretata sempre in modo conforme alla Costituzione, sicché anche questo Protocollo deve essere interpretato in modo conforme all’art. 80 Cost.

      Secondo il Governo, tuttavia, il Protocollo italo-albanese in materia di gestione delle migrazioni non deve essere sottoposto a legge di autorizzazione alla ratifica, perché sarebbe l’attuazione del Trattato di amicizia e collaborazione tra la Repubblica italiana e la Repubblica di Albania, con scambio di lettere esplicativo dell’articolo 19, fatto a Roma il 13 ottobre 1995, ratificato e reso esecutivo sulla base della legge 21 maggio 1998, n. 170.

      Tesi giuridicamente infondata, perché l’art. 19 del Trattato del 1995 prevede soltanto che Italia ed Albania “concordano nell’attribuire una importanza, prioritaria ad una stretta ed incisiva collaborazione tra i due Paesi per regolare, nel rispetto della legislazione vigente, i flussi migratori” e che “riconoscono la necessità di controllare i flussi migratori anche attraverso lo sviluppo della cooperazione fra i competenti organi della Repubblica Italiana e della Repubblica di Albania e di concludere a tal fine un accordo organico che regoli anche l’accesso dei cittadini dei due Paesi al mercato del lavoro stagionale, conformemente alla legislazione vigente”.

      Dunque, nel Trattato del 1995 Italia e Albania si sono accordate per concludere successivi protocolli in materia migratoria soltanto per l’ipotesi prevista nell’art. 19 comma 2 e cioè per regolare l’immigrazione albanese in Italia (che infatti è stata poi regolata con due successivi accordi firmati in forma semplificata nel 1997 e nel 2008), mentre le norme che si riferiscono genericamente alla regolazione e al controllo dei flussi migratori alludono a materie del tutto vaghe e suscettibili delle più diverse applicazioni, future e incerte.

      Pertanto, la mera indicazione che si tratti di un Protocollo sulla “cooperazione in materia migratoria” e il richiamo a due precedenti trattati e accordi non possono certo essere lo strumento per eludere l’obbligo derivante dall’art. 80 Cost. per il Governo di presentare alle Camere un apposito disegno di legge di autorizzazione alla ratifica del Protocollo e della futura intesa di attuazione.

      Il Protocollo appena firmato prevede disposizioni molto dettagliate che riguardano proprio i casi in cui l’art. 80 Cost. esige la preventiva legge di autorizzazione alla ratifica, perché:

      – comportano oneri alle finanze, sia perché il Protocollo pone espressamente a carico dell’Italia specifici oneri finanziari, per l’allestimento delle strutture (art. 4, comma 5), per l’erogazione di servizi sanitari (art. 4, comma 9), per la realizzazione delle strutture necessarie al personale albanese addetto alla sicurezza esterna dei centri (art. 5., comma 2), per la riconduzione nei centri da parte delle autorità albanesi di eventuali migranti usciti illegalmente dai centri (art. 6, comma 6) e per l’impiego dei mezzi e delle unità albanesi (art. 8, comma 3) e per eventuali risarcimenti del danno (art. 12, comma 2), cioè per la realizzazione e gestione dei centri, per il relativo personale, per il trasporto da e per l’Albania degli stranieri trattenuti e per la loro assistenza anche sanitaria (a cui dovrà aggiungersi anche la copertura degli oneri connessi al gratuito patrocinio per le spese di difesa degli stranieri, per quelle di interpretariato e per quelle sullo svolgimento dell’attività delle commissioni per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale e dei giudici che convalideranno il trattenimento e che giudicheranno sugli eventuali ricorsi), sia perché il Protocollo prevede specifici contributi, iniziali (16,5 milioni di euro) e una successiva garanzia di 100 milioni di euro, che devono essere erogati dall’Italia all’Albania i cui importi e scadenze sono specificati in un apposito allegato al Protocollo stesso;

      - comportano modificazioni di leggi, perché il Protocolloper essere effettivamente attuato non soltanto prevede espressamente un’intesa successiva (che, dunque, dovrà essere sottoposta alle Camere congiuntamente al Protocollo), ma prevede norme che comportano operazioni amministrative e giudiziarie concernenti stranieri giunti in Italia e che saranno svolte in Albania, cioè norme non previste dalle attuali leggi italiane. Questo significa che il protocollo, per essere attuato, esige implicitamente la modificazione di tante norme legislative vigenti in Italia, che regolano la condizione giuridica degli stranieri che giungono in Italia e che presentano in Italia una domanda per fruire del diritto di asilo nel territorio della Repubblica italiana (e la condizione giuridica dello straniero e le condizioni per il diritto di asilo sono materie coperte da riserva di legge ai sensi dell’art. 10, commi 2 e 3 Cost.). Infatti, in base alle disposizioni del protocollo costoro potranno essere soccorsi da navi italiane, e dunque in territorio italiano, e da qui trasportati poi in Albania per essere sottoposti in territorio albanese a misure restrittive alla libertà personale (e i casi e i modi dei provvedimenti restrittivi della libertà personale sono materie coperte da riserva assoluta di legge e da riserva di giurisdizione previste dall’art. 13 Cost. e dall’art. 5 CEDU); tali restrizioni avverranno mediante provvedimenti disposti e attuati in Albania da autorità italiane in modi che saranno, in tutto o in parte, diversi da quelli già previsti dalle vigenti norme legislative italiane (p. es. occorrerà indicare quale sarà l’autorità di pubblica sicurezza competente dal punto di vista geografico ad adottare i provvedimenti amministrativi di espulsione e i provvedimenti di trattenimento, occorrerà individuare la commissione territoriale competente ad esaminare eventuali domande di protezione internazionale, occorrerà dare una nuova applicazione al concetto di “accompagnamento immediato alla frontiera” di persone che in realtà sono già fuori del territorio italiano, occorrerà stabilire modi e garanzie per interpreti, difensori e stranieri durante lo svolgimento in Albania dei colloqui con le autorità di pubblica sicurezza e con i giudici, occorrerà disciplinare i procedimenti di trasporto degli stranieri da e per i centri albanesi);

      – comportano regolamenti giudiziari che riguardano la giurisdizione italiana, sia relativamente alla sua estensione territoriale e personale (inclusa la regolamentazione di eventuali contenziosi sulla responsabilità civile di ciò che accadrà in Albania che saranno espressamente di competenza dei giudici italiani), sia con riguardo alla effettuazione da parte dei giudici italiani nei centri albanesi dei giudizi di convalida dei trattenimenti e degli eventuali giudizi sui ricorsi contro le eventuali decisioni di diniego e di inammissibilità delle domande di protezione internazionale (occorrerà disciplinare la competenza territoriale del giudice che dovrà giudicare in Albania e le modalità delle notificazioni e dello svolgimento dei giudizi);

      - hanno natura politica, poiché le disposizioni del Protocollo impegnano durevolmente la politica estera italiana, avendo una durata di cinque anni ed essendo state negoziate e stipulate personalmente e pubblicamente dai capi dei Governi dei due Stati e non già da Ministri o da meri funzionari ministeriali, e poiché le premesse del Protocollo espressamente lo motivano con la “comunanza di interessi e di aspirazioni” tra i due Stati e dei due Stati alla prevenzione dei flussi migratori illeciti e della tratta degli esseri umani, e a promuovere la crescente collaborazione bilaterale tra Italia ed Albania “anche nella prospettiva dell’adesione della Repubblica di Albania all’UE”, che è l’evidente interesse principale di tutte le azioni di politica estera del governo albanese. La grande ed evidente politicità dell’accordo è confermata dalle dichiarazioni pubbliche fatte dalla Presidente del Consiglio dei ministri al momento della firma del protocollo davanti al Primo ministro albanese: il Protocollo è stato definito «importantissimo […] che arricchisce un’amicizia storica [e] una cooperazione profonda» tra i due Stati, la «cornice politica e giuridica» della collaborazione tra Italia e Albania e «un accordo di respiro europeo».

      Inoltre, il Protocollo ha per oggetto misure che attengono alle materie della sicurezza e della difesa nazionale. L’attuazione delle disposizioni previste dal Protocollo comporta il trasporto verso l’Albania di stranieri mediante mezzi delle competenti autorità italiane, il che avverrà in modi sostanzialmente forzati, mediante aerei o navi delle Forze armate italiane, le quali hanno già basi in Albania e alle quali il Governo con l’art. 21 del decreto-legge 19 settembre 2023, n. 124 ha affidato la realizzazione dei centri di permanenza per il rimpatrio, dei punti di crisi e dei centri governativi di accoglienza per richiedenti asilo, trattandosi di materie che lo stesso articolo del citato decreto-legge attribuisce espressamente alla materia della difesa e della sicurezza la realizzazione.

      Proprio su queste materie la legge n. 25/1997 (e oggi l’art. 10, comma 1, lett. a) del codice dell’ordinamento militare, emanato con d. lgs. n. 66/2010) ha previsto che tutte le deliberazioni del Governo in materia di sicurezza e di difesa debbano essere sempre approvate dal Parlamento. Ciò comporta che dal 1997 sono sottoposti all’esame delle Camere mediante leggi di autorizzazione alla ratifica anche tutti i tipi di accordi internazionali in materia di sicurezza e di difesa.

      *

      È dunque indispensabile l’esame parlamentare del disegno di legge di autorizzazione alla ratifica di questo protocollo e della sua futura intesa di attuazione e delle norme nazionali che daranno esecuzione nell’ordinamento italiano a questi accordi.

      Va ricordato, infine che:

      – la proposta di legge di autorizzazione alla ratifica non necessariamente deve essere di iniziativa del Governo (la Costituzione non lo prescrive), sicché, come è già accaduto in alcune altre occasioni, in mancanza di una presentazione di un disegno di legge del Governo essa può essere presentata nelle Camere anche da singoli parlamentari;

      – L’Assemblea di ogni Camera ha il potere di presentare alla Corte costituzionale ricorso per conflitto di attribuzioni tra i poteri dello Stato.

      In ogni caso qualora questo Protocollo non sia sottoposto a legge di autorizzazione alla ratifica in conformità con l’art. 80 Cost. non potrà mai essere eseguito, né potrà essere considerato vincolante per l’ordinamento italiano, quale obbligo internazionale ai sensi dell’art. 117, comma 1 Cost.

      https://www.asgi.it/notizie/accordo-italia-albania-asgi-illegittimo-parlamento

    • Nell’intesa Italia-Albania, la continuità deve preoccuparci quanto la novità

      L’accordo spinge la pratica di esternalizzare le frontiere verso direzioni preoccupanti. Dubbi sulla sua effettiva applicabilità

      A più di una settimana dall’annuncio dell’accordo tra Italia e Albania in materia di “gestione dei flussi migratori”, la mossa del governo italiano ha attirato diverse critiche in ambienti giuridici e militanti per le sue implicazioni in termini di diritti umani e di rispetto della legislazione italiana ed europea in materia di asilo.

      Nella consueta propaganda del governo, l’accordo (reso noto soltanto a operazione conclusa) è stato presentato come un successo diplomatico, un accordo “storico” e “innovativo”. Di fronte alle preoccupazioni sollevate da varie voci, la Presidente del Consiglio non è entrata nel merito, limitandosi a dichiararsi “fiera” di questa azione pionieristica, che “può diventare un modello per altre nazioni di collaborazione tra Paesi Ue e extra Ue” 1.

      Il protocollo prevede l’istituzione di due centri (paradossalmente definiti da alcuni media “di accoglienza”) in territorio albanese, ma sottoposti alla giurisdizione italiana: uno per le procedure di identificazione e gestione delle domande di asilo, l’altro per i rimpatri, sul “modello” dei CPR. È previsto un termine di 28 giorni per valutare le domande di ogni richiedente: una velocizzazione dei tempi che sicuramente andrebbe a discapito dell’accuratezza delle raccolte delle prove e delle valutazioni. Per quanto riguarda il “modello” del centro per i rimpatri, è ormai noto quanto gli abusi fisici e psicologici verso i detenuti siano frequenti, e quante morti evitabili sono state causate da questo sistema.

      I dubbi sulla legittimità e le possibili conseguenze dell’accordo sono tanti e fondati. E nonostante alcune affermazioni di approvazione da parte di politici europei per l’esperimento “interessante”, diversi giuristi esperti di migrazioni e diritto d’asilo hanno espresso le loro riserve sull’intesa. Una dichiarazione di ASGI sottolinea le ragioni per cui la mancata approvazione parlamentare di un accordo come questo non può ritenersi legittima. L’intesa prevede infatti disposizioni su alcune materie (finanziarie, scelte di politica estera, modifiche all’ordinamento giuridico) di cui dovrebbe necessariamente rispondere la rappresentanza democratica 2. Nel merito dei contenuti si è ampiamente espresso Fulvio Vassallo Paleologo, avvocato e attivista, descrivendo l’accordo come “privo di basi legali”.

      Un primo elemento di illegittimità è il trasferimento delle persone soccorse dalle navi italiane in territorio extra-europeo. Non si conoscono poi le attribuzioni delle competenze sulle procedure, le modalità dei rimpatri, i criteri per l’attribuzione delle caratteristiche di “vulnerabilità” che impedirebbero il trasferimento di alcune persone tratte in salvo da navi italiane verso l’Albania.

      Critiche sono arrivate anche da alcune organizzazioni non governative. Emergency ha descritto l’accordo come l’ennesimo attacco al diritto di asilo 3. La non appartenenza dell’Albania all’UE significa l’impossibilità di applicare la legge europea all’azione delle autorità albanesi. Inoltre, per i tempi sbrigativi con cui le persone richiedenti asilo sarebbero valutate, potrebbe non esserci spazio per il diritto al ricorso contro la decisione di rifiuto della domanda. In modo analogo, Amnesty International ha condannato l’accordo come “illegale e impraticabile” 4.

      Sia nelle presentazioni istituzionali sia nelle critiche, si è parlato di questo accordo soprattutto in termini di novità, di rottura con il quadro giuridico esistente. Ma è bene anche enfatizzare anche gli aspetti di continuità di questa scelta politica con il passato. Un’opinione autorevole arriva dal Consiglio d’Europa, che nelle parole della Commissaria per i diritti umani Dunja Mijatović esprime la sua preoccupazione per la tendenza crescente in Europa ad esternalizzare le frontiere e le procedure di asilo.

      La dichiarazione mette a punto una serie di fattori ambigui e problematici dell’accordo: “le tempistiche degli sbarchi, l’impatto sulle operazioni di ricerca e salvataggio, l’equità delle procedure di asilo, l’identificazione delle persone vulnerabili, la possibilità automatica di detenzione senza un adeguato controllo giudiziario, le condizioni di detenzione, l’accesso all’assistenza legale e a rimedi effettivi […]. In pratica, la mancanza di certezza giuridica probabilmente comprometterà le garanzie fondamentali per i diritti umani e la responsabilità per le violazioni, determinando un trattamento differenziato tra coloro le cui domande di asilo saranno esaminate in Albania e coloro per i quali ciò avverrà in Italia” 5.

      E sebbene tutte le ambiguità e anomalie implicite nel trattato potrebbero comportarne il fallimento o addirittura l’inapplicabilità, il protocollo d’intesa non fa che aggravare la preoccupante tendenza a esternalizzare le frontiere, ormai consolidata.

      E non è chiaramente una prerogativa esclusiva del governo attuale e delle forze politiche che lo sostengono. Infatti, il memorandum si inserisce perfettamente nel solco di altri accordi, più o meno opachi, che i nostri governi – ma anche altri governi europei e la stessa Unione – sottoscrivono da anni con paesi extra UE. Allora, forse, vale la pena di riflettere su quanto siamo disposti ad accettare, di volta in volta, di sacrificare un pezzo in più dei diritti delle persone in movimento, in una posta al ribasso che ha normalizzato sistemi che producono morte, sfruttamento e torture come inevitabili conseguenze della sacralità dei confini.

      Questa tendenza a esternalizzare tramite accordi con paesi terzi è indice di scarsa democraticità.

      Innanzitutto perché uno strumento come un protocollo d’intesa, o Memorandum of Understanding, è per sua natura “flessibile”. La preferenza sempre più marcata per questo tipo di accordo da parte del governo italiano – si pensi al memorandum con la Libia nel 2017 e con la Tunisia nel 2020 – risponde alle logiche emergenziali con cui sono ormai quasi esclusivamente trattate le questioni legate alle migrazioni.

      Se questo è un vantaggio dal punto di vista del governo, è evidente che la mancanza di controllo sui suoi contenuti e sulla sua eventuale applicazione rappresenta un problema: un memorandum non è legalmente vincolante per le due parti, non è necessariamente sottoposto a ratifiche parlamentare e può essere mantenuto riservato.

      Se si vuole parlare la lingua degli “interessi strategici”, troppo spesso l’unica con cui le istituzioni governative si approcciano alle politiche migratorie, è però una mossa rischiosa e in alcuni casi poco lungimirante. Un paese terzo a cui vengono attribuite determinate prerogative nel controllo dei confini non è un semplice ricettore passivo di politiche neocoloniali. Benché sia evidente che i rapporti di potere sono sbilanciati in favore della controparte europea, è vero anche che accordi di questo tipo hanno dato la possibilità ad alcuni governi di esercitare forme di pressione e influenza. Pressioni che, ovviamente, sono sempre andate a scapito dei diritti delle persone in movimento, usate come merce di scambio per ottenere dei vantaggi. Controlli più serrati si alternano a periodi di “rilascio controllato” dei/delle migranti, a seconda di ciò che il governo appaltante ritiene in quel momento più funzionale ai propri bisogni. È quello che accade ad esempio con Libia, Turchia, Marocco, Tunisia.

      È in questi termini che emerge ancora la continuità con le politiche migratorie degli ultimi decenni. Esternalizzare le frontiere e le procedure permette di sorvolare più di quanto non sia possibile in Italia sulle incombenze giuridiche e burocratiche del sistema di asilo. Ma soprattutto, rende meno visibili le immancabili violazioni associate al sistema di controllo delle migrazioni. Con la creazione di spazi sotto la giurisdizione italiana in un territorio di uno stato terzo, resta da chiarire come sarebbero valutate le responsabilità in caso di carenze gravi nelle strutture, che sono già state riscontrate in moltissime altre strutture europee, e non: sovraffollamento, mancanza di servizi adeguati per i richiedenti, incuria, abusi fisici, somministrazione di psicofarmaci contro la volontà dei soggetti interessati. A chi sarebbe affidata poi la repressione di eventuali rivolte o fughe da parte delle persone detenute?

      Esternalizzare le frontiere ha quindi uno scopo pratico molto preciso: allontanare dal territorio europeo la conoscenza delle sofferenze e degli atti di ribellione delle persone sottoposte al regime delle frontiere, prevenire azioni di monitoraggio e pressioni sul rispetto dei loro diritti da parte della società civile, far svolgere ad altri il lavoro sporco che per cui le istituzioni governative e le forze di polizia europee potrebbero dover essere chiamate a rispondere.

      Sottolineare gli elementi che renderebbero questo accordo illegale e inapplicabile è necessario per prevenire situazioni difficilmente riparabili con gli strumenti a disposizione della legge. Ma potrebbe non bastare: l’esperienza ci ha mostrato come accordi e decreti contrari ad alcuni principi costituzionali e del diritto di asilo abbiano comunque trovato applicazione, soprattutto quando questa è affidata in parte ad autorità di paesi terzi. È fondamentale quindi contestare alle sue radici una gestione emergenziale delle migrazioni, che passa per il solo sistema di asilo senza prevedere canali di ingresso regolari, e che mira a prevenire l’arrivo nel territorio europeo del maggior numero di persone possibile.

      Tweet di Giorgia Meloni: https://twitter.com/GiorgiaMeloni/status/1723027124246708620
      https://www.asgi.it/notizie/accordo-italia-albania-asgi-illegittimo-parlamento
      https://www.emergency.it/comunicati-stampa/laccordo-italia-albania-e-lennesimo-attacco-al-diritto-di-asilo-e-sottende
      https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/11/italy-plan-to-offshore-refugees-and-migrants-in-albania-illegal-and-unworka
      https://www.coe.int/hr/web/commissioner/-/italy-albania-agreement-adds-to-worrying-european-trend-towards-externalising-a

      https://www.meltingpot.org/2023/11/nellintesa-italia-albania-la-continuita-deve-preoccuparci-quanto-la-novi

    • Tavolo Asilo e Immigrazione: appello al Parlamento perché non ratifichi il Protocollo Italia-Albania

      L’accordo getta le basi per la violazione del principio di non respingimento e per l’attuazione di pratiche di detenzione illegittima: alle persone condotte nei centri sarebbe impedito di uscire, senza una chiara base legale e nessuna garanzia del diritto di difesa e a un ricorso effettivo

      Il Tavolo Asilo e Immigrazione chiede che il Protocollo Italia-Albania venga revocato dal Governo e fa fin da ora un appello al Parlamento perché voti contro il disegno di legge di ratifica preannunciato dal Ministro degli Affari Esteri e della Cooperazione Internazionale durante le odierne comunicazioni alla Camera sull’intesa.

      L’accordo firmato con il governo albanese, violando gli obblighi costituzionali e internazionali del nostro Paese, si pone, come quello con la Tunisia, l’obiettivo di esternalizzare le frontiere e il diritto d’asilo.

      L’accordo Italia-Albania, così come delineato, comporta infatti il rischio di gravi violazioni dei diritti umani. Il testo dell’intesa non chiarisce se i centri da realizzarsi in Albania saranno destinati alle procedure di esame delle domande di protezione internazionale e in particolare alle procedure di frontiera o al rimpatrio, ma alle persone condotte nei centri sarebbe impedito di uscire, subendo di fatto un regime di detenzione automatica e prolungata, senza una chiara base legale. Anche la possibilità di controllo giurisdizionale sembra compromessa, così come il diritto di difesa e a un ricorso effettivo. L’Accordo non chiarisce infatti la competenza a convalidare il trattenimento delle persone, né che cosa accadrà alle persone che hanno chiesto protezione internazionale che non ottengano risposta entro i 28 giorni previsti dalla procedura accelerata.

      Infine, desta preoccupazione la mancanza nel Protocollo di qualsiasi riferimento alle persone maggiormente vulnerabili, minori, donne, famiglie, vittime di tortura, e di come queste sarebbero salvaguardate dall’applicazione dell’accordo, così come era stato invece annunciato nei giorni scorsi.

      Per questi motivi le Organizzazioni del Tavolo Asilo e Immigrazione ne hanno chiesto oggi la revoca da parte del Governo durante una conferenza stampa alla quale hanno partecipato anche la Segretaria del Partito Democratico Elly Schlein e il Segretario di +Europa Riccardo Magi, il senatore Graziano Delrio, Presidente del Comitato Parlamentare di controllo sull’attuazione dell’Accordo di Schengen, di vigilanza sull’attività di Europol, di controllo e vigilanza in materia di immigrazione, oltre ai deputati Matteo Mauri, Giuseppe Provenzano e Alfonso Colucci.

      Le associazioni hanno inoltre lanciato un appello al Parlamento perché voti contro il disegno di legge di ratifica preannunciato dal Ministro degli Affari Esteri e della Cooperazione Internazionale durante le odierne comunicazioni alla Camera.

      Per il Tavolo Asilo e Immigrazione

      A Buon Diritto, ACAT, ACLI, ActionAid, Amnesty International Italia, ARCI, ASGI, Casa dei Diritti Sociali, Centro Astalli, CGIL, CIES, CNCA, Commissione Migranti e GPIC Missionari Comboniani Italia, DRC Italia, Emergency, Europasilo, Fondazione Migrantes, Forum per Cambiare l’Ordine delle Cose, Intersos, Medici del Mondo, Medici per i Diritti Umani, Medici Senza Frontiere, Movimento Italiani Senza Cittadinanza, Oxfam Italia, Refugees Welcome Italia, Save the Children Italia, Senza Confine, Società Italiana Medicina delle Migrazioni, UIL, UNIRE

      Aderiscono inoltre

      AOI, Mediterranea Saving Humans, Open Arms, Rivolti ai Balcani, Sea Watch e Sos Mediterranée Italia

      https://www.asgi.it/primo-piano/tavolo-asilo-e-immigrazione-appello-al-parlamento-perche-non-ratifichi-il-proto

    • Italy: Parliament to ratify Albania deal to process asylum seekers

      Both of Italy’s houses of parliament will be given the chance to ratify the country’s new deal to process asylum seekers in Albania. The motion was approved after a debate in the lower house on Tuesday.

      Italy’s Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani spoke to Italy’s lower house on Tuesday (November 21), explaining the Italy-Albania deal to process asylum seekers in more detail, and promising that the deal would be presented as a DDL (proposal of a law) and that both houses would have the chance to ratify it before it proceeds.

      In his long speech to the lower house, Tajani reminded parliamentarians that other similar deals with countries like Libya had not been subject to the same ratification process. Originally the Italian government said that the Italy-Albania deal didn’t need to be either, since it was not a treaty and only treaties needed to be ratified by parliament.

      However, in what the opposition has dubbed a “complete U-turn,” two weeks after the Italy-Albania deal was signed, Tajani has announced that it would be presented as a subject for debate by parliamentarians. The government hopes that the debates and ratification process will be “as quick as possible,” since the deal is meant to begin in just a few months, by spring 2024.
      Deal ’is just one additional instrument’ to manage migration

      Fighting the traffickers is “an absolute priority” for the Italian government, said Tajani during his speech to parliament. Referring to the death of a two-year-old girl during a rescue operation on Monday (November 20), Tajani said “we won’t and shouldn’t get used to these kinds of tragedies that are unfolding along our coasts.”

      He proposes that the Italy-Albania deal is just “one additional instrument” to help Italy manage migration. Tajani said that Italy has worked hard to make migration a central tenet of EU debate, and says that Italy and other members of the bloc are all working hard to “stop irregular migration, fight traffickers and strengthen the external borders of the EU.”

      Although Tajani admitted that the deal was “no panacea”, he said that Italy had “deep and historic ties with Albania” and already had joint teams to stop the trade in drugs and migrants. For the benefit of the parliament, Tajani outlined once again that the deal would be entirely paid for by Italy and was expected to cost €16.5 million initially. This would cover the two centers, one at the port and one about 30 kilometers away.

      The initial center at the port will be where people are registered and fingerprinted. They will then be moved to the reception center, where they will have their asylum requests examined. Anyone whose request is refused would be repatriated from there.
      Not comparable to UK-Rwanda deal, says Tajani

      This is no offshoring deal, said Tajani, disputing the accusations that it was “Italy’s Guantanamo” or anything like the UK-Rwanda deal. The centers will be entirely staffed by Italian personnel, be managed under Italian law, and they will come under the jurisdiction of the Italian courts, said Tajani.

      Italy’s foreign minister underlined that “no vulnerable people, women or children” would be sent to these centers. It will be exclusively to process the asylum requests of non-vulnerable migrants from safe countries, explained Tajani, or those who have already had one claim refused, or people waiting for repatriation.

      There will never be more than 3,000 people in the centers at any one time, promised Tajani. Italy will pay Albania for police patrols outside the centers and for any hospital visits that are required. Tajani also assured parliamentarians that all rights to healthcare and safety would be respected and that the only asylum seekers brought to Albania would be by Italian official boats. NGO rescue ships would not be disembarking people in Albania.
      Keeping it within the ’European family’

      Tajani said that the European Commission had already confirmed that the agreement did not violate EU law, since, as Tajani explained quoting EU Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson, the processing will follow Italian law which is fully in line with European law.

      Several MPs in the debate, including Minister Tajani referenced the fact that the German chancellor had said they would be following the agreement closely and thinking about similar models for their country. According to Tajani, the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said that since Albania will soon be part of the European family, referring to Albania’s European accession process, processing asylum seekers in Albania was about “solving challenges within Europe” and not offshoring.

      Scholz, speaking in Malaga recently, said that the whole bloc was looking to “reduce irregular migration” and said he thought there should be more deals struck like the EU-Turkey 2016 deal, to help Europe manage migration.

      Increasing the legal pathways to Italy

      Nearing the conclusion of his speech, Tajani underlined that any exceptions to adhering to the rule of international law would be straight out “impossible”. Using the Albania agreement as a model, Tajani said the Italian government was seeking to conclude or extend similar deals with other friendly countries, transit countries and countries of origin.

      Tajani promised that the Italian government would also increase the number of legal pathways into Italy. He said in parliament that the new work permits for migrant workers had already been increased to about 150,000 per year from this year to 2025, compared to 82,000 in 2022.

      At the end of the debate in parliament, a majority of 189 to 126 voted to allow the proposal to continue its passage and be put forward as an official proposal of law (DDL), to be examined and ratified by both houses.
      Critics call deal ’illegitimate’ and ask for it to be revoked

      However, the law was not without its critics. During the debate, Riccardo Magi from the Più Europa (More Europe) party said that the deal “did nothing but increase uncertainty and would take away the fundamental right to personal liberty” of people who may be detained under the deal. He added that he didn’t believe that even the ministers proposing the deal believed it would really be doable.”

      On November 20, Amnesty International and 35 other NGOs, which together form the TAI (Tavalo Asilo e Immigrazione – a forum for the discussion of asylum and immigration) have also criticized the deal, calling it “illegitimate” and saying it should be “revoked.”

      The TAI held a press conference on Tuesday (November 21) where they reiterated that in their opinions, the deal violated international obligations and laws. They said that just like the deal with Tunisia, it was an attempt to “externalize the borders and the right to asylum.”

      According to a press release from the TAI, the Italian migration system is “in chaos and continuously violates the law and the rights of welcome and asylum” that under international law they are forced to offer. TAI accuses the Italian government of “making sure it implements practices in the field which just produce emergencies and discomfort.”

      The TAI says that the Italy-Albania deal “risks seriously violating human rights.” They say that once those people are on an Italian boat, they come under Italian jurisdiction, so they can’t then be transferred to another state to have their asylum requests examined.

      The deal, says TAI, goes against the principle of non-refoulement, whereby a person cannot be sent back to a land where they could knowingly be put in danger. The deal also allows for people to be detained illegitimately, claims TAI.

      https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/53392/italy-parliament-to-ratify-albania-deal-to-process-asylum-seekers

    • In Pictures: Sites Where Refugees Will be Hosted In Albania

      BIRN has taken a look at the sites in Albania where a reception centre and a refugee camp will be built in accordance with the controversial agreement reached between the Albanian and Italian governments.

      The agreement was opposed both in Italy and Albania and one of the biggest critics that it received is related to Albania’s capacities to receive 3000 migrants in a month.

      According to the protocol that has been published, a reception centre for migrants will be built inside the Port of Shengjin, in the Lezha area of northern Albania, which will process and register migrants rescued at sea by Italy.

      A second site, which will serve as a refugee camp, will be built in Gjader, a village where a former military air base was built in the 1970s during the communist era.

      Italy’s plan to build migrant centres in Albania has been criticised in both countries, where activists and human rights lawyers have questioned Albania’s capacities to handle the arrangements.

      While the deal has been criticised by human rights experts, lawyers and civil society groups in Italy, in Albania many see it as Prime Minister Edi Rama’s personal initiative, since it was not discussed previously in public.

      The deal allows Italy to set up facilities on Albanian territory for migrants it has rescued at sea, which will accommodate up to 3,000 people at any one time.

      The agreement, which BIRN has seen, although without its annexes, states: “In the event that, for any reason, the [migrant’s] right to stay in the facilities cease to exist”, Italy must immediately transfer these persons out of Albanian territory.

      “Italy will use the port of Shengjin and the Gjader area to establish, at its own expense, two entry and temporary reception facilities for immigrants rescued at sea, capable of accommodating up to 3,000 people, or 39,000 a year, to expedite the processing of asylum applications or potential repatriation”, the text of the protocol notes, adding that jurisdiction over the centres will be Italian.

      “In Shengjin, Italy will handle disembarkation and identification procedures and establish a first reception and screening centre; in Gjader, it will create a model Cpr facility for subsequent procedures. Albania will collaborate with its police forces, for security and surveillance,” it adds.

      https://balkaninsight.com/2023/11/22/in-pictures-sites-where-refugees-will-be-hosted-in-albania
      #photographie #localisation

    • L’intesa con Tirana costerà oltre mezzo miliardo. 142 milioni di euro solo nel 2024

      «Oltre 142 milioni di euro nel 2024, quasi 645 nei cinque anni di validità (prorogabili). È quanto costerà ai contribuenti italiani l’intesa tra la presidente del Consiglio Giorgia Meloni e l’omologo Edi Rama per rinchiudere nei centri di trattenimento in Albania i migranti soccorsi in alto mare dalle navi italiane. Soldi che l’esecutivo è andato a cercare raschiando il fondo del barile degli accantonamenti di quattordici ministeri.»

      https://ilmanifesto.it/tagli-a-universita-e-agricoltura-per-fare-i-centri-in-albania
      #coût

    • The 2023 Italy-Albania protocol on extraterritorial migration management

      In November 2023, the Italian government concluded a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), or Protocol, with the Albanian authorities envisaging extraterritorial migration and asylum management, including detention and asylum processing, in Albania. This Report examines the Protocol in light of EU, regional and international legal standards, and the main responses that it has attracted so far. It concludes that the MoU can be understood as a nationalistic and unilateral arrangement that, while not involving the EU, covers policy areas falling within the scope of European law. The MoU runs contrary to EU constitutive principles enshrined in the Treaties, including the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as international law. It should be regarded as a non-model in migration and asylum policies as it is affected by far-reaching illegality and unfeasibility grounds undermining both its rationale and implementation.

      https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/the-2023-italy-albania-protocol-on-extraterritorial-migration-management
      #extra-territorialité #droit_international #droits_fondamentaux

    • Nouvel avatar de l’externalisation : l’accord Italie-Albanie

      Il y a 20 ans, Plein Droit s’inquiétait des projets européens d’installation, dans des pays non membres de l’Union européenne (UE), de « centres de transit » où seraient enfermées, le temps d’instruire leur demande d’asile, les personnes étrangères ayant franchi illégalement les frontières de l’Union. Évoquant un « cauchemar », l’édito dénonçait l’intention des États membres « de se dégager des responsabilités que la Convention de Genève sur les réfugiés fait peser sur eux », ajoutant : « On devine au prix de quelles pressions, économiques ou non, ces pays accepteront ou se feront imposer ces camps de transit, […] on imagine sans mal l’insécurité à laquelle les demandeurs d’asile seront confrontés, les chantages auxquels ils pourront être soumis de la part des pays condamnés par l’Europe à les accueillir à sa place [1] ».

      Si, depuis, l’externalisation de l’asile a été déclinée de multiples façons [2], le projet de #camps_de_détention situés hors de l’UE, mais juridiquement contrôlés par un État membre, ne s’est jamais concrétisé. Sans doute à cause des #obstacles_juridiques que poserait un tel montage, notamment au regard du respect des droits fondamentaux. Mais aussi parce qu’il suppose de trouver où les implanter : jusqu’ici, les tentatives pour convaincre des pays voisins de se prêter au jeu ont échoué. Lorsqu’en 2018 le Conseil européen a exploré la possibilité de créer, hors du territoire européen, des « #centres_régionaux_de_débarquement » pour y placer des boat people interceptés en Méditerranée, il s’est heurté au refus catégorique des États nord-africains et de l’Union africaine [3].

      Aujourd’hui, le #cauchemar est à nos portes. À la veille de l’adoption du Pacte européen qui entend accélérer la procédure frontalière d’examen des demandes d’asile et renforcer la « dimension externe » de la politique migratoire de l’UE, l’Italie a conclu le 6 novembre, avec l’Albanie, un accord visant à y délocaliser l’accueil de migrants secourus en mer et l’examen des demandes d’asile. Il paraît que c’est au cours de ses vacances en Albanie, l’été dernier, que la cheffe du gouvernement italien Giorgia Meloni a posé les bases de cette « pièce importante » de sa stratégie de lutte contre les flux migratoires. Elle y a trouvé l’oreille attentive de son homologue albanais, Edi Rama, prêt à mettre « gratuitement » à la disposition de l’Italie deux zones au nord du pays pour qu’elle y construise les centres sous administration italienne où seront détenus des migrants interceptés en mer par des navires italiens. Le premier, dans une ville côtière, pour y procéder aux premiers soins, aux opérations d’identification, et instruire les demandes d’asile ; le second, sur une base militaire, pour organiser le #rapatriement des personnes qui ne demandent pas l’asile ou ne seront pas reconnues éligibles à une protection. Aux demandeurs d’asile placés dans ces centres qualifiés d’« extraterritoriaux » serait appliquée la procédure accélérée que la loi italienne prévoit pour les requêtes formées à la frontière. Seuls ceux qui obtiendraient une protection seraient admis au séjour en Italie, les autres devant être expulsés.

      L’accord ne pourra cependant entrer en vigueur avant que la Haute Cour albanaise ne se soit prononcée sur sa #constitutionnalité : les membres de l’opposition qui l’ont saisie contestent cette forme de « vente d’un morceau du territoire albanais » qui conduirait, selon un député du parti Più Europa, à la création d’« une sorte de #Guantanamo italien, en dehors de toute norme internationale, en dehors de l’UE [4] ».

      Là n’est pas le seul problème que soulève l’accord, même si Georgia Meloni aimerait que celui-ci devienne « un modèle à suivre ». Un « modèle » qui suscite les réserves du Haut-Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés (HCR), à aucun moment « informé ni consulté », et que dénonce la Commissaire aux droits de l’Homme du Conseil de l’Europe. Relevant ses « #ambiguïtés_juridiques », celle-ci liste les multiples questions que l’accord soulève en matière d’équité des procédures d’asile, d’identification des personnes vulnérables et des mineurs, de risque de détention automatique sans contrôle juridictionnel, de conditions de détention, d’accès à l’assistance juridique et de recours effectif... Et met en garde contre le recours croissant à l’externalisation, qui pourrait « créer un effet domino susceptible de saper le système européen et mondial de protection internationale [5] ». De leur côté, plusieurs ONG ont déjà mis en évidence l’incompatibilité de l’accord avec la législation européenne – à laquelle l’Italie est tenue de se conformer – en matière d’asile et d’éloignement [6].

      Les institutions de l’UE semblent moins inquiètes. Pas de réaction du côté des gouvernements, sans doute soulagés de voir l’Italie traiter seule le problème des arrivées d’exilé·es sur ses côtes plutôt que d’être rappelés à une « solidarité européenne » à laquelle ils préfèrent se dérober. Quant à la Commission européenne, elle s’est empressée de préciser que « le droit européen n’est pas applicable en dehors du territoire de l’UE » mais que, « étant donné l’appartenance de l’Italie à l’Union et l’adoption obligatoire d’une législation commune, les règles qui s’appliqueront dans les centres albanais seront effectivement de nature européenne et imiteront le cadre qui s’applique sur le sol italien [7] ». Nous voilà rassurés.

      https://www.gisti.org/spip.php?article7170

    • Protocole d’accord Italie/Albanie sur les migrations : une coopération transfrontière contraire au droit international

      La chambre des députés italienne et la Cour suprême albanaise ont approuvé le protocole d’accord sur les migrations conclu en novembre 2023, respectivement les 24 et 29 janvier 2024. Le réseau Migreurop dénonce des manœuvres qui s’inscrivent dans la continuité des politiques de l’Union européenne (UE) et de ses États membres pour externaliser le traitement de la demande de protection internationale.

      Le 6 novembre 2023, l’Italie a conclu un « accord » avec l’Albanie en vue de délocaliser le traitement de la demande d’asile de certain·e·s ressortissant·e·s étranger·ère·s de l’autre côté de ses frontières [1]. Ce protocole, rendu public le 7 novembre, s’appliquerait aux personnes interceptées ou secourues en mer par les autorités italiennes, qui pourraient être débarquées dans les villes côtières albanaises de Shëngjin et de Gjader. Les personnes reconnues « vulnérables » ne seraient pas concernées par cet accord.

      Celui-ci prévoit, d’ici le printemps 2024, la construction de deux camps [2] financés par l’Italie : l’un destiné à l’évaluation de la demande d’asile, l’autre aux « éventuels rapatriements » [3] (autrement dit, aux expulsions). Alors que le Parlement italien n’a pas été sollicité au moment de la conclusion de l’accord [4], ces structures relèveraient pourtant exclusivement de la juridiction italienne. Contre une compensation financière et une avancée dans le processus d’adhésion à l’UE, l’Albanie aurait donné son accord pour « accueillir » 3 000 personnes par mois sur son territoire et assurer une part active dans les activités de sécurité et de surveillance via ses forces de police [5]. Fortement inspiré par le concept australien de « Pacific solution » [6], ce mécanisme placerait les deux camps sous autorité italienne, avec du personnel italien, en vertu d’un statut d’extraterritorialité.

      Certaines institutions européennes se sont dans un premier temps contentées d’appeler au respect du droit national et international. La Commissaire européenne en charge des affaires intérieures a déclaré, une semaine après que l’accord a été rendu public : « L’évaluation préliminaire de notre service juridique est qu’il ne s’agit pas d’une violation de la législation de l’UE, mais que cela est hors de la législation de l’UE » [7]. Une formulation particulièrement ambiguë, qui n’a pas été éclaircie quand elle a ajouté : « l’Italie se conforme à la législation européenne, ce qui signifie que les règles sont les mêmes. Mais d’un point de vue juridique, il ne s’agit pas de la législation européenne, mais de la législation italienne (qui) suit la législation européenne ».

      La Commissaire aux droits de l’Homme du Conseil de l’Europe, a quant à elle rappelé que « la possibilité de déposer une demande d’asile et de la faire examiner sur le territoire des États membres reste une composante indispensable d’un système fiable et respectueux des droits humains », ajoutant que « Le protocole d’accord crée un régime d’asile extraterritorial ad hoc, caractérisé par de nombreuses ambiguïtés juridiques » [8].

      S’il a l’allure d’un accord bilatéral, cet accord s’inscrit dans la continuité de l’externalisation des politiques d’asile menée par les États européens depuis le début des années 2000, se projetant plus ou moins loin des frontières européennes (du Maroc au Rwanda en passant par la Turquie, notamment). De nombreux pays sont en effet tenus de coopérer avec l’UE et ses États membres dans le domaine de l’immigration et de l’asile en échange d’avantages en matière commerciale, de politique étrangère ou d’aide au développement.

      Dans le cas présent, l’Italie, au nom d’un prétendu « partage des responsabilités », pioche dans la mallette à outils à disposition des États pour externaliser le traitement de la demande d’asile. L’Albanie ayant obtenu en 2014 le statut de pays candidat à l’adhésion à l’Union européenne, cette coopération transfrontière représenterait un gage de sa bonne volonté, se donnant ainsi l’image d’être le partenaire-clé des pays européens dans la mise en œuvre de leurs politiques de sélection et de filtrage des personnes étrangères aux frontières extérieures [9]. Cette stratégie utilitariste, mobilisant les personnes en migration comme levier de négociation politique, a déjà été mise en œuvre par le passé à de maintes reprises, et le réseau Migreurop a solidement étayé les effets délétères de tels accords sur les droits des personnes migrantes [10].

      Au-delà de l’opacité et du secret qui a entouré sa conclusion, ce protocole d’accord pose de nombreuses questions :

      Alors même que l’accord ne s’appliquerait pas aux personnes considérées vulnérables, ne peut-on estimer que les personnes rescapées sont de facto vulnérables ? Que le déplacement dans ces centres albanais de personnes rescapées en mer constitue de facto une action qui vulnérabilise ces personnes ?

      Quid du principe de non-refoulement ? En envoyant des personnes en dehors de son territoire, le temps du traitement de la demande d’asile, l’Italie risque de contrevenir au principe de non-refoulement, pourtant énoncé à l’article 33 de la Convention de 1951 relative au statut des réfugiés, qui interdit le retour des réfugiés et des demandeurs d’asile vers des pays où ils risquent d’être persécutés [11].

      En pratique, sa mise en œuvre impactera les droits des personnes selon les conditions du débarquement (qui ne sera donc pas le lieu sûr le plus proche comme le prévoit la réglementation internationale) : qu’en sera-t-il du respect de la procédure de demande d’asile, de l’identification de la vulnérabilité, de l’accès à une assistance juridique ? Elle impactera aussi, ensuite, les conditions dans lesquelles les personnes seront détenues, à l’image de ce qui s’est passé dans les hotspots en Grèce, dans lesquels les personnes étaient prisonnières de camps à ciel ouvert [12].

      Qui sera responsable en cas de violations des droits au sein de ces camps ? Quel droit s’appliquera, le droit italien ou le droit albanais ? Comment pourra être garantie l’effectivité des droits dans un territoire localisé à distance de la juridiction responsable, loin des regards ?

      Selon les termes de cet accord, ni les personnes débarquées par les bateaux d’ONG, ni les personnes arrivées de manière autonome ne devraient être concernées. Comment savoir si les autorités italiennes n’élargiront pas cette procédure à tou·te·s les demandeur·euse·s d’asile ? L’accord ne risque-t-il pas, en outre, de mettre en difficulté les conditions dans lesquelles s’effectueront les opérations de recherche et sauvetage des personnes en détresse en mer ? Le tri entre les personnes reconnues vulnérables et les autres se fera-t-il sur le bateau ou en Albanie ?

      Pour les personnes expulsées, le seront-elles depuis l’Italie ou depuis l’Albanie ? De sérieux doutes se posent au regard des déclarations du Premier ministre albanais affirmant qu’elles incomberaient aux autorités italiennes (alors qu’initialement cette tâche devait être effectuée par l’Albanie).

      La détention aurait lieu durant la procédure frontalière et en vue du retour, mais quid des personnes libérées en Albanie : seront-elles renvoyées vers l’Italie ou un autre État ?

      Cet accord tombe-t-il sous le coup du droit européen ou non ? La Commissaire aux affaires intérieures a laissé planer un doute sur la nature européenne des règles qui s’y appliqueraient. La Commissaire aux droits de l’Homme du Conseil de l’Europe a quant à elle pointé du doigt le risque d’un effet domino « susceptible de saper le système européen » si d’autres États décident eux-aussi de transférer leur responsabilité au-delà des frontières européennes [13].

      Les règles édictées dans l’accord politique sur le pacte européen adoptées le 20 décembre 2023 devront-elles s’appliquer sur le territoire albanais car sous juridiction italienne et donc européenne ?

      Et pour finir, se pose la question du coût exorbitant de ces déplacements de populations, mais aussi celui de l’accord négocié avec l’Albanie pour disposer d’une partie de son territoire national, et du fonctionnement-même de ces camps.

      Pour toutes ces raisons, le réseau Migreurop dénonce un protocole d’accord qui n’aurait jamais dû voir le jour. Et à supposer que le gouvernement italien s’obstine dans cette direction, cela ne peut se faire sans que le droit européen et la protection des droits des personnes soient mis en œuvre et respectés. À commencer par celui de demander l’asile dans de bonnes conditions.

      Les mécanismes d’externalisation à l’œuvre – qui se généralisent – violent le droit international avec la complicité des autorités nationales et la complaisance de certaines institutions européennes. Il est urgent de refuser ce contournement incessant du droit qui, loin des regards, s’inscrit dans la stratégie mortifère de mise à distance des personnes étrangères.

      https://migreurop.org/article3230

  • Sous la pression des libéraux, l’#Allemagne souhaite externaliser le traitement de demandes d’asile en #Afrique

    Le gouvernement allemand a annoncé envisager d’externaliser le #traitement_des_demandes d’asile sur le continent africain, sous la pression des libéraux, membres de la coalition.

    L’Allemagne, à l’instar de tous les pays européens, a vu une augmentation de plus de 70 % des demandes d’asile en 2023 par rapport à l’année dernière. Une tendance à laquelle le FDP, parti libéral membre de la coalition gouvernementale, souhaite remédier.

    La solution ? Envoyer des demandeurs d’asile dans des pays non-membres de l’UE, notamment en Afrique, pour gérer les demandes.

    « J’attends du ministre de l’Intérieur qu’il examine dès que possible comment le traitement des demandes d’asile dans les pays tiers peut être facilité, car c’est ce que nous avons convenu dans notre accord de coalition », a déclaré à Euractiv Ann-Veruschka Jurisch, rapporteure parlementaire du FDP sur la migration.

    La première mesure devrait être prise avant la fin de la législature en 2025, a ajouté Mme Jurisch, renforçant ainsi les demandes du président du groupe du FDP au parlement allemand, Christian Dürr.

    « Cette disposition empêcherait les personnes qui n’ont aucune chance d’obtenir l’asile d’entreprendre la dangereuse traversée de la Méditerranée », a déclaré M. Dürr, le président du groupe FDP au Parlement allemand, mardi (31 octobre).

    Les députés sociaux-démocrates, dont le chancelier #Olaf_Scholz est membre, ont affirmé travailler sur une proposition législative en ce sens.

    Dès mardi, la ministre de l’Intérieur, #Nancy_Faeser, signait en outre un accord avec le #Maroc pour accélérer le #rapatriement des demandeurs d’asile refusés en échange d’une migration légale plus facile vers l’Allemagne.

    Dans le respect des droits humains

    La proposition du FDP rappelle le projet controversé du gouvernement britannique d’envoyer les demandeurs d’asile au Rwanda, projet dont la mise à l’essai, annoncée l’année dernière, avait créé un tollé dans la classe politique.

    Le Royaume-Uni a déjà rencontré des obstacles dans la mise en œuvre de ce programme, la législation étant en cours de révision depuis que la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme a interrompu les vols vers le Rwanda pour des raisons liées aux droits humains.

    Le Royaume-Uni a donc menacé de se retirer de la Convention européenne des droits de l’Homme si la Cour ne statuait pas en sa faveur.

    Selon le FDP, les demandes d’asile pourraient en effet être externalisées « dans le respect de la Convention de Genève et de la Convention européenne des droits de l’Homme », malgré l’existence de gouvernements autoritaires en Afrique du Nord, a déclaré Mme Jurisch.

    « Il est hors de question de quitter la Convention européenne des droits de l’Homme », a-t-elle souligné, se désolidarisant des menaces britanniques. Toute législation viendrait compléter et non supplanter un accord européen en cours d’élaboration sur le traitement des demandes d’asile aux frontières extérieures de l’Union européenne.

    Le gouvernement se rapproche ainsi de la rhétorique plus radicale du parti de centre droit CDU/CSU, le plus grand parti d’opposition. Hendrik Wüst, Premier ministre CDU de l’État régional de Rhénanie-du-Nord–Westphalie et candidat potentiel à la chancellerie en 2025, avait lancé le débat plus tôt dans la journée de mardi (31 octobre) en appelant à transférer le traitement des demandes d’asile à l’étranger.

    M. Wüst a refusé de préciser si un éventuel futur gouvernement CDU prendrait des mesures plus radicales, un porte-parole ayant expliqué à Euractiv que la conception concrète de toute mesure devrait être déterminée par le gouvernement.

    Cependant, le porte-parole a salué les discussions de la coalition avec les pays africains en les décrivant comme « la bonne approche ».

    https://www.euractiv.fr/section/immigration/news/sous-la-pression-des-liberaux-lallemagne-souhaite-externaliser-le-traitemen

    #asile #migrations #réfugiés
    #offshore_asylum_processing #externalisation #Rwanda

    –-

    ajouté à la métaliste sur les différentes tentatives de différentes pays européens d’#externalisation non seulement des contrôles frontaliers, mais aussi de la #procédure_d'asile dans des #pays_tiers
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

  • Austrian government wants to outsource asylum procedures to Africa

    The Austrian government aims to outsource applications for asylum procedures to third states such as Rwanda in a move that would reduce migration significantly, Chancellor #Karl_Nehammer told die Welt on Monday.

    In June, EU countries reached a controversial agreement on a new EU migration deal that would tighten European migration rules to reduce migration into the bloc, such as introducing fast-track asylum procedures at EU borders.

    But Austria wants the EU to go one step further.

    “Austria will continue to do its utmost in the EU to create the political and legal conditions for asylum procedures to be carried out already outside the EU. We will not give in,” Nehammer told die Welt on Monday.

    “Corresponding agreements with third countries are possible, as the example of Rwanda shows – the African country has already reached an agreement with Denmark,” Nehammer added.

    Such a move would reduce migration significantly as migrants would not set foot on European soil in the first place and would “no longer be able to go into hiding in the EU or apply for asylum in several European countries at the same time”, the chancellor said.

    A prime example of this shift is the controversial deal the EU struck with Tunisia in July, which aims to reduce migration flows. “The agreement between Tunisia and the EU on limiting illegal migration is groundbreaking,” he stated in the interview.

    However, the deal with Rwanda may not be entirely legal.

    The United Kingdom agreed with Rwanda to pay more than $152 million in development funding, plus processing and integration costs for asylum seekers from the UK. Those seeking to file for asylum in Britain would be sent to Rwanda, processed, and if approved, they would be granted protection in the African state and not allowed to come to the UK.

    However, the British government’s plan has hit several stumbling blocks, not least a legal decision from one of the country’s top courts, which rejected it as unlawful. It is not known how Vienna’s plan will sit with the country and EU laws.

    While member states have already agreed on their position, the final migration deal has yet to be negotiated with the European Parliament. A majority of EU lawmakers already said they would take a softer approach and will oppose some of the more restrictive positions of the member states.

    https://www.euractiv.com/section/politics/news/austrian-government-to-outsource-asylum-procedures-to-africa
    #Autriche #asile #migrations #réfugiés
    #offshore_asylum_processing #externalisation #procédure_d'asile #Afrique

    –---

    Tentative déjà lancée en 2018 :
    Österreich plant mit einigen EU-Ländern Aufnahmelager außerhalb der EU
    https://seenthis.net/messages/701836

    voir aussi la métaliste sur les tentatives d’autres pays européens d’externaliser la #procédure_d'asile :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

  • UK Home Office plans second flight to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda

    Flight could take off within weeks and before court has ruled on whether scheme is lawful

    The Home Office is planning a second flight to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, which could take off before the courts have ruled on whether the scheme is lawful, the Guardian has learned.

    It is understood that a second flight could take off in a matter of weeks despite the fact that the full high court hearing to examine the government’s Rwanda plans does not begin until 19 July.

    Home Office sources said they would not comment on operational matters or speculation.

    During an earlier high court hearing, the charities Detention Action and Care4Calais, the PCS union that represents about 80% of Home Office Border Force staff, and several individual asylum seekers threatened with removal to Rwanda unsuccessfully made an urgent application to the judge to halt the first flight, which was due to leave on 14 June.

    The flight was subsequently grounded after an interim 11th-hour intervention from the European court of human rights.

    During the court hearing, the judge in the case, Mr Justice Swift, asked the Home Office counsel Mathew Gullick QC whether the Home Office was planning any further flights to Rwanda in the near future.

    Gullick replied: “The Home Office intends to make arrangements for further flights this year. There may be a further flight scheduled between now and July. It will require approval from the Rwandan government.”

    The organisation Stop Deportations posted a message on social media on 24 June stating: “We have heard that the Home Office has started to detain dozens of people to deport them to Rwanda.”

    After the European court interim measure grounded the 14 June flight, the home secretary, Priti Patel, said she was disappointed by the legal challenge, criticised the ECHR ruling and said the policy would continue.

    “We will not be deterred from doing the right thing and delivering our plans to control our nation’s borders,” she said. “Our legal team are reviewing every decision made on this flight and preparation for the next flight begins now.”

    It is understood the Home Office has made submissions to the European court to set aside the interim ruling.

    When the Guardian asked the European court about the procedure when considering such submissions, a spokesperson said: “An interim measure decision can be reviewed at the request of one of the parties. An interim measure would usually only be lifted if the court was satisfied that there was no imminent risk of irreparable harm to the applicant. That test would normally be satisfied in an expulsion case if either a) there was no imminent risk of expulsion, or b) the court was satisfied that if expelled, there would no longer be a real risk of irreparable harm.”

    A Home Office spokesperson said: “We remain committed to our world-leading migration partnership with Rwanda, which will see those arriving dangerously, illegally or unnecessarily into the UK relocated to rebuild their lives. This is vital to prevent loss of life in the Channel and break the business model of people smugglers. Preparations for the next flight are under way.”

    Home Office sources added: “No court has actually ruled that this partnership is unlawful, and that includes the European court of human rights.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/03/uk-home-office-plans-second-flight-to-deport-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda

    #Angleterre #UK #asile #migrations #réfugiés
    #offshore_asylum_processing

    –—

    ajouté à la métaliste sur la mise en place de l’#externalisation des #procédures_d'asile au #Rwanda par l’#Angleterre (2022) :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

  • #métaliste sur la mise en place de l’#externalisation des #procédures_d'asile au #Rwanda par l’#Angleterre
    –-> 2022

    #UK #Royaume-Uni

    –---

    voir aussi la métaliste sur les tentatives de différentes pays européens d’#externalisation non seulement des contrôles frontaliers (https://seenthis.net/messages/731749), mais aussi de la #procédure_d'asile dans des #pays_tiers :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

    #procédure_d'asile #externalisation_de_la_procédure #modèle_australien

  • Priti Patel’s Rwanda plan for UK asylum seekers faces its first legal challenge

    Home secretary is violating international law, the UN refugee convention and data protection rules, say lawyers

    The first legal action has been launched against Priti Patel’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda as the UN’s refugee agency raised concerns that the UK is “inviting” other European countries to adopt the same divisive immigration policy.

    Lodged last Tuesday, the legal challenge states that the home secretary’s proposals run contrary to international law and the UN refugee convention, as well as breaching British data protection law.

    Lawyers believe that the Rwanda plans are a “publicity stunt” to discourage people crossing the Channel in small boats. Patel is refusing to disclose key framework documents explaining which migrants may be eligible to be removed.

    Larry Bottinick, acting UNHCR representative to Britain, told the Observer: “We are worried that they [the British] are inviting all their European counterparts to do the same. I can understand from their perspective why they would do that – it would give such deals more perceived legitimacy if others do the same.” Denmark has already signalled an interest in outsourcing elements of its asylum system to Rwanda.

    Bottinick added that Britain would welcome other countries following suit because it would mean even fewer refugees made it to northern France. He warned: “This would increase the pressures on those states neighbouring conflict areas which are already hosting the great majority of those seeking refuge.”

    The action has been launched by the law firm InstaLaw. The Home Office has three weeks to respond and the process could lead to Patel being challenged in the high court. Stuart Luke, partner at InstaLaw, said their case was based on an Iranian asylum seeker who believes he would face an extremely difficult time if sent to Rwanda. “He could be the only Iranian in the country, there’s no network there, no community, no one who speaks the language. How’s he going to manage, survive? How’s he going to find a job, get educated?” said Luke.

    Initially the Home Office had given assurances that it would not deport him before 10 May – but on Friday the department backed down and said it was not looking to deport him.

    Bottinick said that the UNHCR had “serious concerns” over how the Home Office and Rwanda intended to integrate non-African asylum seekers who formed the vast majority of arrivals in the UK.

    “There will be issues as basic as interpretation for Vietnamese and Albanian speakers. The main arrivals to the UK also include Iranians, Iraqis and Syrians. We have serious concerns about Rwanda’s capacity to integrate these groups.”

    The legal move came as activists accused Patel of “racist” and “inhumane” policies over the Rwanda plan during her appearance at a Conservative party dinner. The home secretary was speaking at a dinner organised by the Bassetlaw Conservatives in Nottinghamshire on Friday when several activists stood on their chairs and denounced her for the policy.

    Footage published on social media shows a woman stand up and tell Patel: “Priti Patel, your racist policies are killing people. Your plans to send people seeking asylum to Rwanda are inhumane and are going to ruin people’s lives.” The woman was booed before being led away. A number of other activists then stood up and made statements.

    A Home Office spokesperson said the agreement with Rwanda would “overhaul our broken asylum system.”

    They added: “It means those arriving dangerously, illegally or unnecessarily can be relocated to have their asylum claims considered and, if recognised as refugees, build their lives there.

    “Our partnership with Rwanda fully complies with international and national law. We will defend any legal challenge robustly.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/07/priti-patels-rwanda-plan-for-uk-asylum-seekers-faces-its-first-legal-ch

    #justice #résistance
    #Angleterre #UK #asile #migrations #réfugiés
    #offshore_asylum_processing #externalisation #Rwanda #procédure_d'asile #pays_tiers

    –---

    Sur cet accord, voir ce fil de discussion :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/957141

    et ajouté à la métaliste sur la mise en place de l’#externalisation des #procédures_d'asile au #Rwanda par l’#Angleterre (2022) :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

    • Rwanda asylum flight cancelled after 11th-hour ECHR intervention

      First flight to Rwanda grounded after lawyers make successful emergency application

      Boris Johnson’s plan to send an inaugural flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda has been abandoned after a dramatic 11th-hour ruling by the European court of human rights.

      Up to seven people who had come to the UK seeking refuge had been expected to be removed to the east African country an hour and a half before the flight was due to take off.

      But a ruling by the ECHR on one of the seven cases allowed lawyers for the other six to make successful last-minute applications.

      The decision is a significant and embarrassing blow for Boris Johnson and his home secretary, Priti Patel, who had promised to start sending thousands of asylum seekers 4,000 miles to the east African country in May.

      It comes hours after the prime minister threatened to take the UK out of the ECHR and accused lawyers of aiding criminals exploiting refugees in the Channel.

      The legality of the Rwanda policy will be tested in a full court hearing next month.

      Responding to the decision, Patel said she was “disappointed” by the legal challenge, made pointed criticisms of the ECHR ruling and said that the policy will continue.

      “We will not be deterred from doing the right thing and delivering our plans to control our nation’s borders,” she said. “Our legal team are reviewing every decision made on this flight and preparation for the next flight begins now.”

      Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said that the government must take responsibility for the failed flight, and indicated that the government does not mind clashing with lawyers and the European courts.

      “Ministers are pursuing a policy they know isn’t workable and that won’t tackle criminal gangs,” she wrote on Twitter last night. “But they still paid Rwanda £120m and hired a jet that hasn’t taken off because they just want a row and someone else to blame.”

      The Rwandan government said on Wednesday it was still committed to taking in asylum seekers sent by the UK. “We are not deterred by these developments. Rwanda remains fully committed to making this partnership work,” government spokeswoman Yolande Makolo told AFP.

      “The current situation of people making dangerous journeys cannot continue as it is causing untold suffering to so many. Rwanda stands ready to receive the migrants when they do arrive and offer them safety and opportunity in our country.”

      The flight, which cost an estimated £500,000, had already been paid for from the public purse, a government source confirmed. The UK government has paid £120m as a downpayment on the Rwanda deal. The government has declined to say how much it has paid in legal costs, and has not said how much it expects to pay for future flights, accommodation and living costs for everyone sent to Rwanda.

      The ECHR examined the case of a 54-year-old Iraqi asylum seeker who crossed the Channel in a boat.

      He claimed asylum in the UK last month citing danger to his life in Iraq. Five days later, he was served with a notice of intent indicating that the Home Office was considering deeming his asylum claim inadmissible and relocating him to Rwanda.

      A doctor at the detention centre issued a report saying that he may have been a victim of torture, it is understood. He was then served with removal directions to Rwanda for 14 June 2022. A letter from the court said that the asylum seeker should not be removed on Tuesday evening.

      The ECHR said it took particular account of evidence that asylum seekers transferred from the UK to Rwanda will not have access to fair and efficient procedures for the determination.

      The decision also cited the ruling by Mr Justice Swift, who on Friday dismissed a request for an urgent injunction temporarily halting the flight.

      A statement from the ECHR said an urgent interim measure was granted in the case of KN, “an asylum seeker facing imminent removal to Rwanda”, v the UK.

      “The European Court has indicated to the UK government that the applicant should not be removed to Rwanda until three weeks after the delivery of the final domestic decision in his ongoing judicial review proceedings,” it said.

      Earlier, the prime minister hinted again that the UK could leave the European convention on human rights to make it easier to remove illegal migrants from the UK.

      Asked whether it was time for the UK to withdraw from the ECHR after the government’s difficulty in implementing its Rwanda policy, the prime minister said: “Will it be necessary to change some laws to help us as we go along? It may very well be.”

      In April, at the launch of the Rwanda policy, Johnson had said that thousands of asylum seekers would be sent away, and that the first flight would leave in May.

      The scheme has been beset with “teething problems”, Johnson has admitted. The number of asylum seekers expected to be sent to Rwanda fell from 130 at the start of last week, to 31 on Friday, to just seven on Tuesday.

      Most successfully lodged appeals claiming that sending those seeking sanctuary in the UK to an east African state with a poor human rights record breaches their human rights or that they have been victims of modern slavery.

      At a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, Johnson also implied that lawyers representing asylum seekers are aiding human traffickers who charge thousands for journeys in dangerous boats across the Channel.

      “They are, I’m afraid, undermining everything that we’re trying to do to support safe and legal routes for people to come to the UK and to oppose the illegal and dangerous routes,” he said.

      He said what the “criminal gangs are doing and what … those who effectively are abetting the work of the criminal gangs are doing, is undermining people’s confidence in the safe and legal system, undermining people’s general acceptance of immigration”.

      Campaigners for refugee rights welcomed the decision and warned that the policy is still being pursued.

      Enver Solomon, CEO of Refugee Council, said the government should have a grown-up conversation with France and the EU about dealing with refugees, particularly in the Channel.

      “Those threatened with removal are people who have escaped war, persecution, torture, and violence – many of whom have only been prevented from flying due to individual legal interventions declaring it a clear breach of their human rights to do so. The Refugee Council has also had to directly intervene to stop young people being removed to Rwanda because they were falsely assessed as adults.

      “Government claims that this deal would act as a deterrent to end the model of people-traffickers, have already been disproven with the numbers of people travelling across the channel almost doubling on the same time last year. We always knew these measures would do little to stop desperate people making dangerous journeys to the UK, because they do absolutely nothing to address the reasons people come.”

      Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services union, said: “We’re pleased the courts have ruled to stop this flight. It’s time for the government to stop this inhumane policy which is the basest of gesture politics and start to engage seriously with sorting out the asylum system so those who come to our country seeking refuge are treated fairly and according to the law.”

      Makolo, the Rwandan government spokesperson, told a press conference in Kigali on Tuesday that there were “misconceptions” about what Rwanda was like and “some of this is perpetuated by the media”.

      “When the first flights land here in Kigali the new arrivals will be welcomed and looked after and supported to make new lives here. We will provide support with their asylum applications, including legal support, translation services and we will provide decent accommodation.”

      Downing Street justified the estimated £500,000 expense of the flight, saying that immigration costs the UK taxpayer £1.5bn every year already, with almost £5m a day on accommodating asylum seekers in hotels.

      On Monday, 138 people reached the UK in three boats, while more than 200 arrived on Tuesday, with more than 10,000 migrants recorded as making the journey so far this year.

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/14/european-court-humam-right-makes-11th-hour-intervention-in-rwanda-asylu

      #CEDH #CourEDH #justice

  • Denmark in talks with #Rwanda on transfer of asylum-seekers

    Denmark is in talks with Rwanda about setting up a new procedure for transferring asylum seekers to the East African nation, mirroring a similar move by Britain announced last week.

    A deal with Rwanda would make Denmark the first European Union member to effectively bypass the bloc’s fragmented migration and asylum system.

    “Our dialogue with the Rwandan government includes a mechanism for the transfer of asylum seekers,” Immigration Minister Mattias Tesfaye told Reuters on Wednesday.

    The deal would aim to “ensure a more dignified approach than the criminal network of human traffickers that characterises migration across the Mediterranean today,” he added.

    Denmark, which has introduced increasingly harsh immigration policies in the last decade, passed a law last year that allows refugees arriving on Danish soil to be moved to asylum centres in a partner country. read more: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/denmark-agrees-law-deport-asylum-seekers-outside-europe-2021-06-03

    The move drew criticism from human rights advocates, the United Nations and the European Commission but Denmark failed to find a partner country at that time.

    Last week, Britain announced it planned to relocate asylum seekers to Rwanda in a move aimed at smashing people-smuggling networks and stemming the flow of migrants. read more: https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-johnson-seeks-put-fine-behind-him-with-immigration-plan-2022-04-13

    Over the last year, Denmark has approached countries both in and outside the European Union about a potential asylum deal, including Tunisia and Ethiopia. Denmark also signed a diplomatic agreement with Rwanda last year on asylum and political matters.

    The EU Commission has said relocating refugees outside Europe is “not possible” under current EU rules but Denmark is exempt from some EU rules, including asylum standards, due to an opt-out.

    EU countries have previously discussed setting up external centres to receive refugees in 2016-18 after a spike in Mediterranean arrivals, but legal, humanitarian, political, safety and financial concerns eclipsed the proposals back then.

    Sending asylum seekers abroad for processing is “both irresponsible and lacking in solidarity”, the Danish Refugee Council, an NGO, said in a statement.

    Denmark has not yet struck a deal with Rwanda, Tesfaye said, but immigration speakers in parliament had been summoned to a meeting on the matter on Thursday next week. The government needs parliamentary backing for a potential deal with Rwanda.

    https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/denmark-talks-with-rwanda-transfer-asylum-seekers-2022-04-20

    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #offshore_asylum_processing #Danemark

    –-

    ajouté à la métaliste sur les différentes tentatives de différentes pays européens d’#externalisation de la #procédure_d'asile dans des #pays_tiers :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

    • Denmark Opens Rwanda Office as Part of New Asylum Center Plan

      Denmark will open an office in Rwanda as the Nordic country seeks to set up an asylum center outside of the European Union to reduce the number people seeking refuge.

      The office, which will be manned by two diplomats, will be based in the capital of Kigali, the Danish foreign ministry said in a statement on Thursday.

      In the UK, plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda have spurred a long-running legal spat and the issue has become a theme for the Conservative Party leadership candidates.

      In Denmark, the minority Social Democrat government has faced opposition from its support parties in parliament over its goal to send asylum seekers to a center outside of the EU. It’s not certain it will be able to go through with the plan.

      Last year, Denmark signed a deal with Rwanda to help fund the African country’s asylum system, but the two sides stopped short of agreeing to set up a center for people seeking refuge in the Scandinavian nation that has some of Europe’s strictest immigration policies.

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-18/denmark-opens-rwanda-office-as-part-of-new-asylum-center-plan

    • Le Danemark renonce à sous-traiter les demandes d’asile... pour le moment

      Alors que le pays avait voté, en juin 2021, une loi visant à délocaliser les exilés présents sur son sol dans un pays tiers, le temps d’y examiner leur demande d’asile, le gouvernement a rétropédalé. Il compte sur une « approche plus large » de l’Union européenne pour s’y aligner.

      C’est devenu un sujet récurrent en Europe. L’externalisation des demandes d’asile, c’est-à-dire la possibilité pour un État d’envoyer des personnes en recherche de protection, arrivées sur son sol, dans un pays tiers pour que leur demande y soit traitée, semble avoir le vent en poupe.

      Le Royaume-Uni n’a pas tardé, après le Brexit, à chercher à mettre en place un tel système, notamment pour freiner les arrivées de migrants, de plus en plus nombreux à tenter la traversée de la Manche pour rejoindre son territoire.

      Dans le même temps, le Danemark a suivi la même logique et voté, en juin 2021, une loi permettant l’externalisation de ses demandes d’asile, tout en assumant de vouloir opter pour une politique « zéro réfugié » – des efforts paraissant risibles dans un pays qui enregistre quelques milliers de demandes d’asile par an et où les réfugié·es représentent seulement 1 % des étrangers obtenant un permis de séjour (les chiffres ont d’ailleurs atteint un niveau historiquement bas en 2022).

      Le projet de loi avait été adopté à une forte majorité par le Parlement danois et se voulait, selon le gouvernement social-démocrate de l’époque, « humanitaire », arguant qu’il empêcherait les exilé·es de tenter le « dangereux voyage à travers la Méditerranée pour atteindre l’Europe » et qu’il contrarierait le très lucratif business des passeurs – les mêmes arguments avancés par le Royaume-Uni.

      Oui mais voilà. Le Danemark vient de reculer. Son nouveau gouvernement, alliant sociaux-démocrates et libéraux, dit vouloir « maintenir l’ambition » du projet mais souhaite opter pour un « processus différent », rapporte l’AFP. Dans un entretien à Altinget, un quotidien danois, le ministre des migrations, Kaare Dybvad, a exprimé mercredi 25 janvier le souhait de voir naître, « en coopération avec l’Union européenne ou un certain nombre d’autres pays », un centre d’accueil en dehors de l’Europe visant à recevoir les demandeurs d’asile le temps du traitement de leur demande, voire au-delà, une fois leur demande acceptée.

      « Si l’approche plus large a également du sens pour nous, c’est précisément parce qu’il y a du mouvement au sein de nombreux pays européens, a déclaré le ministre. Nombreux sont ceux qui commencent à pousser pour obtenir une politique d’asile plus stricte en Europe. » Mais il prévient, un peu plus loin : « Que nous finissions par le faire nous-mêmes parce que l’autre voie s’avère être une impasse est toujours une possibilité. » Tant pis si le projet va à l’encontre du droit international et de la Convention relative aux réfugiés.

      Un projet pas si simple

      Sans doute le Danemark a-t-il été échaudé, aussi, par la démarche du Royaume-Uni, qui a connu de multiples rebondissements ces derniers mois : alors qu’un avion était prêt à décoller en juin dernier avec à son bord les premiers cobayes de cette externalisation de l’asile, la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH), saisie par des ONG, a cloué l’engin au sol par une décision rendue in extremis.

      Celle-ci estimait que les autorités britanniques devaient d’abord garantir des procédures « équitables et efficaces » aux demandeurs d’asile qui seraient expédiés au Rwanda, pays avec lequel le Royaume-Uni a signé un accord en avril 2022 pour mettre en place son « plan », et s’assurer que le pays pouvait être considéré comme « sûr ».

      Dans le même temps, la justice britannique, qui devait se prononcer sur la légalité du projet, a validé en décembre l’accord (informel) signé par Londres et Kigali, jugeant qu’il était « légal » de « mettre en place des dispositions pour envoyer des demandeurs d’asile au Rwanda et que leur demande d’asile soit examinée au Rwanda plutôt qu’au Royaume-Uni », faisant bondir les associations. Le Haut-Commissariat aux réfugiés avait souligné, dans la foulée, que l’accord contrevenait aux obligations internationales du Royaume-Uni. Depuis, aucun avion n’a décollé en direction de Kigali.

      Le Rwanda faisait aussi partie des pays plébiscités par le Danemark pour la mise en place de l’externalisation de ses demandes d’asile, et ce malgré sa triste réputation en matière de respect des droits humains. Au quotidien Altinget, le ministre des migrations danois a assuré que son pays n’était plus en négociation avec les autorités rwandaises pour la création d’un centre visant à accueillir des demandeurs d’asile sur place.

      Comme le rappelait Brigitte Espuche, spécialiste de l’externalisation et co-coordinatrice du réseau Migreurop, le Danemark avait déjà envisagé de sous-traiter ses demandes d’asile à la fin des années 80. « Et c’est parce que ces velléités sont profondes qu’elles se donnent à voir aujourd’hui. Entre-temps, des digues se sont rompues. Depuis 2015 en particulier, la protection des frontières prime sur la protection des personnes. Les États européens ne veulent plus accueillir », analysait-elle dans un entretien sur Mediapart.

      Si le Danemark espère aujourd’hui voir l’Union européenne poser la première pierre, c’est donc aussi parce que l’idée a eu le temps de cheminer, d’année en année, avec le concours de l’extrême droite, qui estime que les exilé·es doivent faire leur demande d’asile (ou demander un visa humanitaire en vue de faire une demande d’asile dans un pays européen ensuite) depuis leur pays d’origine, ignorant les situations de conflits, de guerre, de persécutions ou de menaces de mort qui, de fait, ne permettent pas de se lancer dans de telles démarches.

      Éloigner pour mieux fermer les yeux

      L’UE s’oriente ainsi de plus en plus vers l’externalisation de l’asile : le pacte européen sur l’asile et la migration, lancé en septembre 2020 par la Commission européenne, et qui peine à avancer, envisageait d’extraterritorialiser les demandes d’asile dans des pays tiers ou d’instaurer l’examen des demandes aux frontières européennes.

      L’UE a aussi missionné les autorités libyennes, sans beaucoup de scrupules, pour qu’elles gèrent le contrôle aux frontières de l’Europe en Méditerranée centrale, et participé au financement et à la formation des gardes-côtes libyens, qui chaque jour interceptent des embarcations en mer pour les refouler vers la Libye, un pays pourtant loin d’être considéré comme « sûr ».

      Dans le même temps, la Grèce a déjà pu compter sur le soutien de la Turquie pour contrôler les frontières de l’UE, tout comme l’Espagne a laissé le Maroc commettre un massacre en juin 2022 pour empêcher les migrants subsahariens de pénétrer l’enclave espagnole de Melilla, sans que cela provoque la moindre réaction politique. Un événement que l’ONG Amnesty International a pourtant qualifié de « tuerie de masse ».

      Ces velléités en matière d’externalisation montrent, une fois de plus, comment l’Europe cherche à se voiler la face en tentant de contenir les migrations. Enfermée dans une politique du chiffre et des injonctions venant de la droite et de l’extrême droite (dans l’entretien donné à Altinget, le ministre des migrations danois admet lui-même craindre une montée des partis d’extrême droite si la « pression de l’asile » se fait trop sentir), l’UE estime sans doute, à tort, que l’idée d’empêcher à tout prix les exilé·es de fouler le sol européen contribuera à réduire les mouvements de population en direction de l’Europe et dissuadera, avec le temps, d’autres personnes d’emprunter les chemins de l’exil.

      C’est nier la réalité de notre monde, à l’heure où les conflits font rage, où la crise climatique détruit l’environnement de nombreuses populations et où la misère ne cesse de gagner du terrain. Celles-ci se mettront davantage en danger pour contourner les politiques migratoires de plus en plus restrictives et répressives. Les morts aux frontières, déjà invisibilisées, pourraient donc s’intensifier.

      https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/270123/le-danemark-renonce-sous-traiter-les-demandes-d-asile-pour-le-moment

  • Boris Johnson annonce avoir signé un accord avec Kigali pour envoyer des demandeurs d’asile au #Rwanda

    Ce projet, susceptible de s’appliquer à toutes les personnes entrées illégalement sur le territoire, a suscité des réactions scandalisées des organisations de défense des droits humains.

    Le premier ministre britannique, Boris Johnson, a décidé de durcir la politique migratoire du Royaume-Uni, en prenant une décision pour le moins controversée. Le Royaume-Uni a annoncé, jeudi 14 avril, avoir pour projet d’envoyer au Rwanda des demandeurs d’asile arrivés illégalement, espérant ainsi dissuader les traversées clandestines de la Manche, qui sont en pleine augmentation.

    Ce projet, susceptible de s’appliquer à toutes les personnes entrées illégalement sur le territoire, d’où qu’elles viennent (Iran, Syrie, Erythrée…), a suscité des réactions scandalisées. Des organisations de défense des droits humains ont dénoncé son « inhumanité ». L’opposition a jugé que le premier ministre tentait de détourner l’attention après l’amende qu’il a reçue pour une fête d’anniversaire en plein confinement. Le Haut-Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés (HCR) a, de son côté, fait part de « sa forte opposition » :

    « Les personnes fuyant la guerre, les conflits et les persécutions méritent compassion et empathie. Elles ne devraient pas être échangées comme des marchandises et transférées à l’étranger pour être traitées. »
    Un projet chiffré à 144 millions d’euros

    Alors que M. Johnson avait promis de contrôler l’immigration, un des sujets-clés dans la campagne du Brexit, le nombre de traversées illégales de la Manche a triplé en 2021, année marquée notamment par la mort de vingt-sept personnes dans un naufrage à la fin de novembre. Londres reproche régulièrement à Paris de ne pas en faire assez pour empêcher les traversées.

    « A partir d’aujourd’hui (…), toute personne entrant illégalement au Royaume-Uni ainsi que celles qui sont arrivées illégalement depuis le 1er janvier pourront désormais être transférées au Rwanda », a annoncé le dirigeant conservateur dans un discours dans le Kent (sud-est de l’Angleterre). Le Rwanda pourra accueillir « des dizaines de milliers de personnes dans les années à venir », a-t-il ajouté, décrivant ce pays d’Afrique de l’Est comme l’un des « plus sûrs du monde, mondialement reconnu pour son bilan d’accueil et d’intégration des migrants ».

    En vertu de l’accord annoncé jeudi, Londres financera dans un premier temps le dispositif à hauteur de 144 millions d’euros. Le gouvernement rwandais a précisé qu’il proposerait la possibilité « de s’installer de manière permanente au Rwanda [à ces personnes si elles] le souhaitent ».

    Désireux de regagner en popularité avant des élections locales le mois prochain, M. Johnson et son gouvernement cherchent depuis des mois à conclure des accords avec des pays tiers où envoyer les clandestins en attendant de traiter leur dossier.
    Le contrôle de la Manche confié à la marine

    « Notre compassion est peut-être infinie, mais notre capacité à aider des gens ne l’est pas », a déclaré M. Johnson, qui anticipe des recours en justice contre le dispositif. « Ceux qui essaient de couper la file d’attente ou d’abuser de notre système n’auront pas de voie automatique pour s’installer dans notre pays mais seront renvoyés de manière rapide et humaine dans un pays tiers sûr ou leur pays d’origine », a-t-il ajouté.

    Les migrants arrivant au Royaume-Uni ne seront plus hébergés dans des hôtels, mais dans des centres d’accueil, à l’image de ceux qui existent en Grèce, avec un premier centre « ouvrant bientôt », a annoncé M. Johnson.

    Dans le cadre de ce plan, qui vient compléter une vaste loi sur l’immigration actuellement au Parlement et déjà critiqué par l’Organisation des Nations unies (ONU), le gouvernement confie dès jeudi le contrôle des traversées illégales de la Manche à la marine, équipée de matériel supplémentaire. En revanche, il a renoncé à son projet de repousser les embarcations entrant dans les eaux britanniques, mesure décriée côté français.
    Les ONG scandalisées

    En envoyant des demandeurs d’asile à plus de 6 000 kilomètres du Royaume-Uni, Londres veut décourager les candidats à l’immigration, toujours plus nombreux : 28 500 personnes ont effectué ces périlleuses traversées en 2021, contre 8 466 en 2020, selon des chiffres du ministère de l’intérieur.

    Amnesty International a critiqué « une idée scandaleusement mal conçue » qui « fera souffrir tout en gaspillant d’énormes sommes d’argent public », soulignant aussi le « bilan lamentable en matière de droits humains » du Rwanda.

    Daniel Sohege, directeur de l’organisation de défense des droits humains Stand For All, a déclaré à l’Agence France-Presse que l’initiative du gouvernement était « inhumaine, irréalisable et très coûteuse », recommandant plutôt d’ouvrir des voies d’entrée au Royaume-Uni « plus sûres » car celles qui existent sont « très limitées ».

    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2022/04/14/londres-a-signe-un-accord-avec-kigali-pour-envoyer-des-demandeurs-d-asile-au

    #Angleterre #UK #asile #migrations #réfugiés
    #offshore_asylum_processing

    –-

    ajouté à la métaliste sur les différentes tentatives de différentes pays européens d’#externalisation non seulement des contrôles frontaliers, mais aussi de la #procédure_d'asile dans des #pays_tiers
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

    et ajouté à la métaliste sur la mise en place de l’#externalisation des #procédures_d'asile au #Rwanda par l’#Angleterre (2022) :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

    • UN Refugee Agency opposes UK plan to export asylum

      Following public announcements made today, UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, expressed strong opposition and concerns about the United Kingdom’s plan to export its asylum obligations and urged the UK to refrain from transferring asylum seekers and refugees to Rwanda for asylum processing.

      “UNHCR remains firmly opposed to arrangements that seek to transfer refugees and asylum seekers to third countries in the absence of sufficient safeguards and standards. Such arrangements simply shift asylum responsibilities, evade international obligations, and are contrary to the letter and spirit of the Refugee Convention,” said UNHCR’s Assistant High Commissioner for Protection, Gillian Triggs.

      “People fleeing war, conflict and persecution deserve compassion and empathy. They should not be traded like commodities and transferred abroad for processing.”

      UNHCR urged both countries to re-think the plans. It also warned that instead of deterring refugees from resorting to perilous journeys, these externalization arrangements will only magnify risks, causing refugees to seek alternative routes, and exacerbating pressures on frontline states.

      While Rwanda has generously provided a safe haven to refugees fleeing conflict and persecution for decades, the majority live in camps with limited access to economic opportunities. UNHCR believes that wealthier nations must show solidarity in supporting Rwanda and the refugees it already hosts, and not the other way around.

      The UK has an obligation to ensure access to asylum for those seeking protection. Those who are determined to be refugees can be integrated, while those who are not and have no other legal basis to stay, can be returned in safety and dignity to their country of origin.

      Instead, the UK is adopting arrangements that abdicate responsibility to others and thus threaten the international refugee protection regime, which has stood the test of time, and saved millions of lives over the decades.

      The UK has supported UNHCR’s work many times in the past and is providing important contributions that help protect refugees and support countries in conflicts such as Ukraine. However, financial support abroad for certain refugee crises cannot replace the responsibility of States and the obligation to receive asylum seekers and protect refugees on their own territory – irrespective of race, nationality and mode of arrival.

      While UNHCR recognizes the challenges posed by forced displacement, developed countries are host to only a fraction of the world’s refugees and are well resourced to manage claims for asylum in a humane, fair and efficient manner.

      https://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2022/4/62585e814/un-refugee-agency-opposes-uk-plan-export-asylum.html

    • The Border is a Colonial Wound: The Rwanda Deal and State Trafficking in People

      The border is a “colonial wound” that is designed for #bordering and #ordering#b/ordering – of the racialised and illegalised people by any means. The UK’s Nationality and Borders Bill and its subsequent offshore detention deal to deport people desperately seeking refugee to Rwanda is enactment of this exclusive b/ordering regime. One does not need to read between the lines to understand the objectives of the UK’s so-called “#Arrangement” with Rwanda as set out in article 2.1 and 2.2 of the #Memorandum_of_Understanding:

      2.1 The objective of this Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation of asylum seekers whose claims are not being considered by the United Kingdom, to Rwanda, which will process their claims and settle or remove (as appropriate) individuals after their claim is decided…

      2.2 For the avoidance of doubt, the commitments set out… do not create or confer any right on any individual, nor shall compliance with this Arrangement be justiciable in any court of law by third-parties or individuals.

      These b/ordering arrangements pushes refugees and people seeking asylum into spaces of exception and extra-legality through a discriminatory policing at national (e.g., the Nationality and Borders Bill) and bilateral (e.g., the Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and Rwanda) levels. It does so in newly designated detention spaces like Manston, like the mandatory dispersal to Local Authorities announced at the same time as the Rwanda deal, and expansion of the securitised detention estate. Without doubt, these b/ordering arrangements have already become sources of ambivalence, anxiety and uncertainty. They are a source of terror to those who wish to seek asylum and are already arrayed in a precarious state. And if you had seen our direct messages as the announcement was leaked to the press and the fear expressed you can be in no doubt that the aim of terrorising people already placed in highly vulnerable immigration statuses is having a chilling effect.

      John Vine, the UK’s First Independent Chief Inspector of Borders cand Immigration, speaking on Sky News after the Prime Minister’s announcement of the Migration and Economic Partnership Deal with Rwanda, underscored the costs, not only economically, which have been calculated as far exceeding the cost of placing people in the Ritz, but the costs to the human body and the body politic. Deportation can only be affected by using often violent restraint and against the will of the individual. Jimmy Mbenga is the name every activist in the anti-deportation sector holds close when thinking of the ways restrains are effected on the deportees body, with the danger of asphyxiation. Nicolas Proctor’s as inspector of the Australian detention estate, where such off shoring mechanisms have been long in use, writes of the exponential rise in suicide and self harm under such conditions of deportation and detention. The deal is the official instigation of necropolitics, long written of by Achille Mbembe, but now instituted in ‘deals’ and ‘schemes’ and very likely indeed, unless prevented by the House of Lords, to be enacted into law.

      Indeed, the goal of the new national and bilateral arrangements is to create “discounted bodies” or ‘bodies at the limits of life, trapped in uninhabitable worlds and inhospitable places’. In this case, uninhabitability and inhospitality are designed and deliberate. The intention is simply to hold life in a permanent ‘state of injury’ outside any realms of protection and political intelligibility. Whether it be rendering people inadmissible through the legislation or “processing” them in offshore containment spaces, they all amount to necropolitical experimentation.

      Behrouz Boochani’s multi award winning book No Friend But The Mountains documents the destituting of human beings in such centres as the UK has now chosen to replicate. Even more so, his extraordinary film, Chauka, Please Tell Us The Time,

      ‘After a year or two years I found out that the journalism language is not powerful enough to tell the suffering and to tell the history of this prison, and what Australian government is doing in this island’, said Boochani.

      A chauka is a small bird native to Manus Island and is also the name of the high-security prison within the camp. The chauka is a symbol of the island and allows locals to tell the time from the chauka’s regular singing.In a sinister twist, it is pronounced the same as the English word “choker.”

      On April 15, the U.K. joined Australia in becoming a state that traffics people, destituting the bodies and lives of those who claim their right of asylum, and instituting a reign of necropolitics.

      This decision is against the spirit and letter of the Refugee Convention and the legal opinion of UNHCR UK has already expressed grave concerns about the U.K’s obligations as a state as a signatory of the 1951 Convention. In fact, the UNHCR has condemned the deal; ‘People seeking safety and protection, who have few alternatives, should not be penalized’.

      That this is likely to be contested in law and through the courts and will be the site of a great deal of opposition is not in doubt; or that it will eventually be overturned, as with Israel’s failed Rwanda deal and Australia’s failed Manus and Nauru project. But until then, we all have hard work to do.

      https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreborder-criminologies/blog/2022/04/border-colonial
      #discriminations #extra-légalité #coût #violence #santé_mentale #suicides #nécropolitique #inhospitalité #inhabitabilité

    • Rwanda genocide orphans to be booted out of home to make way for UK asylum seekers

      Orphans of Rwanda’s civil war say they have nowhere to go after being turfed out of a hostel under Priti Patel’s cruel Rwanda refugee scheme

      Orphans of the Rwandan genocide will lose their home to make way for refugees being booted out of Britain by Home Secretary Priti Patel.

      Some 22 residents are being turfed out of Hope House hostel to make room for asylum seekers sent to the African country under the proposed scheme.

      As more migrants landed in Dover yesterday, Lib Dem MP Alistair Carmichael said the evictions were “cruel and heartless”.

      Orphans of Rwanda’s civil war say they have nowhere to go after being turfed out of a hostel under Patel’s cruel Rwanda refugee scheme.

      A shelter for traumatised victims of the 1994 conflict is being emptied to make way for asylum seekers being sent from the UK under the controversial Tory plan.

      Although now in their late 20s, the 22 survivors have no money or family and some face lifelong mental health battles. They were given a fortnight’s notice to ship out of the hostel – ironically named Hope House – in capital city Kigali.

      Tonight one vulnerable woman who has lived at the shelter for eight years said: “I barely know any other home. I was only told about moving out a few days ago. I have not figured out where I will go.”

      https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/rwanda-genocide-orphans-booted-out-26728311

    • Le Royaume-Uni signe un accord avec Kigali pour envoyer des demandeurs d’asile au Rwanda

      Le Rwanda a signé un accord controversé avec Londres pour accueillir sur son sol des migrants et demandeurs d’asile de diverses nationalités acheminés du Royaume-Uni, a annoncé jeudi Kigali à l’occasion d’une visite de la ministre anglaise de l’Intérieur, Priti Patel. Le Haut Commissariat de l’ONU pour les réfugiés (HCR) a fait part de « sa forte opposition » au projet britannique.

      Le Royaume-Uni a annoncé, jeudi 14 avril, un projet controversé d’envoyer au Rwanda les demandeurs d’asiles arrivés illégalement sur son territoire et confié la surveillance de la Manche à la Royal Navy, espérant dissuader les traversées de clandestins qui ne cessent d’augmenter.

      Alors que le Premier ministre Boris Johnson avait promis de contrôler l’immigration, un des sujets clés de la campagne du Brexit, le nombre de traversées illégales, très dangereuses, a triplé en 2021 et continue d’augmenter. Londres reproche régulièrement à Paris de ne pas en faire assez pour les empêcher.

      « À partir d’aujourd’hui (...), toute personne entrant illégalement au Royaume-Uni ainsi que ceux qui sont arrivés illégalement depuis le 1er janvier pourront désormais être relocalisés au Rwanda », a annoncé le dirigeant conservateur lors d’un discours dans un aéroport du Kent (sud-est de l’Angleterre).

      Le Rwanda pourra accueillir « des dizaines de milliers de personnes dans les années à venir », a-t-il ajouté, affirmant que ce pays d’Afrique de l’Est est « l’un des pays les plus sûrs au monde, mondialement reconnu pour son bilan d’accueil et d’intégration des migrants ».

      Ce projet, susceptible donc de s’appliquer à tous les clandestins d’où qu’ils viennent (Iran, Syrie, Érythrée...), a suscité des réactions scandalisées des organisations de défense des droits humains, qui dénoncent son « inhumanité ». L’opposition a jugé que le Premier ministre tentait de détourner l’attention après avoir reçu une amende pour une fête d’anniversaire en plein confinement.
      Un accord à 144 millions d’euros

      Désireux de regagner en popularité avant des élections locales en mai, Boris Johnson et son gouvernement cherchent depuis des mois à conclure des accords avec des pays tiers où envoyer les migrants en attendant de traiter leur dossier.

      Une telle mesure est déjà appliquée par l’Australie avec des îles éloignées du Pacifique, une politique très critiquée. Par ailleurs, le Danemark avait également envisagé d’envoyer ses demandeurs d’asile vers des pays africains.

      En vertu de l’accord annoncé jeudi, Londres financera dans un premier temps le dispositif à hauteur de 120 millions de livres sterling (144 millions d’euros). Le gouvernement rwandais a précisé qu’il proposerait aux personnes accueillies la possibilité « de s’installer de manière permanente au Rwanda » si elles « le souhaitent ».

      « Notre compassion est peut-être infinie mais notre capacité à aider des gens ne l’est pas », a déclaré Boris Johnson. Le chef du gouvernement britannique a ajouté que « ceux qui essayent de couper la file d’attente ou abuser de notre système n’auront pas de voie automatique pour s’installer dans notre pays mais seront renvoyés de manière rapide, humaine, dans un pays tiers sûr ou leur pays d’origine ».

      Les migrants arrivant au Royaume-Uni ne seront plus hébergés dans des hôtels mais dans des centres d’accueil à l’image de ceux existant en Grèce, avec un premier centre « ouvrant bientôt », a annoncé Boris Johnson.
      Migrants échangés « comme des marchandises »

      Dans le cadre de ce plan, qui vient compléter une vaste loi sur l’immigration actuellement au Parlement et déjà critiqué par l’ONU, le gouvernement confie dès jeudi le contrôle des traversées illégales de la Manche à la Marine, équipée de matériel supplémentaire. Il a renoncé en revanche à son projet de repousser les embarcations entrant dans les eaux britanniques, mesure décriée côté français.

      En envoyant des demandeurs d’asile à plus de 6 000 kilomètres du Royaume-Uni, le gouvernement veut décourager les candidats au départ vers le Royaume-Uni, toujours plus nombreux : 28 500 personnes ont effectué ces périlleuses traversées en 2021, contre 8 466 en 2020... et seulement 299 en 2018, selon des chiffres du ministère de l’Intérieur.

      Amnesty International a critiqué une « idée scandaleusement mal conçue » qui « fera souffrir tout en gaspillant d’énormes sommes d’argent public », soulignant aussi le « bilan lamentable en matière de droits humains » de la nation africaine.

      Pour le directeur général de Refugee Action, Tim Naor Hilton, c’est une « manière lâche, barbare et inhumaine de traiter les personnes fuyant la persécution et la guerre ».

      Le Haut Commissariat de l’ONU pour les réfugiés (HCR) a fait également part de « sa forte opposition » au projet britannique. « Les personnes fuyant la guerre, les conflits et les persécutions méritent compassion et empathie. Elles ne devraient pas être échangées comme des marchandises et transférées à l’étranger pour voir leur dossiers traités », a déclaré le HCR dans un communiqué.

      Même dans les rangs conservateurs, les critiques ont fusé, le député Tobias Ellwood estimant sur la BBC qu’il s’agit d’une « énorme tentative de détourner l’attention » des déboires de Boris Johnson dans le « Partygate », ces fêtes organisées dans les cercles du pouvoir pendant les confinements.

      https://www.france24.com/fr/europe/20220414-le-royaume-uni-signe-un-accord-avec-kigali-pour-envoyer-des-deman

    • Le Rwanda déjà engagé dans des projets d’accueil de migrants avec d’autres pays

      Le Rwanda serait-il en train de devenir un sous-traitant de la prise en charge des demandeurs d’asile pour les pays européens ? Le pays vient de signer jeudi 15 avril un accord très controversé avec le Royaume-Uni, qui souhaite y déporter ses migrants clandestins. Pour Kigali, ce n’est pas exactement une première, puisque le Rwanda est déjà engagé depuis plusieurs années dans divers projets d’accueil et de réinstallation de migrants.

      Dès 2014, un accord très opaque avec #Israël crée la polémique. Il prévoit déjà l’envoi de demandeurs d’asiles vers l’#Ouganda et le Rwanda. Mais une fois arrivés en Afrique centrale, beaucoup de ces migrants sont vite repartis. Kigali parle aujourd’hui d’un projet pilote rapidement abandonné, explique notre correspondante à Kigali, Laure Broulard.

      En 2019, Rwanda accepte d’accueillir des réfugiés évacués de #Libye par le HCR, le temps que leur demande d’asile soit examiné par des pays occidentaux. Quelques centaines d’entre eux sont actuellement logés dans un centre d’accueil dans l’Est du pays.

      Plus récemment, Kigali a également reçu des Afghans fuyant les talibans, notamment les élèves et le personnel d’un internat pour jeunes filles. Enfin, le pays est en discussions avec le #Danemark, qui souhaite y externaliser ses demandes d’asile. « Nous sommes disposés à explorer des décisions difficiles avec des partenaires de bonne foi pour pouvoir trouver une solution durable à ces questions de migration illégale », explique le ministre des Affaires étrangères rwandais, Vincent Biruta.

      Autant d’initiatives qui permettent au Rwanda de Paul Kagame, critiqué pour sa répression de la liberté d’expression et de l’opposition, de se faire connaître comme un pays « sûr », accueillant et comme un partenaire intéressant. Dans le cas de l’accord avec le Royaume-Uni, c’est aussi une #opportunité_économique, puisque Londres a déjà promis un investissement de près de 145 millions d’euros pour soutenir le #développement du pays.

      Londres s’attend à des recours en justice

      Mais les réactions d’indignation se multiplient. L’ONU parle d’un projet « irréaliste, immoral et discriminatoire ». Le gouvernement de Boris Johnson pense que son partenariat avec le Rwanda, pour y envoyer les demandeurs d’asile arrivés illégalement au Royaume-Uni, pourra débuter dans les prochaines semaines. Londres s’attend à des recours en justice, mais l’opposition pourrait même venir du sein même du ministère de l’Intérieur, explique notre correspondante à Londres, Emeline Vin.

      Pour faire approuver le partenariat migratoire entre le Royaume-Uni et le Rwanda, Priti Patel a utilisé une #directive_ministérielle, un mécanisme qui lui permet de passer outre l’opposition de son directeur de cabinet. C’est seulement le deuxième recours par le ministère de l’Intérieur depuis 30 ans.

      Officiellement, il s’agit de contourner les réserves des fonctionnaires, non affiliés politiquement, sur le financement. Le ministère n’a pas de chiffrage précis et certains officiels pensent que « relocaliser », vers le Rwanda, des migrants arrivés illégalement en Grande-Bretagne pour y demander l’asile, risque de coûter plus cher à long terme.

      Mais pour les syndicats, cela montre surtout le caractère ultra-polémique du projet, un élu le qualifiant de « purement inhumain ». Selon un autre, Priti Patel est passée en force, car elle savait qu’elle n’avait pas le soutien de ses équipes. Or, un #fonctionnaire n’a que le choix d’appliquer les politiques de son ministère ou de quitter son poste. Le gouvernement a présenté le programme à la veille du weekend pascal, qui dure du vendredi au lundi ici, mais s’attend à des recours en justice. 160 ONG l’ont déjà appelé à renoncer.

      https://www.rfi.fr/fr/afrique/20220416-le-rwanda-d%C3%A9j%C3%A0-engag%C3%A9-dans-des-projets-d-accueil-de-migr
      #sous-traitance #réfugiés_afghans #Afghanistan #passage_en_force

    • Arrangement Royaume-Uni/Rwanda : externaliser l’asile en Afrique, arme de dissuasion massive en Europe

      Par une mesure urgente de suspension du 14 juin 2022, la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme vient rappeler au Royaume-Uni qu’il est toujours soumis au respect du droit international de l’asile. Que ce soit au Royaume-Uni ou dans les Etats membres de l’Union européenne, l’heure n’est plus à l’accueil et la course au renvoi des personnes exilées bat son plein.

      L’externalisation de l’asile au Rwanda était l’une des principales mesures du « plan immigration » du Royaume-Uni, présentée le 14 avril 2022, et censée dissuader les traversées « irrégulières » de la Manche. Mais les recours des plaignant.e.s – majoritairement originaires de Syrie, Irak et Iran – et de leurs soutiens, auront finalement payé : le 14 juin, par des mesures provisoires, la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme a empêché in extremis le départ du premier vol de demandeur.se.s d’asile « transféré.e.s » du Royaume-Uni au Rwanda [1], sauvant ce qu’il reste du principe de non-refoulement. Mais au vu de la détermination britannique, ce n’est sans doute que partie remise…

      Car les velléités « d’accueillir » les exilé.e.s au plus loin du territoire européen sont profondes et anciennes [2]. Dès 1986, le Danemark proposait un système de gestion des demandes d’asile dans des centres de traitement régionaux, administrés par les Nations Unies, dans lesquels auraient été systématiquement placé.e.s les demandeur.se.s d’asile ayant franchi la frontière « irrégulièrement ». En 2003, s’inspirant de la décriée « Solution pacifique » australienne [3], Blair évoquait des « centres de transit » hors Europe pour y envoyer les demandeurs et demandeuses d’asile avant qu’ils et elles n’atteignent le sol européen.
      En 2022, c’est devenu une réalité pour le Royaume-Uni de Johnson : les exilé.e.s pourront voir leur demande de protection jugée irrecevable s’ils ou elles sont arrivé.e.s sur le sol britannique en dehors des postes frontières habilités, après un voyage "dangereux", ou en provenance d’un pays tiers sûr, et pourront être envoyé.e.s au Rwanda, où ils et elles pourront déposer une demande d’asile. Si la décision est positive, le Rwanda deviendrait alors pays d’accueil et de protection pendant cinq ans, dans le cadre du protocole d’accord entre les deux pays, en échange de 120 millions de livres versées par le Royaume-Uni [4]
      Avec cet arrangement, le Royaume-Uni fait un pas de plus dans la violation du principe de non-refoulement, pierre angulaire du droit d’asile.
      Il n’est pas, loin s’en faut, le seul État à avancer dans cette direction. Depuis plusieurs années, les États européens ont choisi leur « accueil », normalisant les refoulements aux frontières de l’Europe et multipliant les accords formels ou non avec les pays du Sud global, sous le regard placide des institutions européennes et/ou avec leur participation.

      Un cap a été franchi en la matière en 2016 avec la Déclaration UE/Turquie, permettant le renvoi vers la Turquie des exilé.e.s arrivé.e.s sur les îles grecques, y compris celles et ceux pour qui la Turquie était considérée comme un pays tiers sûr. En 2018, la Commission européenne propose d’instaurer dans les pays d’Afrique du Nord des « plateformes de débarquement régionales » pour « sauver des vies » et trier les exilé.e.s en amont des eaux et du territoire européens [5], mais doit abandonner le projet face au refus de la Tunisie, du Maroc et de l’Algérie de jouer le jeu.
      Mais en février 2020, dans une décision favorable aux autorités espagnoles – qui avaient procédé en 2017 à des refoulements à la frontière terrestre avec le Maroc –, la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme entérine – au mépris de la Convention de Genève (art. 31) – l’impossibilité de déposer une demande d’asile en cas de « franchissement illégal d’une frontière » [6] . En octobre 2021, la Pologne légalise à sa frontière les refoulements de celles et ceux qui l’auraient traversée « illégalement », n’hésitant pas à cette occasion à remettre en cause la primauté du droit européen sur le droit national [7].

      Ici, de nouveau sous le prétexte fallacieux de « sauver des vies » en leur évitant les risques d’une traversée périlleuse, le Royaume-Uni valide la « relocalisation » vers le Rwanda d’exilé.e.s déjà présent.e.s sur le sol européen, et dont les demandes de protection ont été jugées irrecevables sans examen au fond. Ce faisant, le Royaume-Uni part du principe que le Rwanda – qui accueille depuis 2019 le programme d’urgence du HCR visant à évacuer les personnes les plus vulnérables des centres de détention libyens pour les placer dans des centres de transit d’urgence (dans le cadre du mécanisme de transit d’urgence - ETM) – est un pays tiers « sûr », tant pour ses ressortissant.e.s que pour les personnes étrangères qui y sont renvoyées. Ce, malgré les vives critiques de l’opposition politique sur les atteintes aux droits in situ, notamment à la liberté d’expression et des personnes LGBTI+ [8].

      Le Brexit aura sans doute permis au Royaume-Uni de s’affranchir en partie du socle européen de la protection internationale et de se défausser de ses responsabilités en matière d’accueil.
      Mais l’asile est attaqué de toutes parts, y compris par les États membres de l’Union. Ainsi, le Danemark a-t-il également conclu en avril 2021 un Protocole d’entente avec le Rwanda, et adopté en juin 2021 une loi lui permettant d’externaliser l’examen de la demande d’asile, en transférant les demandeur⋅euse⋅s qui seraient déjà arrivé⋅e⋅s sur son territoire vers des centres situés hors UE, moyennant finances [9]

      En pratique, l’externalisation de l’asile revient, pour les États, à piétiner leurs obligations en matière d’accueil et de protection internationale, et à vider de son sens les principaux instruments de protection internationaux (Convention de Genève et Convention européenne des droits de l’Homme) – auxquels le Royaume-Uni est toujours soumis, comme vient de lui rappeler la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme.
      Cette logique de marchandage propre à l’externalisation permet aussi à des régimes autoritaires non-européens de se renflouer économiquement et d’être réhabilités au niveau diplomatique en tant que partenaires légitimes auprès de l’UE, ici le Rwanda vivement critiqué sur la restriction des libertés de ses ressortissant.e.s.

      L’externalisation de l’asile est contraire à la lettre et à l’esprit de la Convention de Genève, et sape le régime mondial d’accueil des réfugié.e.s. Elle est contraire à la liberté de chacun.e de choisir librement le pays d’accueil dans lequel il ou elle souhaite demander une protection et s’établir, et est en outre aux antipodes de la solidarité : le Royaume-Uni et le Danemark comptent parmi les pays les plus riches du monde et accueillent beaucoup moins d’exilé.e.s que de nombreux autres États bien plus pauvres, notamment en Afrique. Selon le Haut-Commissariat des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés, [10].

      La politique cruelle et éhontée consistant à renvoyer depuis le Nord les demandeurs et demandeuses d’asile vers un pays du Sud situé à des milliers de kilomètres doit être condamnée et combattue avec détermination, au nom de l’accueil de tou.te.s, et pour que vive le droit d’asile.

      https://migreurop.org/article3108

    • Le président rwandais instrumentalise les droits des réfugiés

      Le Royaume-Uni devrait annuler l’accord sur les demandeurs d’asile

      Cette semaine, le président rwandais Paul Kagame a lancé un avertissement sans ambages aux réfugiés fuyant la recrudescence de la violence en République démocratique du Congo : « Nous ne pouvons pas continuer à accueillir des réfugiés pour lesquels, plus tard, nous serons tenus responsables d’une manière ou d’une autre, ou attaqués. »

      La déclaration du président illustre crûment la politisation des droits des réfugiés opérée par le gouvernement rwandais. Elle intervient à un moment où le Rwanda vient de conclure un accord peu scrupuleux d’un montant de 120 millions de livres (environ 145 millions de dollars) avec le Royaume-Uni pour accueillir des demandeurs d’asile arrivés au Royaume-Uni par des voies « irrégulières ». Outre avoir tenté d’édulcorer le bilan du Rwanda en matière de droits humains, les autorités britanniques ont cherché à justifier leur politique en affirmant que le Rwanda a une solide expérience en ce qui concerne l’accueil de réfugiés – dont environ 76 000 sont issus de la RD Congo voisine. En réalité, le gouvernement britannique ignore délibérément les faits.

      Comme il le faisait déjà il y a dix ans, le Rwanda soutient la rébellion du M23 dans l’est de la RD Congo. La reprise des hostilités par le M23, l’armée congolaise et divers autres groupes armés a contraint plus de 520 000 personnes à fuir leurs foyers, selon les Nations Unies. De récentes enquêtes menées par le groupe d’experts des Nations Unies sur le Congo, ainsi que des recherches de Human Rights Watch, ont identifié des preuves selon lesquelles le Rwanda ne se contente pas seulement de fournir un soutien logistique au M23, mais intervient également directement sur le sol congolais avec ses propres troupes pour renforcer les rangs du groupe armé ou combattre à ses côtés.

      Les propos de Paul Kagame font peut-être référence aux meurtres d’au moins 12 réfugiés congolais dans le camp de réfugiés de Kiziba, au Rwanda, en février 2018, lorsque la police a tiré à balles réelles sur des réfugiés qui protestaient devant le bureau de l’agence des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés (UNHCR) du district de Karongi, dans la province de l’Ouest.

      Ses dernières déclarations témoignent du refus des autorités de prendre leurs responsabilités et d’assurer que justice soit rendue pour les abus perpétrés par les forces de sécurité rwandaises, y compris à l’encontre de réfugiés. L’enquête de la commission nationale des droits humains sur les meurtres de 2018 a étouffé l’affaire et personne n’a été tenu pour responsable à ce jour. Au lieu de cela, la police rwandaise a arrêté plus de 60 réfugiés et les a accusés de participer à des manifestations illégales, de se livrer à des violences contre les autorités publiques et à des actes de rébellion, puis de désobéir aux forces de l’ordre. Certains ont également été accusés de « propagation d’informations mensongères en vue de provoquer l’hostilité de l’opinion internationale vis-à-vis de l’État rwandais ».

      Les dernières attaques de Paul Kagame contre les droits humains, cette fois contre ceux des réfugiés, ne font que s’ajouter à la liste des preuves attestant que le Rwanda n’est pas un partenaire international fiable et de bonne foi, et que le projet du Royaume-Uni d’envoyer des demandeurs d’asile au Rwanda est fondé sur des contre-vérités et une politique cynique.

      https://www.hrw.org/fr/news/2023/01/11/le-president-rwandais-instrumentalise-les-droits-des-refugies

      #Paul_Kagame #Kagame #responsabilité

  • #Danemark : préoccupations vives à l’encontre de la #loi récemment adopté visant à externaliser l’examen des demandes d’asile au #Rwanda

    Et demande expresse au Danemark de réévaluer son appréciation des zones en Syrie considérées comme « sûres » et qui justifieraient le renvoi des personnes dont la protection temporaire n’a pas été renouvelée voir annulée.

    Le Comité des Nations Unies de suivi de la Convention pour l’Elimination des Discrimination Raciales (CERD en anglais) a passé en revue 4 pays fin novembre dont le Danemark.

    Document en anglais : https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CERD%2fC%2fDNK%2fCO%2f22-24&Lang=en

    #Danemark #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Afrique
    #offshore_asylum_processing #externalisation #réfugiés_syriens #retour_au_pays #procédure_d'asile #pays-tiers

    –---

    Fil de discussion sur l’externalisation des procédures d’asile du Danemark (2021) :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/918427

    Le Danemark (comme d’autres pays européens d’ailleurs) avait déjà tenté par la passé de faire passer une loi dans ce sens, voir la métaliste :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

    • ‘Zero asylum seekers’: Denmark forces refugees to return to Syria

      Under a more hostile immigration system, young volunteers fight to help fellow refugees stay – but their work is never done

      Maryam Awad is 22 and cannot remember the last time she had a good night’s sleep. It was probably before her application to renew her residency permit as a refugee in Denmark was rejected two years ago, she says.

      Before 2015, Awad’s family lived in a small town outside Damascus, but fled to Denmark after her older brother was detained by the regime. The family have been living in Aarhus, a port city in northern Denmark, for eight years.

      Awad and her younger sister are the only family members facing deportation. Their situation is far from unique. In 2019, the Danish government notified about 1,200 refugees from the Damascus region that their residency permits would not be renewed.

      Unlike the United Nations and EU, Denmark judged the region to be safe for refugees to return. However, as men could be drafted into the army and older women often have children enrolled in Danish schools, the new policy predominantly affects young women and elderly people.

      Lisa Blinkenberg, of Amnesty International Denmark, said: “In 2015, we have seen a legislative change which means that the residency permit of refugees can be withdrawn due to changes in their home country, but the change does not have to be fundamental. Then in 2019 the Danish immigration services decided that the violence in Damascus has stopped and that Syrians could be returned there.”

      Blinkenberg says Denmark’s policy towards asylum seekers and refugees has become notably more hostile in recent years. “In 2019, the Danish prime minister declared that Denmark wanted ‘zero asylum seekers’. That was a really strong signal,” she says.

      “Like in other European countries, there has been a lot of support for rightwing parties in Denmark. This has sent a strong signal for the government to say: ‘OK, Denmark will not be a welcoming country for refugees or asylum seekers.’”

      Awad smiles, briefly, for the first time when she receives a phone call from her lawyer. He tells her there is now a date set for her appeal with the refugee board. It will be her last chance to prolong her residency permit.

      She had been waiting for this phone call since February. “I am really nervous, but happy that it is happening,” she says. “I am glad that I had the support from friends who put me in touch with volunteers. If it wasn’t for them, I wouldn’t know what to do.”

      One of the volunteers Awad has received help from is Rahima Abdullah, 21, a fellow Syrian refugee and leader of the Danish Refugee Youth Council. Over the past two years Abdullah had almost single-handedly built a network of opposition to deportations targeting Syrians.

      “I have lost count of how many cases I worked on. Definitely over 100, maybe even 200,” Abdullah says.

      Abdullah, who grew up in a Kurdish family in Aleppo, first became politically active at 16 after her family sought refuge in Denmark. She has been regularly publishing opinion pieces in Danish newspapers and built a profile as a refugee activist.

      “The image of immigration in Danish media was very negative. I could see everyone talking about it but felt as if I didn’t have a voice. That’s why I decided to become an activist,” she says.

      In 2019, Abudullah and a classmate, Aya Daher, were propelled to the front pages of Danish media, after Daher found herself among hundreds of Syrians threatened with deportation.

      “Aya called me up, scared, crying that her application was rejected. Before we were thinking about finishing school, about exams and parties, but suddenly we were only concentrating on Aya’s future and her safety,” Abdullah recalls.

      “I posted her story on Facebook and I sent it to two journalists and went to sleep. In the morning I found that it was shared 4,000 times.”

      The story was picked up by local and international media, sparking a public outcry. Following her appeal to the Danish Refugee Board, Daher’s residency was extended for an additional two years on the grounds that her public profile would put her in danger from the Assad regime.

      “They gave me a residency permit because I was in the media. They did not believe in what I said about my situation and the dangers I would face in Syria. That really hurt,” Daher says. “I hope I don’t have to go through this process again.”

      “Aya can get on with her life now, but I am still doing the same work for other people in the same position,” Abdullah says. “Her case showed refugees that, if you get media attention and support from society, you can stay in Denmark.”

      Abdullah gets up to five messages a day from refugees hoping she can help them catch the attention of the media. “I have to choose who to help – sometimes I pass people on to other activists. There are two or three people helping me,” she says. “It gets hard to be a young person with school and a social life, with all that work.”

      But not everyone is as appealing to the media as Daher. The people whose stories pass unnoticed keep Abdullah up at night.

      “I worked with one family, a couple with young children. I managed to get them one press interview in Sweden, but it wasn’t enough,” Abudullah says. “The husband is now in Germany with two of the children trying to get asylum there. The wife stayed here with one child. She messaged me on Facebook and said: ‘You did not help us, you destroyed our life.’ I can’t be angry at her – I can’t imagine how she feels.

      “Aya’s story was the first of its kind at the time. Additionally, Danish media like to see an outspoken young woman from the Middle East, who is integrated into society, gets an education, and speaks Danish,” Abdullah says. “And this was just an ordinary Syrian family. The woman didn’t speak good Danish and the children were quite young.

      “Aya also doesn’t wear a hijab, which I think made some people more sympathetic towards her,” Abdullah adds. “There are people in Denmark who think that if you wear the hijab you’re not integrated into society. This makes me sad and angry – it shouldn’t be this way.”

      Daher, who became the face of young Syrian refugees in Denmark, says: “It was very difficult to suddenly be in the media, and be someone that many people recognise. I felt like I was responsible for a lot of people.

      “I had a lot of positive reactions from people and from my classmates, but there have also been negative comments.” she says. “One man came up to me on the street and said ‘go back to your country, you Muslim. You’re stealing our money.’

      “I respect that some people don’t want me to be here. There’s nothing more I can do about that,” Daher says. “They have not been in Syria and they have not been in the war – I can’t explain it to them.”

      Awad hopes she can return to the life she had to put on hold two years ago. “I don’t know how to prepare for the appeal. All I can do is say the truth,” she says. “If I go back to Syria they will detain me.” She hopes this will be enough to persuade the board to allow her appeal.

      “I planned to study medicine in Copenhagen before my residency application was rejected. I wanted to be a doctor ever since I came to Denmark,” she says. The uncertainty prompted her to get a qualification as a health assistant by working in a care home. “I just want my life back.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/may/25/zero-asylum-seekers-denmark-forces-refugees-to-return-to-syria?CMP=Shar

  • Borders bill, a new plan

    https://twitter.com/pritipatel/status/1468619562027528192

    #nouvelle_loi #loi #UK #Angleterre #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Priti_Patel #plan #nouveau_plan

    –-> un copier-coller du #modèle_australien

    –-

    Autour des « #offshore centres », voire :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/938880
    –-> et une métaliste sur les différentes tentatives de différentes pays européens d’#externalisation non seulement des contrôles frontaliers, mais aussi de la #procédure_d'asile dans des #pays_tiers :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

    ping @karine4 @isskein

  • Tories break ranks on immigration to demand safe routes to UK for asylum seekers

    Exclusive: Allowing asylum claims to be made outside the UK is ‘only viable alternative’ to deaths in Channel, says backbencher

    Senior Tories have demanded a radical overhaul of the asylum system to allow migrants to claim refuge at UK embassies anywhere in the world – rather than having to travel to the UK – in a bid to cut the numbers attempting dangerous Channel crossings.

    Ex-cabinet members #David_Davis and #Andrew_Mitchell are among those calling for the change, which marks a stark challenge to the punitive approach taken by Boris Johnson and Priti Patel, who are demanding tighter controls on French beaches and are threatening to “push back” small boats at sea.

    Mr Davis, the former shadow home secretary and Brexit secretary, and Mr Mitchell, the former international development secretary, also poured scorn on the home secretary’s plan to take on powers through her Nationality and Borders Bill to send migrants arriving in the UK to camps in third countries overseas for processing – something that has already been ruled out by Albania after it was named as a potential destination.

    Writing for The Independent, Pauline Latham, a Conservative member of the Commons International Development Committee, said that allowing migrants to claim asylum at embassies abroad was “the only viable alternative to the tragedy of deaths in the Channel and the chaos of our current approach”.

    Twenty-seven migrants, including three children and a pregnant woman, drowned off the coast of France in November when their boat sank, marking the single biggest loss of life of the crisis so far.

    The Home Office is opposing an opposition amendment to the borders bill, due for debate in the House of Commons this week, which would allow migrants to seek “humanitarian visas” in France, allowing them to be transported safely across the Channel to claim asylum.

    But Ms Latham’s proposal goes a step further, removing the need for asylum seekers to pay thousands of pounds to criminal gangs to smuggle them into Europe and then risk their lives in order to reach Britain to make their claim.

    The Mid Derbyshire MP said: “This feels to me like a genuine win-win. The customer base of the people smugglers would vanish, ending deaths in the Channel and ensuring that people seeking safety here can travel in a humane fashion.

    “The UK would be better able to control who arrives here, and anyone arriving without a visa or pre-approved asylum claim would face non-negotiable deportation.”

    Current government policy has “got it the wrong way round” and should be reshaped as a “global resettlement programme” similar to those set up in Syria and being established for Afghanistan, said Ms Latham.

    With the vast majority of those arriving in the UK by small boat having a legitimate claim for asylum, the question Ms Patel must answer is why the UK’s current policy requires them to put themselves in the hands of lawless gangs and then risk their lives in order to be able to submit their paperwork, she said.

    “Desperate people will continue to seek safety in the UK for as long as there is conflict and persecution elsewhere,” said Ms Latham. “But nobody puts their child in an overcrowded, flimsy dinghy on a cold November morning if they think a better alternative is available. So, when we talk about deterrence we have to talk about alternatives.”

    And Mr Davis said: “Instead of a policy which is built solely on keeping people out, the government should consider creating a legitimate route in for genuine refugees. Migrants fleeing repression in Iran or famine in war-torn Yemen are not able to apply at British embassies. The only options available to them are either illegal, or dangerous, or both.”

    The bill being debated in the Commons on Tuesday and Wednesday aims to deter small-boat crossings by restricting the rights of those who enter the UK by “irregular” routes, allowing “offshore” processing of claims in third countries, and speeding up the removal of failed asylum seekers.

    It would also give border and immigration staff powers to redirect boats out of UK territorial waters in a way that MPs and unions have warned could increase the risk of capsize and deaths.

    Mr Davis said that offshoring would represent a “moral, economic and practical failure”, inflicting a terrible ordeal on those fleeing terror and persecution.

    And Mr Mitchell said: “So far, Norway, Rwanda and Albania have all distanced themselves from suggestions that they would host a UK offshore processing centre. The bill seeks a power for a policy which the government is yet to define.

    “Even in Australia, 75 per cent of those sent to remote islands for processing eventually had their claims upheld. Indeed, most of the people crossing the Channel are also having their asylum claims upheld. Offshore processing looks like a policy which delays the inevitable. But at far greater cost to the taxpayer.”

    The Labour MP behind the humanitarian visa amendment, Neil Coyle, said Ms Patel’s proposals “will cause more dangerous routes and more risk to people seeking to reach the UK”. He told The Independent it was “garbage” for her to claim they would reduce the so-called “pull factors” attracting those fleeing war, civil conflict or persecution to Britain.

    “A humanitarian visa offers the government the chance to prove it means what it says, when it says it doesn’t want people to be subjected to gangs and criminality,” said Mr Coyle. “The amendment would save lives, help us meet our international obligations, and prevent money going to smugglers.”

    Stephen Farry of the Alliance Party, backing the amendment alongside MPs from the SNP, Liberal Democrats, Green Party and Labour, said: “Claiming asylum in the UK is a fundamental right, but asylum seekers are in a Catch-22, whereby asylum can only be claimed on UK soil yet the UK provides no safe and legal routes to enter the country for those purposes.

    “The home secretary doesn’t care about asylum seekers, but if she were serious about tackling people smuggling, this visa is a workable solution.”

    But a Home Office spokesperson said: “The government has noted the amendments relating to asylum visas for persons in France and they will be debated in parliament in due course.

    “However, there is the risk of creating a wider pull factor, putting vulnerable people in danger by encouraging them to make dangerous journeys across the Mediterranean and overland to France in order to make claims to enter the UK, motivating people to again entrust themselves to heinous smugglers.”

    The chief executive of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, Minnie Rahman, dismissed this argument.

    “Like people who travel to the UK for work or study, people seeking protection in the UK deserve safe ways of getting here,” she said. “If the government were serious about preventing dangerous crossings and upholding our commitment to refugee protection, they would back this amendment. Instead it seems they’re happy to continue driving refugees into smugglers’ boats.”

    And Bridget Chapman, of the Kent Refugee Action Network, said: “The simple fact is that those who have made this journey tell us that they never wanted to leave their homes in the first place. It wasn’t the ‘pull factors’ that made it happen, it was violent ‘push factors’, such as war, conflict and persecution.

    “Once displaced, most people stay close to their country of origin and only a relatively small number come to the UK. There is no evidence whatsoever that making their journey to the UK marginally more safe would be a ‘pull factor’, and we cannot allow that to be used as a reason not to give them better and safer options.”

    Bella Sankey, director of Detention Action, said: “This humanitarian visa amendment would help to prevent deaths in the Channel and undermine the dangerous boat journeys offered by people smugglers.

    “If the government is concerned about a so-called ‘pull factor’, they should show clear evidence of it and then expand this amendment to include refugees further upstream.”

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/migrants-channel-borders-latham-patel-b1969795.html

    #ambassades #Angleterre #UK #asile #migrations #réfugiés #
    #offshore_asylum_processing #ambassade

    –—

    ajouté à la métaliste sur l’#externalisation de la #procédure_d'asile dans des #pays_tiers :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

    • Dismay at UK’s offshore detention plans for asylum seekers

      Detainees and workers from Australia’s offshore detention camps say Britain is ignoring the failings and financial costs of that system.

      As people who were detained indefinitely in Australia’s offshore camps on Nauru and Manus Island, Papua New Guinea, and as professionals who were employed there, we are deeply concerned that the UK government will attempt this week to grant itself the same power to send people seeking asylum to offshore detention centres.

      We have watched with dismay as the UK government has drafted legislation that allows for the indefinite detention offshore of women, men and children, refused a probing amendment to exclude survivors of trafficking and torture from being sent to offshore detention centres, and ignored the failings and financial costs of the Australian experiment, which saw the Australian government spend £8.6bn to detain 3,127 people in appalling conditions, while failing to end dangerous boat journeys.

      Two of us lost a combined 13 years of our lives trapped in offshore camps, with no indication of when we would be free. Others in the same situation lost their lives. The authorities insisted we would never reach Australia. Now, like more than two-thirds of the people detained offshore, we are recognised refugees, living in the US and Australia. We cannot imagine why any country would replicate such a cruel, costly and ultimately futile system.

      Finally, consider why a government that has no intention of detaining children offshore would give itself the power to do so. Or why any law that claims to protect people entitled to asylum would instead hide them away in offshore detention camps.

      Authors: Thanush Selvarasa and Elahe Zivardar Former offshore detainees, Dr Nick Martin and Carly Hawkins Former medical officer and former teacher, Nauru detention centre

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/05/dismay-at-uk-offshore-detention-plans-for-asylum-seekers?CMP=Share_iOSA

  • Danish lawmakers approve plan to locate asylum center abroad

    Danish lawmakers voted Thursday in favor of Denmark establishing a refugee reception center in a third country that is likely to be in Africa, a move that could be a first step toward moving the country’s asylum screening process outside of Europe.

    Legislation approved on a 70-24 vote with no abstentions and 85 lawmakers absent authorizes the Danish government to, when a deal in in place, transfer asylum-seekers “to the third country in question for the purpose of substantive processing of asylum applications and any subsequent protection in compliance with Denmark’s international obligations.”

    The United Nations high commissioner for refugees, the European Union and and several international organizations have criticized the plan, saying it would undermine international cooperation and lacks details on how human rights would be protected.

    Immigration Minister Mattias Tesfaye has said the Danish government needed a legal framework for a new asylum system before details could be presented. The center-right opposition has been backing the Social Democratic minority government and voted in favor of the law approved Thursday.

    “This is insane, this is absurd,” Michala C. Bendixen, a spokesperson for advocacy and legal aid organization Refugees Welcome, told The Associated Press. “What it’s all about is that Denmark wants to get rid of refugees. The plan is to scare people away from seeking asylum in Denmark.”

    The European Union’s executive commission expressed concern about the vote and its implications, saying that any move to outsource asylum claims is not compatible with the laws of the 27-nation bloc. Denmark is an EU member.

    “External processing of asylum claims raises fundamental questions about both the access to asylum procedures and effective access to protection. It is not possible under existing EU rules,” European Commission spokesperson Adalbert Jahnz said.

    He said such an approach was not part of the commission’s proposals for reforming the EU’s asylum system, which was overwhelmed by the arrival into Europe of more than 1 million people in 2015, many of them from Syria.

    The Social Democrats have for a few years floated the idea of basing a refugee refugee center abroad. In January, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen reiterated an election campaign vision of having “zero asylum-seekers.”

    The Social Democrats argue their approach would prevent people from attempting the dangerous journey across the Mediterranean Sea to reach Europe and undermine migrant traffickers who exploit desperate asylum-seekers. Since 2014, more than 20,000 migrants and refugees have died while trying to cross the sea.

    When people realize they will be sent out of Europe, “they will stop going to Denmark, and that will mean that they will stop putting themselves in a dangerous situation on the Mediterranean Sea and they will stop wasting a lot of money paying like they pay to these smugglers,” Rasmus Stoklund, a Social Democratic lawmaker and member of Parliament’s Immigration and Integration Committee, told The Associated Press.

    Bendixen of Refugees Welcome said the government’s argument is “nonsense” because asylum-seekers still would have to get to Denmark. Under the government’s plan, they would not be able to apply directly at a reception center outside the country since that only can be done at a Danish border. Instead, those who reach Denmark would be sent to a third country while their applications are processed.

    In April, the Danish government said it had signed a memorandum of understanding with Rwanda. The government has kept a low profile with the memorandum, which is not legally binding and sets the framework for future negotiations and cooperation between the two countries.

    Danish daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten reported that Denmark also has been in dialogue with Tunisia, Ethiopia and Egypt.

    Tesfaye has promised lawmakers that any agreement with another country will be presented to parliament before the government can “adopt a model or send someone to a reception center,” legislator Mads Fuglede of the opposition Liberal Party told Jyllands-Posten.

    The immigration stance of the Social Democratic government resembles the positions that right-wing nationalists took when mass migration to Europe peaked in 2015. Denmark recently made headlines for declaring parts of Syria “safe” and revoking the residency permits of some Syrian refugees.

    In 2016, the Social Democrats supported a law that allowed Danish authorities to seize jewelry and other assets from refugees to help finance their housing and other services. Human rights groups denounced the law, proposed by the center-right government leading Denmark at the time, though in practice it has been implemented only a handful of times.

    The Social Democrats also voted to put rejected asylum-seekers and foreigners convicted of crimes on a tiny island that formerly housed facilities for researching contagious animal diseases. That plan was eventually dropped.

    https://apnews.com/article/united-nations-africa-europe-migration-government-and-politics-a199bb4b99906

    #Danemark #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Afrique
    #offshore_asylum_processing
    –—
    voir métaliste sur l’#externalisation de la #procédure_d'asile dans des #pays_tiers :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

    ping @isskein @karine4 @rhoumour @_kg_

    • #Priti_Patel ’opens talks with Denmark to open new centre in AFRICA to process asylum seekers who want to come to UK’

      - Priti Patel is working on legislation which could see migrants processed offshore
      - UK is in talks with Denmark to open immigration processing centre in #Rwanda
      - Plans form part of effort by the Home Office to curb soaring migrant numbers
      - In total, more than 5,300 asylum seekers have arrived in the UK so far this year

      The Home Secretary is working on laws which could see migrants sent to an offshore immigration centre, a report has revealed.

      The legislation would allow the country to build a processing centre of this kind for the first time as the total number of migrants arriving in the UK this year has reached 5,300.

      Priti Patel is in discussions with Denmark to share an immigration centre in Africa and is also set to unveil plans to crackdown on people smugglers.

      According to the Times, the plans will form part of the Nationality and Borders Bill and will see asylum seekers processed outside the UK in a bid to stop migrants making the dangerous journey across the English Channel.

      Denmark is said to be considering a site in Rwanda where two Danish ministers visited last month to sign off a memorandum on asylum and migration, according to the newspaper.

      A government source told The Times: ’The prime minister and home secretary are determined to look at anything that will make a difference on Channel crossings.’

      The Home Office has also studied the Australian system which bans the arrival of migrants travelling by sea and sends them to offshore immigration centres in neighbouring countries such as Papa New Guineau.

      Boris Johnson is reportedly unhappy with the growing number of Channel crossings facilitated by people-smugglers, and allegedly blasted Miss Patel for her mismanagement.

      Miss Patel is bringing forward new laws to try to crackdown on the journeys but ministers are apparently frustrated that Border Force officials are failing to enforce the existing rules.

      In total 5,300 asylum seekers have arrived in the UK this year so far despite Priti Patel’s announcement of an immigration crackdown in March.

      It also follows an agreement with the French authorities to crack down and effectively stop migrant crossings by last spring.

      Just last month, more than 1,600 arrived across the Channel - double last year’s total for May - and 500 were brought in over the final four days of last month alone.

      At present, most of the migrants who arrive in Kent are initially housed at a former army barracks in Folkestone which was set on fire in a riot over conditions in January amid a coronavirus outbreak.

      Asylum seekers are free to come and go from the camp, and adults have an initial interview before being sent to accommodation centres across Britain, paid for by UK taxpayers and provided by private contractors.

      The migrants are given £37.75 per week for essentials like food, clothes and toiletries while they wait for a decision on their asylum application. Kent County Council normally takes unaccompanied children into its care.

      Mrs Patel has vowed to make illegal immigration across the Channel ’unviable’ - but numbers are continuing to soar, and Dover’s Conservative MP Natalie Elphicke has called for ’urgent action’ to stop the crossings.

      Earlier this month, Denmark ratcheted up its tough anti-immigration laws by adopting new legislation enabling it to open asylum centres outside Europe where applicants would be sent to live.

      The latest move by Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s Social Democratic anti-immigration government is aimed at deterring migrants from coming to Denmark at all.

      Asylum seekers would now have to submit an application in person at the Danish border and then be flown to an asylum centre outside Europe while their application is being processed.

      If the application is approved and the person is granted refugee status, he or she would be given the right to live in the host country, but not in Denmark.

      The bill sailed through parliament, supported by a majority including the far-right, despite opposition from some left-wing parties.

      The European Commission said the Danish plan violates existing EU asylum rules.

      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9731203/Priti-Patel-opens-talks-open-new-centre-AFRICA-process-asylum-seekers.h
      #UK #Angleterre

    • Home Office proposals due on sending asylum seekers abroad

      Legislation expected next week that could open way to moving asylum seekers offshore while claims pending

      The home secretary, Priti Patel, will publish proposed legislation next week that will open the door to sending asylum seekers overseas as they await the outcome of their application for protection in the UK.

      Ministers published the New Plan for Immigration in March, which included proposals to amend sections 77 and 78 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 so that it would be possible to move asylum seekers from the UK while their asylum claim or an appeal is pending.

      Home Office sources confirmed that the legislation was expected to be published next week, but sought to play down reports that the government was in talks with Denmark over sharing a centre in Africa.

      “We’re not opening talks with Denmark over the sharing of a centre,” a source told the Guardian. “Governments talk to other governments who are pursuing similar policy aims to see how they are getting on. It’s not a regular dialogue, it was a slightly long phone call [with the Danish government] to see what they were doing. We’ve both got a similar issue and believe a similar policy solution is one of the answers. But it’s a bit premature.”

      The Danish parliament voted on 3 June in favour of a proposal to process asylum seekers outside Europe, potentially the first step in setting up a refugee screening centre in a third country, most likely in Africa.

      No deals with third countries have yet been signed, however, and no negotiations are under way, although the Danish government has agreed a memorandum of understanding with Rwanda setting a framework for future talks, and is reportedly in contact with Tunisia, Ethiopia and Egypt.

      The plan, backed by 70 MPs, with 24 voting against, drew strong criticism from human rights groups, the UN and the European Commission, which said it would undermine international cooperation and lacked guarantees on human rights protection.

      The suggestion that the UK is seeking to emulate Denmark’s offshoring policy is the latest in a long line of reports on asylum proposals the Home Office is said to be considering. Ascension Island, disused ferries and abandoned oil rigs have all been mooted in leaked reports as potential destinations for people seeking asylum in the UK.

      Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor, the UN refugee agency’s representative to the UK, said the agency had no information on reports of a collaboration between Denmark and the UK but added she was “extremely concerned” and urged the UK to “refrain from externalising its asylum obligations”.

      “These cannot be outsourced or transferred without effective safeguards in place, both in law and practice,” she said. “As we have seen in several contexts, externalisation often results in the forced transfers of people to other countries with inadequate protection safeguards and resources, and therefore risks a breach of international refugee and human rights obligations.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/28/home-office-proposals-due-on-sending-asylum-seekers-abroad

  • Danish government : Pushing migration outside Europe’s boundaries

    Denmark has appointed a new special migration envoy to “help open doors” towards a new EU migration policy which would push reception centers outside EU borders. The government on Thursday also said that Tunisia should take in the 27 migrants aboard the Danish-flagged tanker Maersk Etienne which has been stranded off Malta for weeks.

    On Thursday, Denmark’s foreign ministry announced it will be appointing Anders Tang Friborg to the post of special envoy on migration. The new ambassador is expected to “help open doors” towards a new EU migration policy, which the Danes hope will move towards opening reception centers outside EU borders in order to process asylum claims more quickly and return anyone who is refused protection by EU countries, the news agency Associated Press (AP) reports.

    Friborg has held leading positions in the Danish Foreign Ministry, the UN and was head of Denmark’s mission in the Palestinian Territories. According to the Copenhagen Post (CPH), he would be there to “promote the Danish government’s ideas on asylum and migration issues.”

    Towards a new system of migration

    Denmark hopes to help migrants in their own regions, in order to try and prevent them ever setting out on dangerous journeys towards Europe in the first place.

    Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod told CPH that “the current international asylum system is inhumane, unfair and untenable.”

    “We want a system that tackles the problem of cynical human traffickers earning immense sums while children, women and men are abused along migration routes or drown in the Mediterranean,” Kofod told CPH.

    The goal of Denmark’s Social Democratic-led coalition is to prevent as many “spontaneous asylum-seekers as possible” coming into the country, reported AP. The way to achieve this goal was to establish “one or more reception centers outside the EU and thereby removing the migrants’ incentive to cross the Mediterranean,” said Denmark’s Acting Immigration Minister Kaare Dybvad Bek, quoted by AP.

    Bek added that the new ambassador would have a taskforce, which was established at the beginning of September, in order to carry out the work. Bek admitted to AP that his task would be “anything but easy.” The Danish government has not yet clarified in which countries they are hoping to set up the new reception centers.

    Migrants stranded on Etienne tanker off Malta

    Meanwhile on Thursday the Danish government indicated that Tunisia should accept the 27 migrants which have been stranded on board the Danish-flagged freighter Etienne for over a month.

    The Danish immigration ministry told the news agency Agence France Presse (AFP) in a statement that “the Danish government’s assessment is that Tunisia should honor its responsibility for receiving the 27 people [aboard the Maersk Etienne].” The ministry clarified that their assesment was “among other things based on the fact that the ship’s planned destination was Tunisia and that the migrants were rescued close to Tunisia.”

    The oil and chemical tanker Etienne, which belongs to the Danish shipping company Maersk, picked up the 27 migrants in August after it was called to provide assistance by the Maltese Search and Rescue Coordination. The group include one child and a pregnant woman.

    Since then, the tanker has been stranded off Malta and has been denied entry to Mediterranean ports.

    On Sunday, Maltese Prime Minister Robert Abela also abdicated responsibility for the people on board, according to AFP, saying the migrants on board were “not his country’s responsibility as the vessel sails under the Danish flag.”

    “Stuck at sea for 35 days and counting,” said Maersk in a tweet on Wedensday. “The crew and the people they rescued, now need rescuing from this stalemate. When will relevant authorities take responsibility?”

    ’Not a safe place’

    The ship’s Captain, a Ukrainian, has repeatedly called to be allowed to disembark the rescued migrants, explaining in video messages and statements that his tanker is not set up to host guests on board. In videos he and the ship’s crew have shown how the migrants are sleeping mostly on deck, tucked in between metal struts with only buckets and hoses in which to wash and prepare food.

    According to a press release by the UN refugee agency UNHCR, the ship’s crew have been “sharing food, water and blankets with those rescued,” but are “not trained or able to provide medical assistance to those who need it.” The UNHCR added that “a commercial vessel is not a safe environment for these vulnerable people and they must be immediately brought to a safe port.”

    The statement reads: “The Maersk Etienne fulfilled its responsibilities, but now finds itself in a diplomatic game of pass the parcel.”

    ’Conditions are rapidly deteriorating’

    Four days ago, the Secretary General of the International Chamber of Shipping, Guy Platten, also spoke up on the ship’s behalf, explaining that “conditions are rapidly deteriorating onboard, and we can no longer sit by while governments ignore the plight of these people.”

    Three of the migrants already jumped overboard in desperation, only to be recovered again by the crew of the Etienne. Platten added that the “shipping industry takes its legal and humanitarian obligations to assist people in distress at sea extremely seriously, and has worked hard to ensure that ships are as prepared as they can be when presented with the prospect of large-scale reescues at sea. However, merchant vessels are not designed or equipped for this purpose, and states need to play their part.”

    https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/27216/danish-government-pushing-migration-outside-europe-s-boundaries

    –-> Une nouvelle qui date de septembre 2020 et que je mets ici pour archivage...

    #externalisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #externalisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #procédure_d'asile #Danemark

    –----

    voir la métaliste sur les tentatives d’externalisation de la procédure d’asile de différents pays européens dans l’histoire :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

  • Revealed: No 10 explores sending asylum seekers to Moldova, Morocco and Papua New Guinea | UK news | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/sep/30/revealed-no-10-explores-sending-asylum-seekers-to-moldova-morocco-and-p

    Downing Street has asked officials to consider the option of sending asylum seekers to Moldova, Morocco or Papua New Guinea and is the driving force behind proposals to hold refugees in offshore detention centres, according to documents seen by the Guardian.

    The documents suggest officials in the Foreign Office have been pushing back against No 10’s proposals to process asylum applications in detention facilities overseas, which have also included the suggestion the centres could be constructed on the south Atlantic islands of Ascension and St Helena.

    The documents, marked “official” and “sensitive” and produced earlier this month, summarise advice from officials at the Foreign Office, which was asked by Downing Street to “offer advice on possible options for negotiating an offshore asylum processing facility similar to the Australian model in Papua New Guinea and Nauru”.

    #migration #asile #déportation #externalisation #déterritorialisation

    • Downing Street has asked officials to consider the option of sending asylum seekers to Moldova, Morocco or Papua New Guinea and is the driving force behind proposals to hold refugees in offshore detention centres, according to documents seen by the Guardian.

      The documents suggest officials in the Foreign Office have been pushing back against No 10’s proposals to process asylum applications in detention facilities overseas, which have also included the suggestion the centres could be constructed on the south Atlantic islands of Ascension and St Helena.

      The documents, marked “official” and “sensitive” and produced earlier this month, summarise advice from officials at the Foreign Office, which was asked by Downing Street to “offer advice on possible options for negotiating an offshore asylum processing facility similar to the Australian model in Papua New Guinea and Nauru”.

      The Australian system of processing asylum seekers in on the Pacific Islands costs AY$13bn (£7.2bn) a year and has attracted criticism from human rights groups, the United Nations and even the UK government, according to the documents, which reveal British ministers have “privately” raised concerns with Australia over the abuse of detainees in its offshore detention facilities.

      The Financial Times reported on Wednesday that the home secretary, Priti Patel, asked officials to consider processing asylum seekers Ascension and St Helena, which are overseas British territories. Home Office sources were quick to distance Patel from the proposals and Downing Street has also played down Ascension and St Helena as destinations for asylum processing centres.

      However, the documents seen by the Guardian suggest the government has for weeks been working on “detailed plans” that include cost estimates of building asylum detention camps on the south Atlantic islands, as well as other proposals to build such facilities in Moldova, Morocco and Papua New Guinea.

      The documents suggest the UK’s proposals would go further than Australia’s hardline system, which is “based on migrants being intercepted outside Australian waters”, allowing Australia to claim no immigration obligations to individuals. The UK proposals, the documents state, would involve relocating asylum seekers who “have arrived in the UK and are firmly within the jurisdiction of the UK for the purposes of the ECHR and Human Rights Act 1998”.

      The documents suggest that the idea that Morocco, Moldova and Papua New Guinea might make suitable destinations for UK asylum processing centres comes directly from Downing Street, with documents saying the three countries were specifically “suggested” and “floated” by No 10. One document says the request for advice on third country options for detention facilities came from “the PM”.

      The Times reported that the government was also giving serious consideration to the idea of creating floating asylum centres in disused ferries moored off the UK coast.

      While composed in the restrained language of civil servants, the Foreign Office advice contained in the documents appears highly dismissive of the ideas emanating from Downing Street, pointing out numerous legal, practical and diplomatic obstacles to processing asylums seekers oversees. The documents state that:

      • Plans to process asylum seekers at offshore centres in Ascension or St Helena would be “extremely expensive and logistically complicated” given the remoteness of the islands. The estimated cost is £220m build cost per 1,000 beds and running costs of £200m. One document adds: “In relation to St Helena we will need to consider if we are willing to impose the plan if the local government object.”

      • The “significant” legal, diplomatic and practical obstacles to the plan include the existence of “sensitive military installations” on the island of Ascension. One document warns that the military issues mean the “will mean US government would need to be persuaded at the highest levels, and even then success cannot be guaranteed”.

      • It is “highly unlikely” that any north African state, including Morocco, would agree to hosting asylum seekers relocated to the UK. “No north African country, Morocco included, has a fully functioning asylum system,” one document states. “Morocco would not have the resources (or the inclination) to pay for a processing centre.”

      • Seeming to dismiss the idea of sending asylum seekers to Moldova, Foreign Office officials point out there is protracted conflict in the eastern European country over Transnistria as well as “endemic” corruption. They add: “If an asylum centre depended on reliable, transparent, credible cooperation from the host country justice system we would not be able to rely on this.”

      • Officials warned of “significant political and logistical obstacles” to sending asylum seekers to Papua New Guinea, pointing out it is more than 8,500 miles away, has a fragile public health system and is “one of the bottom few countries in the world in terms of medical personnel per head of population”. They also warn any such a move would “renew scrutiny of Australia’s own offshore processing”. One document adds: “Politically, we judge the chances of positive engagement with the government on this to be almost nil.”

      A Foreign Office source played down the idea that the department had objected to Downing Street’s offshoring proposals for asylum seekers, saying officials’ concerns were only about the practicality of the plan. “This was something which the Cabinet Office commissioned, which we responded to with full vigour, to show how things could work,” the source said.

      However, another Whitehall source familiar with the government plans said they were part of a push by Downing Street to “radically beef-up the hostile environment” in 2021 following the end of the Brexit transition. Former prime minister Theresa May’s “hostile environment” phrase, which became closely associated with the polices that led to the Windrush scandal, is no longer being used in government.

      But the source said that moves are afoot to find a slate of new policies that would achieve a similar end to “discourage” and “deter” migrants from entering the UK illegally.

      The documents seen by the Guardian also contain details of Home Office legal advice to Downing Street, which states that the policy would require legislative changes, including “disapplying sections 77 and 78 of the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 so that asylum seekers can be removed from the UK while their claim or appeal is pending”.

      Another likely legislative change, according to the Home Office advice, would require “defining what we mean by a clandestine arrival (and potentially a late claim) and create powers allowing us to send them offshore for the purposes of determining their asylum claims”.

      One of the documents states that the option of building detention centres in foreign countries – rather than British overseas territories – is “not the favoured No 10 avenue, but they wish to explore [the option] in case it presents easier pathways to an offshore facility”.

      On Wednesday, asked about the FT’s report about the UK considering plans to ship asylum seekers to the south Atlantic for processing, Boris Johnson’s spokesperson confirmed the UK was considering Australian–style offshore processing centres.

      He said the UK had a “long and proud history” of accepting asylum seekers but needed to act, particularly given migrants making unofficial crossings from France in small boats.

      “We are developing plans to reform our illegal migration and asylum policies so we can keep providing protection to those who need it, while preventing abuse of the system and criminality. As part of this work we’ve been looking at what a whole host of other countries do to inform a plan for the United Kingdom. And that work is ongoing.”

      Asked for comment about the proposals regarding Moldova, Morocco and Papua New Guinea, Downing Street referred the Guardian to the spokesman’s earlier comments. The Foreign Office referred the Guardian to the Home Office. The Home Office said it had nothing to add to comments by the prime minister’s spokesman.

      #UK #Angleterre #Maroc #Papoue_Nouvelle_Guinée #Moldavie
      #offshore_detention_centres
      #procédure_d'asile #externalisation_de_la_procédure #modèle_australien

      #île_de_l'Ascension

      #île_Sainte-Hélène


      #Sainte-Hélène

      –---

      Les #floating_asylum_centres pensés par l’UK rappellent d’autres structures flottantes :
      https://seenthis.net/messages/879396

      –—

      Ajouté à la métaliste sur l’externalisation des frontières :
      https://seenthis.net/messages/731749

    • Ascension Island: Priti Patel considered outpost for UK asylum centre location

      The government has considered building an asylum processing centre on a remote UK territory in the Atlantic Ocean.

      The idea of “offshoring” people is being looked at but finding a suitable location would be key, a source said.

      Home Secretary Priti Patel asked officials to look at asylum policies which had been successful in other countries, the BBC has been told.

      The Financial Times says Ascension Island, more than 4,000 miles (6,000km) from the UK, was a suggested location.

      What happens to migrants who reach the UK?
      More migrants arrive in September than all of 2019
      Fleeing the Syrian war for Belfast

      The Foreign Office is understood to have carried out an assessment for Ascension - which included the practicalities of transferring migrants thousands of miles to the island - and decided not to proceed.

      However, a Home Office source said ministers were looking at “every option that can stop small boat crossings and fix the asylum system”.

      "The UK has a long and proud history of offering refuge to those who need protection. Tens of thousands of people have rebuilt their lives in the UK and we will continue to provide safe and legal routes in the future.

      “As ministers have said we are developing plans to reform policies and laws around illegal migration and asylum to ensure we are able to provide protection to those who need it, while preventing abuse of the system and the criminality associated with it.”

      No final decisions have been made.
      ’Logistical nightmare’

      Labour’s shadow home secretary Nick Thomas-Symonds said: “This ludicrous idea is inhumane, completely impractical and wildly expensive - so it seems entirely plausible this Tory government came up with it.”

      Alan Nicholls, a member of the Ascension Island council, said moving asylum seekers more than 4,000 miles to the British overseas territory would be a “logistical nightmare” and not well received by the islanders.

      He also told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that the presence of military bases on the island could make the concept “prohibitive” due to security concerns.

      Australia has controversially used offshore processing and detention centres for asylum seekers since the 1980s.

      A United Nations refugee agency representative to the UK, Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor, said the proposal would breach the UK’s obligations to asylum seekers and would “change what the UK is - its history and its values”.

      Speaking to the UK Parliament’s Home Affairs Select Committee, she said the Australian model had “brought about huge suffering for people, who are guilty of no more than seeking asylum, and it has also cost huge amounts of money”.

      The proposal comes amid record numbers of migrants making the journey across the English Channel to the UK in small boats this month, which Ms Patel has vowed to stop.

      Laura Trott, Conservative MP for Sevenoaks in Kent, said it was “absolutely right” that the government was looking at offshore asylum centres to “reduce the pressure” on Kent, which was “unable to take any more children into care”.

      In order to be eligible for asylum in the UK, applicants must prove they cannot return to their home country because they fear persecution due to their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, gender identity or sexual orientation.

      Asylum seekers cannot work while their claims are being processed, so the government offers them a daily allowance of just over £5 and accommodation, often in hostels or shared flats.

      Delays in processing UK asylum applications increased significantly last year with four out of five applicants in the last three months of 2019 waiting six months or more for their cases to be processed.

      That compared with three in four during the same period in 2018.

      –—

      Ascension Island key facts

      The volcanic island has no indigenous population, and the people that live there - fewer than 1,000 - are the employees and families of the organisations operating on the island
      The military airbase is jointly operated by the RAF and the US, and has been used as a staging post to supply and defend the Falkland Islands
      Its first human inhabitants arrived in 1815, when the Royal Navy set up camp to keep watch on Napoleon, who was imprisoned on the island of St Helena some 800 miles away
      It is home to a BBC transmitter - the BBC Atlantic Relay station - which sends shortwave radio to Africa and South America

      https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-54349796

    • UK considers sending asylum seekers abroad to be processed

      Reports suggest using #Gibraltar or the #Isle_of_Man or copying Australian model and paying third countries

      The Home Office is considering plans to send asylum seekers who arrive in the UK overseas to be processed, an idea modelled on a controversial Australian system, it is understood.

      Priti Patel, the home secretary, is expected to publish details next week of a scheme in which people who arrive in the UK via unofficial means, such as crossing the Channel in small boats, would be removed to a third country to have any claim dealt with.

      The government has pledged repeatedly to introduce measures to try to reduce the number of asylum seekers arriving across the Channel. Australia removes arrivals to overseas islands while their claims are processed.

      A Home Office source said: “Whilst people are dying making perilous journeys we would be irresponsible if we didn’t consider every avenue.”

      However, the source played down reports that destinations considered included Turkey, Gibraltar, the Isle of Man or other British islands, and that talks with some countries had begun, saying this was “all speculation”.

      Last year it emerged that meetings involving Patel had raised the possibility of asylum seekers being sent to Ascension Island, an isolated volcanic British territory in the south Atlantic, or St Helena, part of the same island group but 800 miles away.

      At the time, Home Office sources said the proposals came when Patel sought advice from the Foreign Office on how other countries deal with asylum applications, with Australia’s system given as an example.

      Labour described the Ascension Island idea as “inhumane, completely impractical and wildly expensive”.

      After the Brexit transition period finished at the end of 2020, the UK government no longer had the automatic right to transfer refugees and migrants to the EU country in which they arrived, part of the European asylum system known as the Dublin regulation.

      The UK government sought to replace this with a similar, post-Brexit version, but was rebuffed by the EU.

      With the government facing political pressure on migrant Channel crossings from some parts of the media, and from people like Nigel Farage, the former Ukip leader who frequently makes videos describing the boats as “an invasion”, Patel’s department has sought to respond.

      Last year, official documents seen by the Guardian showed that trials had taken place to test a blockade in the Channel similar to Australia’s controversial “turn back the boats” tactic.

      Reports at the time, denied by Downing Street, said that other methods considered to deter unofficial Channel crossings included a wave machine to push back the craft.

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/18/asylum-seekers-could-be-sent-abroad-by-uk-to-be-processed

  • Germany wants asylum seekers assessed before reaching Europe

    The German interior minister #Horst_Seehofer has called for a new European migration system which would see asylum applications decided outside Europe’s borders.

    Germany has called on the European Union to change its approach to asylum applications. The interior minister, Horst #Seehofer, said on Tuesday that applicants should undergo initial assessment at Europe’s external borders and be sent home from there as well.

    “We have to realize that the Dublin system has failed,” Seehofer told the interior ministers of France, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom at a meeting of the so-called #G6 group in the southern German city of Munich on Tuesday.

    The Dublin regulation refers to European Union rules which state that the EU country in which a person seeking asylum first sets foot should handle the asylum application.

    External processing

    “(This) system cannot be the basis for the EU’s future asylum policy,” Seehofer said. “We need a new philosophy that starts at the external borders.”


    https://twitter.com/BMI_Bund/status/1189152116176248832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E11

    “Our proposition: Effective protection of Europe’s external borders, where we check whether someone has a need for protection or has to be returned immediately. This means we need a unified set of rules.”

    Under Seehofer’s proposal, only asylum seekers with prospects for receiving protection in Europe should be distributed among a group of willing EU countries. Their asylum issues would then be addressed there.

    If the initial assessment at the European external borders is negative, the EU border agency Frontex should return the asylum seeker to his or her home country.

    Most support Seehofer

    The EU migration commissioner, Dimitris Avrampoulos, who also attended the G6 meeting, welcomed the proposal and called the discussions “constructive”. He said most of the G6 ministers supported Seehofer.


    https://twitter.com/Avramopoulos/status/1188870575877492736?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E11

    Seehofer also wants to bring forward a planned strengthening of the European border agency, Frontex. Officials in Brussels on Wednesday approved plans to deploy 10,000 uniformed border guards and officers across the EU by 2027, the AFP news agency reports.

    https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/20480/germany-wants-asylum-seekers-assessed-before-reaching-europe
    #externalisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #externalisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #procédure_d'asile

    Je répète ici les mots de Seehofer, car on va probablement encore et encore les réutiliser...

    “We have to realize that the Dublin system has failed, (...) (This) system cannot be the basis for the EU’s future asylum policy,” Seehofer said. “We need a new philosophy that starts at the external borders. (...) Our proposition: Effective protection of Europe’s external borders, where we check whether someone has a need for protection or has to be returned immediately. This means we need a unified set of rules.”

    –-----------

    Ceci est à mettre en lien aussi avec le même genre de proposition (celle d’une externalisation non seulement des #contrôles_frontaliers, mais aussi de la #procédure_d'asile, et du #tri et de la #catégorisation) de #Macron en 2017 :
    Macron veut « identifier » les demandeurs d’asile au #Tchad et au Niger
    https://seenthis.net/messages/704970
    #France #hub

    –-------

    Mais Macron lui-même n’avait rien inventé... C’était une proposition qui arrivait de l’#Angleterre de #Tony_Blair :

    The idea of establishing reception centres in third countries, however, is not new. It was first suggested, unsuccessfully, by Tony Blair in 2003 [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/feb/05/asylum.immigrationasylumandrefugees] It was then taken over by the former German Interior Minister Otto Schily in 2005,[ “German Interior Ministry, Effektiver Schutz für Flüchtlinge, wirkungsvolle Bekämpfung illegaler Migration – Überlegungen des Bundesministers des Innern zur Einrichtung einer EU-Aufnahmeeinrichtung in Nordafrika 9 September 2005.”] who proposed to establish asylum centres in North Africa, and more recently Italy. The original 2003 Blair proposal was that any third-country national who sought asylum in the EU would be returned immediately to a centre in a third country where his or her application would be considered.

    https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/offshore-processing-asylum-applications-out-sight-out-mind
    #UK

    v. aussi :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/704970#message704974
    #Transit_Processing_Centres (#TPCs) #UK

    ping @_kg_ @isskein @karine4 @visionscarto

    –----

    voir la métaliste sur les tentatives d’externalisation de la procédure d’asile de différents pays européens dans l’histoire :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

    • 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 (https://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, https://www.thelocal.at/20180715/austrian-president-criticises-governments-asylum-proposals); Austrian proposal requires asylum seekers to apply outside EU: Profil (Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-austria/austrian-proposal-requires-asylum-seekers-to-apply-outside-eu-profil-idUSKB); Right of asylum: Austria’s unsettling proposals to member states (EurActiv, https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/right-of-asylum-austrias-unsettling-proposals-to-member-states)

      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” (http://statewatch.org/news/2018/jul/eu-ciuncil-returns.htm) 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, https://www.thelocal.at/20180713/no-firm-eu-agreement-on-austrian-proposals-for-reducing-migration)

      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)

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

      #Autriche

    • Germany proposed a new automatic relocation scheme for asylum seekers (https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-sets-out-plan-for-automatic-relocation-of-asylum-seekers), according to which requests for international protection would be evaluated at the external borders of the European Union. The proposal was presented last week to EU member states, with the aim of making progress in the reforming of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), ahead of the German Presidency of the Council of the EU in the second part of next year. The document proposes the initial evaluation of cases at EU’s external borders, a new regime for determining which member state is responsible for the further processing of the application, and measures to prevent asylum seekers’ migration from one member state to another. The proposal that initial assessments of all cases should be made at the external borders is very problematic, since it determines that “clearly false and unfounded” requests would be denied immediately at the external border, as well as the fact that measures including restricting freedom of movement could be used in such proceedings. Moreover, the question of what would be the exact procedure of determining which states are responsible for processing applications for asylum also arises. According to the German plan, the key role in this would be reserved for European Asylum Support Office (EASO), which the Commission already proposes to transform into the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA), that would then decide which member state is responsible for the further processing of applications. This decision would be based on factors such as the size of the population of the member state, their GDP and so on.

      Reçu via Inicijativa dobrodosli, mail du 04.11.2019.

  • #métaliste (qui va être un grand chantier, car il y a plein d’information sur seenthis, qu’il faudrait réorganiser) sur :
    #externalisation #contrôles_frontaliers #frontières #migrations #réfugiés

    Des liens vers des articles généraux sur l’externalisation des frontières de la part de l’ #UE (#EU) :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/569305
    https://seenthis.net/messages/390549
    https://seenthis.net/messages/320101

    Ici une tentative (très mal réussie, car évidement, la divergence entre pratiques et les discours à un moment donné, ça se voit !) de l’UE de faire une brochure pour déconstruire les mythes autour de la migration...
    La question de l’externalisation y est abordée dans différentes parties de la brochure :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/765967

    Petit chapitre/encadré sur l’externalisation des frontières dans l’ouvrage "(Dé)passer la frontière" :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/769367

    Les origines de l’externalisation des contrôles frontaliers (maritimes) : accord #USA-#Haïti de #1981 :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/768694

    L’externalisation des politiques européennes en matière de migration
    https://seenthis.net/messages/787450

    "#Sous-traitance" de la #politique_migratoire en Afrique : l’Europe a-t-elle les mains propres ?
    https://seenthis.net/messages/789048

    Partners in crime ? The impacts of Europe’s outsourced migration controls on peace, stability and rights :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/794636
    #paix #stabilité #droits #Libye #Niger #Turquie

    Proceedings of the conference “Externalisation of borders : detention practices and denial of the right to asylum”
    https://seenthis.net/messages/880193

    Brochure sur l’externalisation des frontières (passamontagna)
    https://seenthis.net/messages/952016

  • Beaucoup a déjà été publié sur seenthis sur l’#externalisation des frontières.

    Sur ce fil, je réunis surtout les documents de la politique de #Macron au sujet de tentative de l’externalisation de la #procédure_d'asile dans des #pays_tiers.

    Il s’agit de messages que j’ai ajoutés à des messages d’autres personnes (pour éviter que si jamais l’auteur du message original quitte seenthis et efface son compte, moi je ne perds pas mes informations —> je vais faire cela assez systématiquement, quand j’ai le temps, dans les prochains mois = paranoïa de perte de données).

    Voir aussi ce fil de discussion, que je ne vais pas "rapatrier" ici :
    Emmanuel #Macron veut créer des « hotspots » pour gérer les demandes d’asile en #Libye
    https://seenthis.net/messages/618133

    Par contre, pour celui-ci, je vais copier les messages ci-dessous, car le fil de discussion n’a pas été initié par moi :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/625374

    #France
    #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #frontières #asile #migrations #réfugiés #procédure_d'asile

    –—

    voir la métaliste sur les tentatives d’externalisation de la procédure d’asile de différents pays européens dans l’histoire :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/900122

    cc @isskein

    • Macron veut « identifier » les demandeurs d’asile au #Tchad et au Niger

      Lors d’un mini-sommet organisé à l’Élysée lundi 28 août, Paris, Berlin, Madrid et Rome ont proposé l’envoi de « missions de protection » au Niger et au Tchad dans le but d’identifier en amont les migrants éligibles à l’asile. Une initiative qui pose plus de questions qu’elle n’en résout.

      À l’issue d’un mini-sommet organisé à Paris le 28 août, les chefs d’État ou de gouvernement de sept pays européens et africains – la France, l’Allemagne, l’Espagne et l’Italie, d’un côté de la Méditerranée, le Tchad, le Niger et la Libye, de l’autre – se sont mis d’accord autour d’une « feuille de route » visant à « contrôler les flux migratoires » entre les deux continents.
      Réunis avec les présidents du Tchad, Idriss Déby, et du Niger, Mahamadou Issoufou, ainsi qu’avec le premier ministre libyen du gouvernement d’union nationale, Fayez al-Sarraj, le président français, Emmanuel Macron, la chancelière allemande, Angela Merkel, le premier ministre espagnol, Mariano Rajoy, et le président du Conseil italien, Paolo Gentiloni, ont ainsi proposé l’envoi de « missions de protection » au Niger et au Tchad, dans le but d’identifier en amont les migrants éligibles à l’asile (retrouver ici et là les déclarations conjointes).

      « Nous avons acté, je m’y étais engagé à Orléans au début de l’été, d’avoir un traitement humanitaire à la hauteur de nos exigences et de pouvoir, dans des zones identifiées, pleinement sûres, au Niger et au Tchad, sous la supervision du HCR [Haut Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés – ndlr], identifier les ressortissants qui ont le droit à l’asile, pouvoir les mettre en sécurité le plus rapidement », a expliqué le président français lors de la conférence de presse.

      Le 27 juillet, ce dernier avait créé la polémique en affirmant, en marge d’une visite dans un centre d’hébergement de réfugiés à Orléans, vouloir créer des « hot spots », ces centres chargés de trier les candidats à l’asile en France, « dès cet été », pour maîtriser l’arrivée des migrants venus de Libye et, avait-il ajouté, pour « éviter aux gens de prendre des risques fous alors qu’ils ne sont pas tous éligibles à l’asile ». Quelques heures plus tard, son entourage avait fait machine arrière en expliquant que, pour l’heure, seuls le Tchad et le Niger devraient être concernés. Après la visite, dans un discours à la préfecture du Loiret, le président avait d’ailleurs rectifié le tir en se contentant d’évoquer l’envoi de missions de l’Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides (Ofpra) « sur le sol africain ».

      La feuille de route du 28 août, qui substitue l’idée de « missions de protection » à celle de « hot spots », prévoit que l’identification des demandeurs d’asile se fera par le HCR, avec l’aval des autorités du pays de premier accueil et le soutien d’équipes européennes spécialistes de l’asile. Les personnes sélectionnées entreraient dans le programme dit de réinstallation du HCR « sur des listes fermées », c’est-à-dire listant les migrants d’ores et déjà identifiés par le HCR, et « selon des critères fixés en commun », non communiqués pour l’instant.

      Les migrants ne répondant pas à ces conditions devraient être reconduits « dans leur pays d’origine, dans la sécurité, l’ordre et la dignité, de préférence sur une base volontaire, en tenant compte de la législation nationale et dans le respect du droit international ».

      Sur le papier, l’idée pourrait paraître séduisante, puisqu’elle se donne comme objectif d’« ouvrir une voie légale pour les personnes ayant besoin d’une protection conformément au droit international et européen, en particulier pour les personnes les plus vulnérables selon les procédures du HCR relatives à la détermination de la qualité de réfugié, et qui sont susceptibles de migrer vers l’Europe ». Le but serait ainsi de leur éviter l’enfer libyen, où il est de notoriété publique que les migrants subissent les pires sévices, mais aussi les dangers de la traversée de la Méditerranée sur des canots pneumatiques. Depuis le début de l’année, près de 98 000 personnes sont arrivées par cette route maritime centrale, et près de 2 250 ont péri en mer, selon les chiffres de l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations.

      Mais derrière cette intention louable, se cache surtout le projet de réduire au maximum l’arrivée sur le Vieux Continent de personnes perçues par les dirigeants européens comme des « migrants économiques », pour lesquels aucun accueil n’est envisagé. L’objectif est ainsi de décourager les départs le plus en amont possible. Cette politique n’est pas nouvelle : voilà une vingtaine d’années que Bruxelles multiplie les accords avec les pays d’origine et de transit, par des campagnes d’affichage et des bureaux d’information, à coups de dizaines de millions d’euros, afin de convaincre les migrants de rester chez eux.

      Avec ces nouveaux guichets de pré-examen de la demande d’asile, il s’agit d’aller plus loin, car il est fort à parier que le nombre de personnes retenues par le HCR et in fine réinstallées en Europe sera extrêmement réduit. Dans les pays de l’UE, les demandeurs d’asile originaires d’Afrique subsaharienne obtiennent rarement le statut de réfugié. Les ONG sont donc particulièrement sceptiques à l’égard de ce genre d’initiatives, qu’elles considèrent comme une manière déguisée de sous-traiter la demande d’asile à des pays tiers, aussi éloignés que possible du continent européen. « On repousse la frontière européenne dans des pays de plus en plus lointains », a ainsi affirmé à l’AFP Eva Ottavy, de la Cimade, pour qui, « sous couvert de sauver des vies, on bloque l’accès au territoire ».

      Par ailleurs, le dispositif de réinstallation mis en place dans le monde par le HCR est décrié par ces mêmes associations de défense des droits des étrangers qui estiment que les critères mis en œuvre sont trop restrictifs et les procédures trop peu transparentes.

      Quand on sait que le système de relocalisation organisé par l’Union européenne pour répartir les réfugiés arrivés en Grèce ne fonctionne pas, alors même que ces exilés sont des ressortissants de pays susceptibles d’obtenir l’asile (Syrie, Afghanistan, Irak et Iran principalement), on peut s’interroger sur le nombre d’Africains subsahariens qui pourront effectivement bénéficier de cette « voie légale » pour arriver en Europe.

      Enfin, la décision de Paris, Berlin, Madrid et Rome d’« améliorer la coopération économique avec les communautés locales se trouvant sur les routes migratoires en Libye, afin de créer des sources de revenu alternatives, d’accroître leur résilience et de les rendre indépendantes de la traite des êtres humains » a de quoi laisser dubitatif. En effet, Reuters a récemment révélé l’existence sur les côtes libyennes, à Sabratah, principale ville de départ des migrants, d’une milice armée qui empêcherait violemment les embarcations de partir et détiendrait les candidats au passage dans des conditions dégradantes (lire notre article). Or, d’après de nombreux témoignages, il semble que ce groupe mafieux soit, en partie au moins, financé par le gouvernement d’union nationale de Tripoli, lui-même soutenu par les fonds européens.

      https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/290817/macron-veut-identifier-les-demandeurs-d-asile-au-tchad-et-au-niger

      #hotspots #externalisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Macron #Tchad #Niger

      v. aussi : https://seenthis.net/messages/618133

      Et ce magnifique titre de l’opération :
      #missions_de_protection

    • Juste pour rappeler que Macron n’a rien inventé, mais qu’il surfe sur la vague...

      Voici l’extrait d’un article qui date de 2009...

      Les tendances et mesures amorcées dans les récentes prises de position politiques ne servent qu’à confirmer la direction prise depuis la fin des années quatre-vingt-dix et indiquent clairement une réalité politique qui accentue certains aspects : la présence policière, la surveillance des frontières et l’endiguement, au détriment des autres. D’abord, les orientations prises conjointement pour limiter l’accès aux demandeurs d’asile, aux réfugiés et aux familles des travailleurs, à travers une série de directives et de règlements (c’est-à-dire des populations ayant droit à l’accès) et le développement croissant d’une politique d’immigration sélective des travailleurs, ont contribué à créer une étape de plus dans l’externalisation. Cette étape a été franchie en 2003 et 2004 avec deux propositions, l’une émanant des Britanniques sur les “#Transit_Processing_Centres” (#TPCs) et l’autre des Italiens et des Allemands, pour mettre en place des bureaux d’immigration en Afrique du Nord.

      Tiré de :
      Dimension extérieure de la politique d’immigration de l’Union européenne
      https://hommesmigrations.revues.org/342

      #Italie #Allemagne #UK #Angleterre

    • Au Niger, la frontière invisible de l’Europe

      L’enquête des « Jours » sur la trace des migrants morts en mer passe par le Niger, nouveau pays de transit pour les candidats à l’exil.

      Depuis l’été 2016 et la mise en œuvre de la loi via le « #plan_Bazoum », du nom du ministre de l’Intérieur Mohamed Bazoum, toute personne transportant des étrangers dans le désert, au nord de l’axe Arlit-Dirkou (consulter notre carte des Disparus), est considéré comme étant en infraction avec la loi. D’ailleurs, à proximité de la gare de Rimbo, une pancarte affichant les logos de l’Union européenne et de l’Agence nationale de lutte contre la traite des personnes (ANLTP) du Niger le rappelle : « Transporter illégalement des migrants vous expose à une peine d’amende de 1 000 000 à 3 000 000 CFA [1 525 à 4 575 euros, ndlr]. »

      v. aussi : https://seenthis.net/messages/605400

      « Dans cette histoire de migration, rien n’est ni noir, ni blanc. C’est un sujet tellement complexe qu’on ne peut pas le résumer en quelques vérités », dit Kirsi Henriksson, au volant de son 4x4, dans les rues de Niamey. Kirsi Henriksson dirige Eucap Sahel au Niger, une opération civile de l’Union européenne créée en 2012, après la chute de Kadhafi, pour lutter contre le terrorisme et la criminalité organisée dans la région. Quand Henriksson a pris son poste en août 2016, le mandat de l’opération venait d’être élargi à la lutte contre l’immigration irrégulière. Le moment était parfait pour l’Union européenne : le plan Bazoum venait d’être mis en application. Désormais, des policiers et des gendarmes européens conseillent et forment leurs homologues nigériens à des techniques de contrôle et renseignement visant à intercepter les trafics de drogues et d’armes, mais aussi ceux d’êtres humains. « Nous n’avons pas de mandat exécutif, nous n’arrêtons personne. Mais nous formons les autorités nigériennes à arrêter les gens. Pour beaucoup, nous sommes les méchants de cette histoire. »

      Avant le Niger, Kirsi Henriksson a travaillé pour des missions similaires de l’Union européenne au Mali, en Libye et en Irak. Universitaire de formation, elle s’est spécialisée dans les études sur la paix et les conflits avant de partir « construire la paix dans la vraie vie ». « Je dois avouer que les résultats n’ont pas toujours été à la hauteur de l’ambition », elle sourit. En 2014, elle a été évacuée de la Libye avec le reste de la mission européenne. Les organisations internationales sont parties elles aussi. Aujourd’hui, elles sont toutes au Niger, de même que les armées étrangères. « Une industrie de la paix », comme le qualifie la cheffe de mission.
      « Le Niger est the new place to be. Tout le monde est ici : l’armée française avec l’#opération_Barkhane, l’armée allemande qui ravitaille ses troupes au Mali depuis le Niger, l’armée américaine qui construit une base de #drones à Agadez. » À la fin de l’année 2017, l’#Italie a annoncé à son tour l’envoi de troupes – une information que les autorités nigériennes ont démentie par la suite. « Tout le monde vient parce que dans la région du Sahel, le Niger assure une certaine stabilité. Et préserver cette stabilité est dans l’intérêt de toute l’Europe. »

      Mais la migration est-elle une menace pour la stabilité du Sahel ? Paradoxalement, avec l’augmentation des contrôles et la criminalisation du trafic, elle est peut-être en train de le devenir. Le #trafic_d’êtres_humains est passé des mains des transporteurs ordinaires à celles de #réseaux_criminels transfrontaliers qui gèrent aussi d’autres trafics : la #drogue – surtout du #Tramadol, un antalgique dérivé de l’#opium –, qui arrive depuis le Nigeria vers la Libye, et les #armes, qui descendent de la Libye vers le sud.

      #commerce_d'armes

      Seulement, pour le moment, l’aide européenne promise arrive lentement et souvent sans consultation des populations concernées. Le #Fonds_fiduciaire officiellement destiné à l’aide au #développement vise en réalité à produire du contrôle, reconnaît Kirsi Henriksson. C’est également le but de l’#opération_Eucap_Sahel. La cheffe de mission trace avec son index les nouvelles routes que le contrôle renforcé a dessinées dans le désert : directement depuis #Diffa, situé à la frontière nigériane, vers #Séguédine dans le nord, en traversant le #Ténéré, de #Gao au Mali vers #Assamaka à la frontière algérienne, qu’on longera ensuite pour arriver en Libye. Ces nouvelles routes sont plus dangereuses.

      #Eucap #routes_migratoires #parcours_migratoires

      « Davantage de personnes meurent dans le désert. Et c’est vraiment malheureux. » C’est la première fois que j’entends cette affirmation pendant mon voyage. Je ne cesserai de l’entendre par la suite. À chacun, je demanderai combien. Combien mouraient avant, combien meurent maintenant ? Personne ne sait. Personne ne semble savoir qui pourrait savoir.

      #mourir_dans_le_désert #décès

      https://lesjours.fr/obsessions/migrants/ep6-niger
      #Agadez #gardes-frontière #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers

    • At French Outpost in African Migrant Hub, Asylum for a Select Few

      In a bare suite of prefab offices, inside a compound off a dirt road, French bureaucrats are pushing France’s borders thousands of miles into Africa, hoping to head off would-be migrants.

      All day long, in a grassy courtyard, they interview asylum seekers, as the African reality they want to escape swirls outside — donkey carts and dust, joblessness and poverty, and, in special cases, political persecution.

      If the French answer is yes to asylum, they are given plane tickets to France and spared the risky journey through the desert and on the deadly boats across the Mediterranean that have brought millions of desperate migrants to Europe in recent years, transforming its politics and societies.

      “We’re here to stop people from dying in the Mediterranean,” said Sylvie Bergier-Diallo, the deputy chief of the French mission in Niger.

      But very few are actually approved, and so the French delegation is also there to send a message to other would-be migrants: Stay home, and do not risk a perilous journey for an asylum claim that would ultimately be denied in France.

      The French outpost is part of a new forward defense in Europe’s struggle to hold off migration from Africa; it is a small, relatively benign piece of a larger strategy that otherwise threatens to subvert Europe’s humanitarian ideals.

      After years of being buffeted by uncontrolled migration, Europe is striking out. Italy is suspected of quietly cutting deals with Libyan warlords who control the migration route. The European Union has sent delegations to African capitals, waving aid and incentives for leaders to keep their people at home. Now come the French.
      “There’s a much more active approach to see that the immigrant stays as far away as possible from Europe, and this is completely to the detriment of those concerned,” said Philippe Dam of Human Rights Watch.

      The French mission was “positive,” he said, “but it’s too late and too small.”

      It is also the flip side of a fast-toughening stance by France against migrants, as President Emmanuel Macron began his push this month for what critics say is a draconian new law aimed at sending many of those who have already arrived back home.

      Even if some of Europe’s new methods are questionable, the results have been evident: Last year, for the first time since the crisis began several years ago, the migration flow was reversed, according to Giuseppe Loprete, head of the United Nations migration agency office in Niger.

      About 100,000 would-be migrants returned through Niger from Libya, compared with 60,000 who traversed the vast and impoverished desert country heading toward Europe.

      As the hub for West African migration, Niger had long been under pressure from Europe to crack down on the migrant flow. And something has shifted.

      The bus stations in Niamey, once packed with West Africans trying to get to Agadez, the last city before Libya, are now empty. The police sternly check identity documents.

      When I visited Agadez three years ago, migrants packed what locals called “ghettos” at the edge of town, hanging out for weeks in the courtyards of unfinished villas waiting for a chance to cross the desert.
      Migration officials say there are many fewer now. The Nigerien government has impounded dozens of the pickups formerly used by smugglers at Agadez, they say.

      “Lot less, lot less than before,” said a bus agent, who declined to give his name, at the open-air Sonef station in Niamey, drowsing and empty in the late-afternoon heat. “It’s not like it was. Before it was full.”

      The tile floor was once crowded with migrants. No more. A sign outside bears the European Union flag and warns passengers not to travel without papers.

      In itself, the so-called French filtration effort here is so small that it is not responsible for the drop, nor is it expected to have much effect on the overall migration flow.

      It began well after the drop was underway. Only a handful of such missions to interview asylum seekers have embarked since Mr. Macron announced the policy last summer, staying for about a week at a time.

      Meager as it is, however, the French effort has already helped shift the process of sifting some asylum claims to Africa and out of Europe, where many of those who are denied asylum tend to stay illegally.

      For Mr. Macron, a chief aim is to defuse the political pressures at home from the far right that have escalated with the migrant crisis.
      The French hope that the greater visibility of a formal, front-end system will discourage those without credible claims of asylum from risking their lives with smugglers.

      The process is also intended to send a potentially important message: that those with legitimate claims of persecution do have a chance for safe passage.

      “Politically it’s huge,” said Mr. Loprete. “But in terms of numbers it is very low.”

      In a recent week, 85 people were interviewed by the four officials from the French refugee agency, known as Ofpra.

      The selective scale is in line with Mr. Macron’s determination to keep out economic migrants. “We can’t welcome everybody,” he said in his New Year’s speech.

      On the other hand, “we must welcome the men and women fleeing their country because they are under threat,” Mr. Macron said. They have a “right to asylum,” he said.

      Critics of the plan say that it amounts to only a token effort, and that the real goal is to keep potential migrants at arms’ length.

      “Macron’s policy is to divide migrants and refugees, but how can we do so? What is the ethical principle behind this choice?” said Mauro Armanino, an Italian priest at the cathedral in Niamey who has long worked with migrants in African nations. “It is a policy without heart.”

      Still, the French have been the first to undertake this kind of outreach, working closely with the United Nations, out of its refugee agency’s compound in Niamey.

      The United Nations International Office for Migration does a first vetting for the French in Libya, Niger’s northern neighbor, where human smuggling networks have thrived in the chaotic collapse of the country.

      In Libya, the smugglers herd the Africans together, beat them, sometimes rape them and extort money. Some are even sold into slavery before being loaded onto rickety boats for the Mediterranean crossing.

      Some of the Libyan camps are run by smugglers and their associated militias, and others by the government, such as it is. But regardless of who runs them, they are essentially concentration camps, officials say, and there is no distinction made between political refugees and migrants.

      United Nations officials are allowed to enter the government-run camps to look for potential asylum cases — principally Eritreans and Somalis, whose flight from political persecution and chaos might qualify them. From lists supplied by the United Nations, the French choose whom they will interview.

      “The idea is to protect people who might have a right to asylum,” said Pascal Brice, the head of Ofpra, the French refugee agency. “And to bypass the horrors of Libya and the Mediterranean.”

      “It is limited,” Mr. Brice acknowledged. “But the president has said he wants to cut back on the sea crossings,” he added, referring to Mr. Macron.
      Bénédicte Jeannerod, who heads the French office of Human Rights Watch, was less a critic of the program itself than of its scale. “I’ve told Pascal Brice that as long as it works, make it bigger,” he said.

      But the potential difficulties of making the program larger were evident in a day of interviews at the sweltering United Nations center in Niamey.

      One recent Saturday night, 136 Eritreans and Somalis were flown to Niamey by the United Nations, all potential candidates for asylum interviews with the French.

      The dozens of asylum seekers already there waited pensively, looking resigned as they sat on benches, betraying no sign of the import of what the French deputy chief of the mission had to offer.

      “If you are chosen, you will soon be in France,” Ms. Bergier-Diallo told them, pronouncing the words slowly and deliberately. “And we are delighted.”

      Indeed, if the refugees pass muster, the rewards are enormous: a free plane ticket to France, free housing, hassle-free residence papers and free French lessons.

      The French agents, stiff and formal in their questioning that could last well over an hour, inquired relentlessly about the refugees’ family ties, uninterested in establishing the narrative of their escape and suffering.
      The idea was to “establish the family context,” in an effort to confirm the authenticity of the refugees’ origins, said one French official, Lucie.

      (Sensitive to security, the French authorities asked that the last names of their agents and those of the refugees not be published.)

      Shewit, a diminutive, bespectacled 26-year-old Eritrean woman, was asked whether she ever phoned her family, and if so what they talked about.

      “Only about my health,” Shewit said. “I never tell them where I am.”

      Mariam, 27, told the French agent she had been raped and ostracized in her village and feared going back because “the people who raped me are still there.”

      “They could rape me again,” said Mariam, an illiterate animal herder from Somaliland.

      Even if she finds safety in France, integrating her into society will be a challenge. Mariam had never attended any school and looked bewildered when the French agent told her to remove her head scarf.

      Wearing the scarf “is not possible in the French administration, or in schools,” Emoline, the agent, said gently to Mariam in English, through an interpreter.

      Then there was Welella, an 18-year-old Eritrean girl who, before being rescued from neighboring Libya, had spent time in a refugee camp in Sudan, where she endured what she simply called “punishments.”
      Her father is a soldier, her siblings had all been drafted into Eritrea’s compulsory military service, and she risked the same.

      “Why is military service compulsory in Eritrea?” Lucie asked the girl, seated opposite her. “I don’t know,” Welella answered mechanically.

      She had long planned on fleeing. “One day I succeeded,” she said simply.

      “What could happen to you in Eritrea if you returned?” Lucie asked.

      “I suffered a lot leaving Eritrea,” Welella said slowly. “If I return, they will put me underground.”

      She was questioned over and over about the names of her siblings in Eritrea, and why one had traveled to a particular town.

      After nearly two hours of questioning, a hint of the French agent’s verdict finally came — in English. It was rote, but the message clear: France was one step away from welcoming Welella.

      “You will have the right to enter France legally,” Lucie told her. “You will be granted a residence permit, you will be given your own accommodations, you will have the right to work …”

      Welella smiled, barely.


      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/25/world/africa/france-africa-migrants-asylum-niger.html?smid=tw-share
      #Niamey

    • A French Processing Centre in Niger: The first step towards extraterritorial processing of asylum claims or (just) good old resettlement?

      When The New York Times made headlines in the migration world with its recent article “At French Outpost in African Migrant Hub, Asylum for a Select Few” about the French refugee agency’s role in the UNHCR humanitarian evacuation scheme, it was not long before the magical concept of “extraterritorial processing” resurfaced. Mostly defined as the processing of asylum requests outside the country of destination, this proposal, repeatedly raised by European Union member states and academics alike since the beginning of the 2000s, has regularly been turned down by EU officials as being mere politically-driven hot air. Often confused with resettlement or other legal access channels, it has been praised as the panacea of the migration and asylum challenges by some, while being criticized as outsourcing and shady responsibility shifting by others.


      http://www.aspeninstitute.it/aspenia-online/article/french-processing-centre-niger-first-step-towards-extraterritorial-pr

    • Les migrants paient le prix fort de la coopération entre l’UE et les #gardes-côtes_libyens

      Nombre de dirigeants européens appellent à une « coopération » renforcée avec les #garde-côtes_libyens. Mais une fois interceptés en mer, ces migrants sont renvoyés dans des centres de détention indignes et risquent de retomber aux mains de trafiquants.

      https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/280618/les-migrants-paient-le-prix-fort-de-la-cooperation-entre-lue-et-les-garde-