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

/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

  • 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

  • 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

  • #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-

  • Österreich plant mit einigen EU-Ländern Aufnahmelager außerhalb der EU

    Österreich arbeite „mit einer kleinen Gruppe von Staaten“ an dem Projekt, sagte Kurz. Die Pläne seien bisher allerdings „sehr vertraulich“, um die „Durchsetzbarkeit“ des Projekts zu erhöhen. Auf die Frage, ob ein solches Aufnahmezentrum in Albanien eingerichtet werden könnte, sagte Kurz: „Wir werden sehen.“

    In der vergangenen Woche hatte bereits der dänische Ministerpräsident Lars Lökke Rasmussen bestätigt, dass einige EU-Länder, darunter auch Österreich, Aufnahmezentren für abgelehnte Asylbewerber außerhalb der EU einrichten wollen. In österreichischen Medienberichten war zuletzt mehrfach von Albanien als möglichem Standort die Rede.

    https://www.welt.de/newsticker/news1/article177463654/Fluechtlinge-Oesterreich-plant-mit-einigen-EU-Laendern-Aufnahmelager-ausserhalb
    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #externalisation #Albanie #hotspots (sorte de hotspot en dehors de l’UE) #Autriche #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

    • C’est à la même occasion de la proposition d’un #axe contre l’immigration illégale...

      Les ministres de l’Intérieur allemand, autrichien et italien créent un « axe » contre l’immigration illégale

      « A notre avis, il faut un axe des volontaires dans la lutte contre l’immigration illégale », a annoncé le chancelier autrichien #Sebastian_Kurz, mercredi.


      https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/europe/migrants/les-ministres-de-l-interieur-allemand-autrichien-et-italien-creent-un-a
      #Allemagne #Italie

    • L’Autriche et le Danemark veulent ouvrir des camps d’expulsés aux portes de l’UE

      Selon le premier ministre danois, Copenhague est en discussion avec Vienne et « d’autres pays » de l’Union pour la mise en place d’un « nouveau régime européen de l’asile ».

      Leurs divisions et la pression des populistes font décidément naître les idées les plus renversantes parmi les dirigeants européens quant au traitement à réserver aux demandeurs d’asile et au refoulement de ceux qui ne peuvent prétendre à celui-ci.

      Mardi 5 juin, le premier ministre danois, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, a annoncé que son pays était en discussion avec l’Autriche – qui assumera bientôt la présidence tournante de l’Union – et « d’autres pays » pour la mise en place d’un « nouveau régime européen de l’asile ». Point central du dispositif : la création de « centres communs de réception et d’expulsion en Europe ». En clair, des camps de rétention, où se retrouveraient des migrants ne pouvant prétendre à une demande d’asile, ou ne pouvant être rapidement renvoyés.

      M. Rasmussen n’a pas mentionné la possible localisation de ces camps. Ils ne seraient pas, selon lui, « sur la liste des destinations préférées des migrants et des passeurs ». Il s’agirait en fait, selon plusieurs sources, de l’Albanie et du Kosovo, candidats à l’adhésion à l’UE. Le premier ministre a évoqué des contacts « avec d’autres dirigeants européens » et se disait « optimiste », quant à la mise en place d’un projet pilote « d’ici à la fin de l’année ». Les premières discussions auraient en fait eu lieu à Sofia, en marge du sommet entre les dirigeants des Vingt-Huit et cinq pays des Balkans occidentaux, le 17 mai.

      Les sociaux-démocrates et les populistes du Parti du peuple danois (Dansk Folkeparti, DF) – ces derniers soutiennent M. Rasmussen au Parlement – ont fait savoir qu’ils étaient favorables à la proposition du premier ministre. La formation populiste avait déjà proposé de transformer une île inhabitée du royaume, située en dehors du territoire de l’Union, en centre de détention pour les déboutés. La ministre libérale de l’immigration, Inger Stojberg, avait répondu qu’elle était « toujours prête à examiner de bonnes idées », même si celle-ci présentait « des défis pratiques et légaux ».

      Paris semble tomber des nues

      A Bruxelles, mercredi, le chancelier conservateur autrichien Sebastian Kurz présentait avec son gouvernement les principaux axes de sa présidence, qui démarrera le 1er juillet. Il aurait voulu que toute l’attention soit portée sur sa volonté de renforcer les frontières extérieures de l’Union et sur ses propositions pour le budget post-Brexit – ses deux priorités.

      Or, il a évidemment été interrogé sur les propos de M. Rasmussen et a dû les confirmer, tout en ajoutant prudemment qu’il ne s’agissait pas d’un projet porté par sa future présidence mais « d’une initiative émanant d’un cercle restreint auquel le Danemark appartenait ». Quels autres Etats membres seraient concernés ?

      Les Pays-Bas, semble-t-il, mais la diplomatie néerlandaise affirmait, jeudi, ne pas vouloir se prononcer sur la concrétisation du projet. La Belgique, elle, n’aurait pas été consultée même si, lundi, lors d’une réunion des ministres européens de l’intérieur et de la migration, son secrétaire d’Etat, le nationaliste flamand Theo Francken, avait évoqué la nécessité d’empêcher l’accostage des bateaux en Europe – « push back » – et proclamé « la mort » du règlement de Dublin. Celui-ci oblige les pays de première arrivée (Italie et Grèce surtout) à enregistrer un migrant avant son transfert éventuel vers un autre Etat membre.

      L’Allemagne ? Mme Merkel aurait été « approchée » mais, jeudi, lors d’un congrès du Parti populaire européen, à Munich, elle insistait surtout sur le contrôle des frontières extérieures de l’Union et suggérait la nécessité de reproduire, avec d’autres pays tiers, l’accord conclu avec la Turquie pour la gestion des migrants. La famille des conservateurs européens prône toujours la relocalisation de demandeurs d’asile dans l’Union, à partir de pays tiers. Un proche de la chancelière ne cachait pas son scepticisme l’égard des plans de Copenhague et Vienne.

      La France, alors ? Sa diplomatie semble tomber des nues. Paris œuvre à un texte pour sortir le dossier migratoire de l’ornière mais ne pourrait accepter l’idée de camps de rétention. « Inimaginable », aussi, dit une source diplomatique, de voir des pays des Balkans se ranger à de telles initiatives, même en échange d’un coup de pouce financier ou d’une accélération de l’examen de leur dossier d’adhésion.

      Bruxelles inquiète des dérives

      Du côté de la Commission européenne – dont le président, Jean-Claude Juncker, recevait mercredi M. Kurz – la réponse est embarrassée. Le collège résume les projets en question à des « initiatives nationales », en soulignant qu’il serait préférable d’avoir une approche européenne, fondée sur « les valeurs » de l’Union.

      Bruxelles s’inquiète surtout des dérives du débat et redoute la multiplication des incidents avec la future présidence autrichienne, susceptible de rallier les voix de la Hongrie, de la Pologne ou d’autres Etats membres, hostiles à l’accueil des demandeurs d’asile.

      De précédents projets visant à la création de centres « d’accueil », sur le territoire libyen notamment, avaient été prudemment écartés. L’idée d’ouvrir des camps dans des pays européens, hors UE, portée par le ministre autrichien de l’intérieur, Herbert Kickl, poids lourd du FPÖ (Parti autrichien de la Liberté) est vue comme un nouvel obstacle à toute solution consensuelle.

      M. Kickl a aussi promis d’augmenter le nombre des personnes reconduites aux frontières. En 2017, 11 974 déboutés du droit d’asile ont quitté l’Autriche et 58 % d’entre eux ont été éloignés de force. Le ministre a également confirmé la mise en place d’une nouvelle police des frontières et annoncé que son pays ne participerait plus au programme de répartition des réfugiés arrivés en Grèce et en Italie. Il souhaite d’ailleurs que désormais, plus aucune demande d’asile ne soit étudiée sur le sol européen.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2018/06/08/l-autriche-et-le-danemark-veulent-ouvrir-des-camps-d-expulses-aux-portes-de-
      #Kosovo

    • L’étonnante proposition de #Donald_Tusk sur les réfugiés

      Le président du Conseil européen Donald Tusk envisage la création de centres en dehors de l’UE pour distinguer rapidement les personnes éligibles à l’asile et les migrants économiques qui ne peuvent y prétendre, ressort-il d’un projet de conclusions qu’il a fait parvenir aux chefs d’Etats et de gouvernement européens dans la perspective du sommet des 28 et 29 juin.

      Cette proposition, avancée par M. Tusk pour sortir de l’impasse sur la question migratoire, est un « #potentiel_game-changer », d’après un diplomate européen.

      Ces « plateformes régionales de débarquement » permettraient d’accueillir des personnes sauvées en mer alors qu’elles essayaient de rejoindre l’UE. Elles seraient gérées en coopération avec le Haut Commissariat des Nations unies pour les réfugiés (UNHCR) et l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM).

      Le document ne précise toutefois pas où elles se situeraient. Une source européenne a néanmoins précisé qu’elles étaient envisagées « en dehors de l’UE » sans donner plus de détails.

      La Tunisie et l’Albanie sont régulièrement citées comme étant susceptibles d’accueillir de telles installations. Le secrétaire d’Etat belge à l’Asile et la Migration, Theo Francken (N-VA), avait d’ailleurs récemment suggéré de ramener les migrants secourus en mer vers le pays du Maghreb pour ensuite les trier. Une idée similaire avait aussi été avancée dès 2016 par le dirigeant ultranationaliste hongrois Viktor Orban.

      Outre la création de ces « plateformes », Donald Tusk propose aux dirigeants de renforcer les moyens financiers consacrés à la lutte contre la migration illégale et d’offrir un soutien plus important aux garde-côtes libyens. Il souligne aussi la nécessité d’une coopération accrue avec des pays d’origine et de transit des migrants, pour éviter de connaître à nouveau un afflux comparable à celui de 2015.

      Les « plateformes de débarquement » seraient destinées aux migrants qui, malgré toutes ces mesures, tenteraient la traversée de la Méditerranée et seraient « secourus dans le cadre d’opérations de recherche et de sauvetage ».

      Les chefs d’Etat et de gouvernement se pencheront en détail sur les propositions de M. Tusk lors du sommet des 28 et 29 juin. Ils aborderont également l’épineuse question de la réforme du règlement de Dublin, pierre angulaire du régime d’asile européen.

      Après trois ans de palabres, les 28 Etats membres de l’UE ne sont en effet pas parvenus à s’accorder sur une réforme de ce texte, dont les failles ont été révélées lors de l’afflux massif et soudain de migrants dans l’Union en 2015.

      Ce règlement, qui détermine l’Etat membre responsable d’une demande d’asile dans l’UE, fait pour l’heure peser une pression démesurée sur les pays de « première entrée », en particulier l’Italie et la Grèce. Les chances qu’un compromis se dégage sur ce point lors du sommet semblent toutefois infimes, pour ne pas dire inexistantes.

      http://www.lalibre.be/actu/international/l-etonnante-proposition-de-donald-tusk-sur-les-refugies-5b29222e5532a296888d

      autre mot barbare : #potentiel_game-changer

    • L’axe commence à se mettre en place...

      Germany and Austria start joint police work to combat illegal migration

      The Austrian and German federal police and the Bavarian state police plan for the first time this Friday to work together in their border area to assess ways they can combat increasing illegal immigration and crime. The authorities will start by taking a closer look at rail traffic.

      https://www.thelocal.de/20180601/germany-and-austria-strengthen-borders-to-combat-risky-illegal-migration

    • Migranti, Conte: «In autunno vertice sulla Libia». E intanto a Innsbruck asse con Germania e Austria

      Il premier: «Invierò una lettera da spedire a Juncker e a Tusk». Intanto, intesa a tre per arginare i flussi migratori in modo da far arrivare in Europa solo chi fugge da una guerra.

      «Il merito dell’Italia è stato riuscire a ricondurre in un quadro unitario organico vari aspetti di un fenomeno complesso e avere compreso che il fenomeno della gestione dei flussi migratori non è emergenziale». Così il presidente del Consiglio Giuseppe Conte in conferenza stampa alla fine del vertice Nato. «Stiamo organizzando una conferenza in Italia sulla Libia in autunno per dar seguito a quella di Parigi», ha aggiunto il premier,«il processo di stabilizzazione non può riguardare solo l’Italia ma nemmeno soltanto Macron». Sulla Libia, ha spiegato invece Conte, «c’è tanto da fare, il Paese va affiancato» nel suo percorso di stabilizzazione che porti alle elezioni. Ma Conte ha avvertito che «se arriviamo troppo presto alle elezioni, si rischia di avere il caos totale. Bisogna prima creare le condizioni sociali ed economiche necessarie per reggere l’impatto di un sistema democratico».

      «Presto una lettera a Juncker e Tusk»

      Il presidente del Consiglio ha affermato poi di non aver parlato di Libia con Trump a Bruxelles: lo farà nel dettaglio nella sua prossima visita negli Usa. «Il problema», ha detto, «non è modificare il regolamento di Dublino» che è «asfittico come approccio, è assolutamente inadeguato. I principi delle Conclusioni Ue attestano che è superato». Conte ha parlato di una lettera da spedire a Juncker presidente della Commissione europea e a Tusk a capo del Consiglio europeo: «Nella mia lettera si chiederà che anche Sophia, anche questa missione internazionale sia adeguata alle conclusioni del Consiglio Ue. E così per le altre». «La mia lettera partirà molto presto, non so a che punto è Juncker ma appena rientrerò a Roma lavorerò a questo». «L’ultima notizia», ha poi detto, «è che la nave Diciotti si sta avviando in porto. Abbiamo dato indicazione di individuare le persone o i migranti che si sono resi responsabili di atti che contrastano con le nostre leggi».

      Il vertice a tre

      In mattinata, sul tema migranti era già stato protagonista Matteo Salvini, ministro dell’Interno. Un’intesa a tre, un «asse di volenterosi» guidato da Austria, Germania e Italia per arginare i flussi migratori. È ciò che è emerso dall’incontro trilaterale fra Salvini e gli omologhi tedeschi e austriaci, Horst Seehofer e Herbert Kickl a Innsbruck, che precede il vertice Ue. Si tratta di un’intesa per frenare le partenze di migranti e gli sbarchi, in modo da far giungere in Europa solo chi fugge da una guerra.

      Salvini: «Proposte italiane diventano proposte europee»

      «Le proposte italiane su migranti diventano proposte europee: contiamo che finalmente l’Europa torni a difendere i confini e il diritto e alla sicurezza dei 500 milioni di europei» ha detti Matteo Salvini. «Con i colleghi di Austria e Germania - ha spiegato al termine dell’incontro - abbiamo affrontato il grande problema degli arrivi: se si riducono questi si risolvono anche i problemi minori interni tra le nazioni e non ci sarà alcun problema alle frontiere». «Meno migranti, meno sbarchi e meno morti» ha poi aggiunto. «Chiederemo sostegno alle autorità libiche, dare a Tripoli il diritto ai rimpatri e la redistribuzione delle quote degli arrivi. Chiederemo alle missioni internazionali di non usare l’Italia come unico punto d’arrivo e il sostegno nelle operazioni di soccorso, protezione e riaccompagnamento di migliaia di clandestini nei luoghi di partenza. Credo quindi - ha detto poi Salvini - che questo nucleo di amicizia e di intervento serio concreto ed efficiente di Italia, Germania ed Austria, possa essere un nucleo che darà un impulso positivo a tutta Europa per riconoscere il diritto di asilo a quella minoranza di donne e bambini che fuggono dalle guerre ed evitare l’arrivo e la morte di decine di migliaia di persone che non scappano da nessuna guerra».

      «Proteggere le frontiere esterne all’Unione Europea»

      A fargli eco il ministro dell’Interno tedesco Seehofer:«I tre Paesi si sono messi d’accordo per controllare l’immigrazione. Vogliamo introdurre ordine nella politica migratoria ma garantire un approccio umanitario e proteggere effettivamente le frontiere esterne dell’Unione Europea». «Sarebbe importante - sottolinea poi il ministro - che l’intera Unione europea decidesse qualcosa. Noi possiamo avere delle iniziative, ma l’Unione europea deve avere un’opinione comune. Sono ottimista e qui abbiamo l’occasione di procedere in una direzione positiva». E il ministro dell’Interno austriaco Kickl sottolinea come «questo asse di volenterosi può prendere iniziative ma è l’intera Unione Europea che deve intervenire». «Le cose sono relativamente semplice - aggiunge - noi tre siamo d’accordo sul fatto che vogliamo mettere ordine» e «mandare il chiaro messaggio che in futuro non dovrebbe essere possibile calpestare il suolo europeo se non si ha il diritto alla protezione». Previsto un nuovo incontro a Vienna sempre fra i ministri dell’Interno di Italia Germania e Austria il prossimo 19 luglio.


      https://www.corriere.it/politica/18_luglio_12/migranti-asse-germania-austria-fermare-sbarchi-6ba33c18-859b-11e8-b570-8bf3

  • Emmanuel #Macron veut créer des « hotspots » pour gérer les demandes d’asile en #Libye

    « La France va créer dès cet été en Libye des #hotspots », des centres d’examen pour les candidats à l’asile, a annoncé le président Emmanuel Macron ce matin en marge d’une visite d’un centre d’hébergement de réfugiés à Orléans (Loiret). « L’idée est de créer en Libye des hotspots afin d’éviter aux gens de prendre des risques fous alors qu’ils ne sont pas tous éligibles à l’asile. Les gens, on va aller les chercher. Je compte le faire dès cet été », avec ou sans l’Europe, a-t-il ajouté.

    http://www.liberation.fr/direct/element/emmanuel-macron-veut-creer-des-hotspots-pour-gerer-les-demandes-dasile-en
    #hotspot #externalisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #France

    cc @i_s_

    –---

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

    • Ah bon ?!?

      La mise en place de Hotspots en Libye n’est finalement « pas possible » cet été comme l’avait annoncé Emmanuel Macron

      La mise en place en Libye de centres pour examiner les demandes d’asile n’est « pas possible aujourd’hui », a jugé l’Elysée, jeudi 27 juillet, dans la soirée. Plus tôt dans la journée, Emmanuel Macron avait annoncé la création, cet été, de « hotspots » dans ce pays devenu un lieu de passage pour des milliers de migrants tentant de traverser la Méditerranée vers l’Europe.

      http://mobile.francetvinfo.fr/monde/europe/migrants/la-mise-en-place-de-hotspots-en-libye-n-est-finalement-pas-possible-cet-ete-comme-l-avait-annonce-emmanuel-macron_2302719.html#xtref=http://m.facebook.com

    • Migrants : « Trier les gens avant leur arrivée en France serait intolérable »

      Identifier les personnes vulnérables, comme cela se fait au Liban ou en Grèce sous la supervision du HCR, est une option -bien que ce n’est qu’une goutte dans l’océan. Mais si l’objectif est de trier les gens -entre migrants économiques et réfugiés- avant leur arrivée en France, c’est intolérable. Pouvoir déposer sa demande d’asile avant d’arriver sur le territoire ne doit pas déboucher sur une restriction du droit de venir en France, que ce soit pour des raisons d’asile ou de migration économique. Ce serait contraire à la convention de Genève qui impose aux signataires d’assurer l’accueil des réfugiés.

      http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/migrants-trier-les-gens-avant-leur-arrivee-en-france-serait-intolerable_193

    • Déclaration de Filippo #Grandi, chef du #HCR, sur la réunion de Paris le 28 août

      Je me félicite de l’annonce d’un plan d’action complet pour l’appui à des solutions à long terme au problème complexe de la migration mixte ainsi que la résolution de ses causes profondes, en étroite coopération avec les pays d’origine et de transit, et conformément au droit international.

      http://www.unhcr.org/fr/news/press/2017/8/59a55689a/declaration-filippo-grandi-chef-hcr-reunion-paris-28-ao-t.html

      Le HCR se félicite... sic

    • Parigi e i migranti: quale idea di Europa? Ascolta la puntata

      Dal vertice di Parigi sembrano arrivare novità importanti sul grande tema dei nostri giorni, quello dei migranti. Italia, Spagna, Germania e Francia, insieme a Ciad, Niger e Libia, sono forse arrivati a un punto di svolta nella gestione dei flussi migratori. Una strategia complessa dal punto di vista politico e soprattutto umanitario, che mette di fronte l’aspetto della sicurezza e quello morale. Gli sbarchi nel mese di agosto sono diminuiti, ma cosa succede a chi rimane dall’altra parte del mare? L’Italia sembra finalmente non essere più sola, ma qual è l’Europa che viene fuori da questo accordo?

      http://lacittadiradio3.blog.rai.it/2017/08/29/19762

    • Parigi: l’accordo che “li ferma a casa loro”

      L’accordo è raggiunto (per il momento), la strategia definita: teniamoli lontani da noi, costi quello che costi: in termini di risorse pubbliche (le nostre), ma soprattutto in termini di vite e diritti umani, calpestati. Cosa succederà alle persone che resteranno intrappolate nei loro paesi o in quelli di transito? Non sembra preoccupare i Capi di Stato e di Governo che oggi si sono riuniti a Parigi.

      http://www.cronachediordinariorazzismo.org/parigi-laccordo-li-ferma-casa

    • Au Niger, les rescapés du nouveau poste-frontière de l’Europe

      Pour éviter les traversées périlleuses, décourager les réseaux de passeurs et rendre moins visible le flux de migrants, des dizaines de demandes d’asile sont examinées au Sahel depuis octobre. A Niamey, Moussa et Eden font partie des rares personnes acceptées. Loin des 10 000 qu’Emmanuel Macron a promis d’accueillir d’ici fin 2019.

      Au Niger, les rescapés du nouveau poste-frontière de l’Europe
      « Bonjour », articule Moussa, sourire un peu crispé, un sourcil levé en signe d’hésitation. Dans sa bouche, ces deux syllabes résonnent comme celles d’un mot-valise qui porterait tous ses espoirs et ses incertitudes. Le seul mot de français qu’il connaît. De la France, ce père de famille érythréen de 43 ans, à la petite moustache bien taillée et aux yeux fatigués, a « vu quelques photos », entendu parler de « la tour Eiffel ». Dans quelques jours ou quelques semaines, c’est sur cette terre européenne, aussi inconnue que fantasmée, qu’il sera « relocalisé », selon le terme employé par l’Agence des Nations unies pour les réfugiés (HCR).
      Moussa est l’un des rares gagnants de la loterie de l’asile, désormais mise en place bien loin de l’Europe : à Niamey, au Niger. Avec le récit d’une vie pour seul laissez-passer, Moussa a convaincu les agents de l’Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides (Ofpra), venus l’interroger dans le même conteneur préfabriqué où nous le rencontrons. Une enceinte sécurisée gérée par le HCR, au fond d’une ruelle poussiéreuse de cette capitale poussiéreuse, située au cœur du Sahel. Après deux entretiens, de nombreuses questions et vérifications, Moussa a obtenu le sésame auquel il n’osait plus croire : sa demande d’asile a été approuvée. « Je leur ai simplement dit la vérité, dit-il. J’ai beaucoup souffert. »
      Que font des fonctionnaires français chargés de l’examen des demandes d’asile loin de leurs locaux du Val-de-Marne, sur le sol africain ? Depuis octobre, l’Ofpra a effectué trois « missions de protection » au Sahel, deux au Niger et une au Tchad, pour une durée d’environ une semaine à chaque fois. L’objectif affiché : la réinstallation de réfugiés africains en France, après les avoir évalués dans ces « pays sûrs ». En principe, pour leur éviter « de prendre des risques inconsidérés » en traversant la Méditerranée. Mais il s’agit aussi de décourager les réseaux de passeurs clandestins qui ont longtemps prospéré dans ce pays au carrefour de l’Afrique noire et de l’Afrique du Nord.
      Sans laisser de traces

      Depuis deux ans, d’importants financements versés par l’Union européenne ont persuadé le gouvernement nigérien d’accepter de devenir de facto un de ses postes-frontières. Une loi criminalise désormais les passeurs : transporter des migrants au-delà d’Agadez, la « porte du désert » au nord du pays, est passible d’emprisonnement. Avec la mise en place de mesures répressives dans les pays qu’ils traversent, le nombre de migrants qui atteignent l’Europe a diminué, même si beaucoup empruntent à présent des routes plus dangereuses, à travers le désert, où ils disparaissent sans laisser de traces. Mais pour les gouvernements de l’UE, l’objectif est accompli, avec des migrants moins nombreux et en tout cas moins visibles. Reste en échange à accepter d’en accueillir quelques-uns pour que la logique de cette nouvelle plateforme en terre africaine fonctionne. L’an dernier, Emmanuel Macron s’est engagé à accueillir en France 10 000 réfugiés supplémentaires d’ici la fin de l’année 2019, dont 3 000 personnes en provenance du Tchad et du Niger.
      « Je n’ai absolument aucun doute que nous atteindrons ce nombre », affirme Pascal Brice, directeur de l’Ofpra. Pour l’instant, on est loin du compte. Environ 160 personnes, présélectionnées par le HCR, ont été vues par les agents de l’Ofpra lors de ces deux missions à Niamey. Après ces entretiens, 114 hommes, femmes et enfants - majoritairement érythréens, soudanais et somaliens - sont partis en France. Le nombre est dérisoire, mais le message politique est fort : ceux qui ont des revendications justifiées à l’asile ont une alternative légale et sûre à la dangereuse traversée de la Méditerranée, qui engloutit chaque année des milliers de personnes et leurs espoirs. Si la France leur ouvre ses portes, ils se verront offrir un billet d’avion, un titre de séjour et des mesures d’accompagnement pour faciliter leur intégration, telles qu’une aide au logement ou des cours de langue. Tous les autres devraient rebrousser chemin.
      « La rhétorique qui vise à tracer une distinction claire entre migrants et réfugiés recouvre des enjeux d’ordre politique majeurs, constate Jocelyne Streiff-Fénart, sociologue et directrice de recherche émérite au CNRS, spécialiste des migrations. L’opposition entre le réfugié, qui aurait des raisons légitimes de fuir et pour cela doit être accueilli, et le migrant économique, qui doit être repoussé, est devenue un élément essentiel d’une politique migratoire qui est clairement configurée comme une entreprise de triage. » Cette distinction entre « les bons et les mauvais migrants », qui appartiendraient à deux catégories imperméables, apparaît pour la chercheuse comme « une tentative de légitimation » de mesures de plus en plus restrictives, « voire brutales ».
      A Niamey, dans l’attente de son départ, Moussa fait les cent pas dans sa tête. Il a envie de parler. Les agents de l’Ofpra voulaient avant tout s’assurer de sa nationalité. Ce qui le prend aux tripes, qu’il régurgite d’une voix monocorde, ce sont les épreuves qu’il a traversées. La ligne de front lors de la guerre contre l’Ethiopie, la pauvreté, ses enfants qu’il ne voit qu’une fois par an, les frustrations, et le service militaire, quasi esclavagiste, qui n’en finit pas. En Erythrée, petit pays de la corne de l’Afrique dirigé par un régime autoritaire, celui-ci est obligatoire pour tous les citoyens. Sa durée est indéterminée. Moussa a passé douze ans sous les drapeaux. Puis, en 2011, il a craqué. « Une nuit, je me suis enfui, raconte-t-il. Je n’ai rien dit à ma femme. J’ai pris un chemin peu fréquenté, et j’ai traversé la frontière, dans l’obscurité. » Il part d’abord au Soudan puis au Soudan du Sud, à Juba, où il se fait embaucher dans un hôtel par un compatriote. Mais la guerre le rattrape. Avec ses économies, et un peu d’aide d’un beau-frère au pays, il prend finalement la décision qui le taraude depuis qu’il est parti : aller en Europe.
      Cul-de-sac libyen

      Une éprouvante traversée du désert le mène jusqu’en Libye, le principal point de départ pour les côtes italiennes. Un pays en plein chaos depuis la chute de Kadhafi, en 2011, où les migrants sont devenus une marchandise à capturer, à vendre et à exploiter. « Nous étions plusieurs centaines, peut-être 500, dans un hangar, raconte Moussa dans un anglais presque impeccable. J’y ai passé plusieurs mois, puis on nous a déplacés dans un autre endroit, puis encore un autre. Chaque fois, nous étions gardés par des hommes en armes. » Trafiquants, miliciens, gardes-côtes, bandits… tout se mêle et devient flou. Les geôliers aboient des ordres en arabe, une langue que la plupart des migrants ne comprennent pas. « Ils nous ont menacés, frappés avec des bâtons de bois ou des câbles. Quand ils étaient nerveux, ou défoncés, ils tiraient à nos pieds. Juste parce que ça les amusait, raconte-t-il. Mais, le pire c’était la faim. »
      Un soir, deux hommes s’emparent d’une jeune femme et l’emmènent à l’écart. « Quand ils l’ont ramenée, elle a pleuré toute la nuit. Que pouvait-on faire ? » dit-il, le regard sombre. Ceux qui peinent à rassembler l’argent dû pour le voyage sont maltraités avec une brutalité systématique, torturés, forcés de rester debout sous le soleil pendant des heures. Par téléphone, ils supplient leurs proches d’envoyer de l’argent, de les sortir de là. Moussa, lui, a déjà versé 3 500 dollars (environ 2 900 euros), mais son départ se fait attendre. La collaboration controversée de l’UE et de la Libye pour endiguer la venue de migrants africains en Europe, y compris par la détention de ces derniers et l’interception des bateaux en mer, a rendu la traversée plus compliquée. Elle a aussi accru la clandestinité dans laquelle opèrent les migrants et leur dépendance aux réseaux organisés de trafiquants.
      Parmi les milliers de personnes bloquées dans le cul-de-sac libyen, dans des conditions abominables, quelques centaines, comme Moussa, peuvent prétendre au statut de réfugiés. Le HCR travaille à les identifier et les faire relâcher. L’an dernier, l’agence onusienne a initié une procédure unique : l’évacuation par avion des demandeurs d’asile jugés les plus vulnérables vers un pays de transit où ils seraient en sécurité, le Niger. Un retour en arrière censé être temporaire, en vue de leur réinstallation, selon le bon vouloir de quelques pays occidentaux. L’enveloppe d’aide européenne ne venant pas sans contrepartie, les autorités nigériennes ont donné leur feu vert non sans émettre quelques craintes de voir leur pays devenir un « hotspot » où tous les recalés à l’examen de l’asile se retrouveraient coincés. « Nous avons environ 1 000 personnes sous notre protection en ce moment sur le territoire nigérien, dit Alessandra Morelli, représentante du HCR au Niger. Nous attendons que ces personnes puissent être accueillies par des pays tiers. Le succès de la démarche dépend de l’engagement des Etats membres de l’UE et de la communauté internationale. C’est seulement à travers cette solidarité que ces gens peuvent avoir l’espoir de reconstruire leur vie. »
      « On sait ce qui nous attend »

      L’initiative lancée par la France suscite l’intérêt d’autres pays. La Suisse et les Pays-Bas ont récemment effectué une mission au Niger. La Finlande, le Canada, l’Allemagne et le Royaume-Uni pourraient prochainement faire de même. Eden, 22 ans, doit bientôt être accueillie en Suisse. Avec ses traits fins, ses yeux brun profond soulignés d’un trait d’eye-liner et ses petites boucles d’oreilles mauves assorties à son vernis à ongles, la jeune Erythréenne mêle la coquetterie d’une adolescente à l’assurance de celles qui en ont déjà trop vu pour se laisser impressionner. Elle raconte son calvaire, parle de ses rêves d’avenir, son envie de « devenir esthéticienne. Ou médecin, si je peux aller à l’université ». La détermination ponctue chacun de ses mots. « Bien sûr qu’on sait ce qui nous attend lorsqu’on part », dit-elle en amharique, qu’une interprète traduit. Sur les réseaux sociaux, des photos circulent de ceux, tout sourire, qui ont réussi à atteindre le mythe européen. Mais les récits d’horreur, d’abandons dans le désert, de bateaux qui sombrent au milieu des vagues, de tortures dans les camps libyens, ont aussi fait leur chemin jusque dans les villages de la corne de l’Afrique. Dans leur bagage, certaines femmes emportent des contraceptifs parce qu’elles s’attendent à être violées. « Ça ne veut pas dire que l’on sait comment on va réagir, si l’on tiendra le coup, mais on sait que ce sera horrible. De toute façon, quelles sont les autres options ? »
      Pour quelques élus, extraits du flux migratoire au terme d’un processus de sélection en entonnoir, le voyage prend bientôt fin, à leur grand soulagement. A son arrivée en France, Moussa devrait obtenir la protection subsidiaire, un statut un cran en dessous de celui de réfugié. Il pourra le renouveler au bout d’un an, si ses raisons de ne pas rentrer en Erythrée sont toujours jugées légitimes. Aux yeux des autorités européennes, l’espoir d’une vie meilleure ne suffit pas.

      *Les prénoms ont été changés

      http://www.liberation.fr/planete/2018/05/03/au-niger-les-rescapes-du-nouveau-poste-frontiere-de-l-europe_1647600

    • EU to consider plans for migrant processing centres in north Africa

      Leaked draft document says idea could ‘reduce incentive for perilous journeys’

      The EU is to consider the idea of building migrant processing centres in north Africa in an attempt to deter people from making life-threatening journeys to Europe across the Mediterranean, according to a leaked document.

      The European council of EU leaders “supports the development of the concept of regional disembarkation platforms”, according to the draft conclusions of an EU summit due to take place next week.

      The EU wants to look at the feasibility of setting up such centres in north Africa, where most migrant journeys to Europe begin. “Such platforms should provide for rapid processing to distinguish between economic migrants and those in need of international protection, and reduce the incentive to embark on perilous journeys,” says the document seen by the Guardian.

      Although the plan is winning influential support, it faces political and practical hurdles, with one expert saying it is not clear how the EU would get foreign countries to agree to be “vassal states”.

      Migration is high on the agenda of the two-day summit, which opens on 28 June. EU leaders will attempt to reach a consensus on how to manage the thousands of refugees and migrants arriving each month.

      The German and French leaders, Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron, met near Berlin on Tuesday to agree on a common approach, amid fears in their camps that the European project is unravelling.

      Before the meeting France’s finance minister, Bruno Le Maire, said Europe was “in a process of disintegration. We see states that are turning inward, trying to find national solutions to problems that require European solutions.”

      He called for “a new European project” on immigration, as well as economic and financial issues, “to consolidate Europe in a world where you have the United States on one side, China on the other and we are trapped in the middle”.

      At the end of the meeting, which was dominated by eurozone reform, Macron said the EU would “work with countries of origin and transit” to cut off illegal people-smuggling routes, and build “solidarity mechanisms, both externally and internally”. The EU border and coastguard agency Frontex would be expanded to become “a true European border police”.

      Merkel is under pressure from her hardline interior minister, Horst Seehofer, to come up with a European plan by the end of the month. Germany continues to receive more applications for asylum than any other EU member state. Seehofer wants German border guards to start turning people away if there is no EU-wide progress.

      It was not immediately clear how the EU document’s proposal for “regional disembarkation platforms” would work, or where they might be set up.

      Elizabeth Collett, the director of the Migration Policy Institute in Brussels, said it was a “watered-down version” of Austrian-Danish proposals that had called for arrivals in Europe to be sent back to their point of departure to have their claims processed.

      “What has clearly changed is the level of political backing for this,” she said.

      The plan prompted questions about how it would work and the cost involved, she said. “It looks great on paper, but can you get countries to sign up from outside Europe and basically be vassal states?”

      The other big problem was ensuring the centres met EU standards, she said. “The conditions, the processing, all of the things that require a high degree of knowledge and are quite hard to manage within the EU, these are big questions.”

      The plan, however, appears to be helping unite EU countries that are deeply divided on migration.

      Italy and France support the idea of asylum centres outside EU territory, an idea that helped defuse diplomatic tensions after the two countries clashed when the new populist government in Rome refused to allow the docking of a ship carrying 630 migrants.

      Macron, who has previously raised the idea, proposed it when he met the Italian prime minister, Giuseppe Conte, last week.

      The EU struck a deal with Turkey in 2016 that drastically reduced migrant flows, but the bloc has found it harder to work with north African governments, especially Libya, from where most sea crossings begin.

      The European commission has rejected a Turkey-style deal with Libya because of instability in the country. But Italy’s previous government struck deals with Libyan militia and tribes and helped relaunch the Libyan coastguard. These actions contributed to a sharp reduction in the number of people crossing the central Mediterranean, but critics reported an increase in human rights violations.

      According to the draft document, the EU would like to set up the centres in collaboration with the UN refugee agency and the International Organization for Migration, a UN-related body that has previously criticised the paucity of legal routes for African migrants to travel to Europe.

      Dimitris Avramopoulos, the EU migration commissioner, is expected to spell out details of the disembarkation centres later this week.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/19/eu-migrant-processing-centres-north-africa-refugees?CMP=share_btn_tw
      #Afrique_du_nord