*métaliste sur la mise en place de l’externalisation des procédures_d’asile au Rwanda par…

voir aussi cette métaliste sur cette tentative de mise en place de l’#externalisation des #procédures_d'asile au #Rwanda par l’#Angleterre :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/966443

Au Royaume-Uni, les Lords repoussent le projet d’expulsion de migrants vers le Rwanda

La chambre haute britannique a adopté lundi 22 janvier une motion demandant de repousser la ratification d’un traité avec Kigali tant qu’il n’a pas été démontré que le Rwanda est un pays sûr pour les migrants qui y seront expulsés.

It’s a “No”. Les Lords britanniques ont exprimé lundi 22 janvier au soir leur désapprobation à l’égard du projet controversé du Premier ministre Rishi Sunak visant à expulser les migrants au Rwanda, s’opposant à la ratification du traité signé avec Kigali sur lequel doit s’adosser sa future loi. Une majorité de représentants siégeant à la chambre haute du Parlement ont demandé au gouvernement de repousser la ratification de ce traité tant qu’il n’a pas été effectivement démontré que le Rwanda est un pays d’accueil sûr pour les migrants qui y seront expulsés.

214 Lords ont ainsi suivi la recommandation d’un comité transpartisan, qui a estimé dans un rapport publié la semaine dernière que les garanties fournies par le traité étaient « incomplètes », tandis que 171 d’entre eux se sont opposés à la motion.
Projet maintes fois mis en échec

Le texte signé en décembre avec Kigali est censé répondre aux préoccupations de la Cour suprême britannique, qui avait jugé le projet illégal dans sa précédente version par crainte que les demandeurs d’asile soient ensuite transférés vers d’autres pays où ils seraient en danger. Il s’agit de l’une des dernières cartes du gouvernement conservateur pour sauver ce projet emblématique, maintes fois mis en échec depuis son annonce en 2022 par l’ancien Premier ministre Boris Johnson.

La Chambre des Communes, où siègent les députés élus, l’a adopté la semaine dernière à une confortable majorité, après un examen chahuté par la droite du parti conservateur encline à durcir le texte et la démission de plusieurs de ses cadres. Dans la foulée, Rishi Sunak a enjoint aux Lords d’adopter eux aussi au plus vite ce projet, vivement critiqué par les associations humanitaires, qu’il espère mettre en application avant les élections législatives prévues à la fin de l’année 2024.

Contrairement aux membres élus de la Chambre des Communes, les Lords n’ont pas le pouvoir de bloquer la ratification d’un traité. Mais le vote de cette motion, à laquelle le gouvernement devra apporter une réponse, laisse présager de nouvelles difficultés pour ce projet de loi controversé. Le texte, qui définit le Rwanda comme un pays-tiers sûr et empêche le renvoi des migrants vers leurs pays d’origine, doit être débattu à la chambre haute du Parlement britannique la semaine prochaine.

▻https://www.liberation.fr/international/europe/au-royaume-uni-les-lords-repoussent-le-projet-dexpulsion-de-migrants-vers

Le Royaume-Uni signe un nouveau traité avec le Rwanda pour durcir sa politique migratoire

Un premier accord entre les deux pays avait été jugé illégal, le 15 novembre, par la Cour suprême britannique.

Trois semaines après le rejet par la Cour suprême britannique d’un premier accord, Londres et Kigali ont signé un nouveau traité, mardi 5 décembre, visant à expulser vers le Rwanda les migrants arrivés illégalement au Royaume-Uni. Ce nouvel accord a été signé à Kigali par le ministre de l’intérieur britannique, James Cleverly, et le ministre des affaires étrangères rwandais, Vincent Biruta.

Ce traité « répondra aux préoccupations de la Cour suprême en garantissant entre autres que le Rwanda n’expulsera pas vers un autre pays les personnes transférées dans le cadre du partenariat », a assuré mardi le ministère de l’intérieur britannique dans un communiqué.

Signé en avril 2022 entre le gouvernement de Boris Johnson et celui de Paul Kagame, ce partenariat Rwanda constituait la mesure phare de la politique migratoire britannique. Cet accord prévoyait que les demandeurs d’asile arrivés au Royaume-Uni en small boats (bateaux pneumatiques) soient transférés au Rwanda, où leurs demandes d’asiles étaient ensuite évaluées. Le premier ministre, Rishi Sunak, qui avait repris le projet de M. Johnson, souhaitait ainsi dissuader les migrants de traverser la Manche sur ces embarcations de fortune – 46 000 personnes sont arrivées par ce moyen sur les côtes britanniques en 2022.

Camouflet juridique

Cette mesure n’a toutefois jamais pu être mise en œuvre, ayant été jugé illégale par la cour d’appel en juin, puis par la Cour suprême britannique le 15 novembre. Pour les cinq juges de la plus haute instance juridique britannique qui se sont penchés sur l’affaire, le risque était « réel » pour ces personnes d’être renvoyées vers leur pays d’origine par les autorités rwandaises, alors que leur demande aurait eu de bonnes chances d’être acceptée si elle était traitée au Royaume-Uni. Pour la cour d’appel, comme pour la Cour suprême, le Rwanda ne pouvait être considéré comme un pays tiers sûr pour les migrants.

« Nous avons poursuivi ce partenariat avec le Royaume-Uni parce que nous pensons que nous avons un rôle à jouer dans cette crise de l’immigration clandestine », a défendu mardi, depuis Kigali, Vincent Biruta lors d’une conférence de presse. A ses côtés, le ministre de l’intérieur britannique, James Cleverly, a déclaré avoir « une immense admiration pour le gouvernement rwandais, qui a reçu de nombreuses critiques ». Ce nouvel accord comprend la création « d’un tribunal conjoint avec des juges rwandais et britanniques à Kigali pour garantir que la sécurité des migrants est assurée et qu’aucun des migrants envoyés au Rwanda ne soit expulsé vers son pays », a affirmé lors de la conférence de presse le porte-parole adjoint du gouvernement rwandais, Alain Mukuralinda. « Et il veillera également à écouter toutes les plaintes des migrants », a-t-il poursuivi. Une fois signé, ce texte devra être ratifié par les Parlements britannique et rwandais.

Pour éviter un nouveau camouflet juridique, le gouvernement britannique compte aussi programmer au Parlement l’examen d’une « législation d’urgence » pour désigner le Rwanda comme un pays sûr et ainsi « mettre fin à ce manège », a annoncé lundi soir M. Sunak, dans une interview au Sun. Au-delà de ce partenariat avec le Rwanda, le gouvernement britannique a dévoilé lundi de nouvelles mesures pour diminuer l’immigration légale dans le pays.

Le ministre de l’intérieur a par exemple annoncé un relèvement du plancher de ressources annuelles nécessaires pour venir s’établir au Royaume-Uni, le passant de 26 200 livres sterling (environ 30 500 euros) à plus de 38 700 livres (environ 45 100 euros). Les non-Britanniques travaillant dans le secteur de l’aide sociale ne pourront plus faire venir leur famille et la possibilité pour les employeurs de recruter des étrangers à des salaires 20 % inférieurs aux salaires minimaux dans les secteurs sous tension (construction, éducation, etc.) sera supprimée.

►https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/12/05/le-royaume-uni-signe-un-nouveau-traite-avec-le-rwanda-pour-durcir-sa-politiq

Supreme Court rules Rwanda asylum policy unlawful

The government’s Rwanda asylum policy, which it says is needed to tackle small boats, is in disarray, after the UK’s highest court ruled it is unlawful.

The Supreme Court upheld a Court of Appeal ruling, which said the policy leaves people sent to Rwanda open to human rights breaches.

It means the policy cannot be implemented in its current form.

Rishi Sunak said the government would work on a new treaty with Rwanda and said he was prepared to change UK laws.

The controversial plan to fly asylum seekers to Rwanda and ban them from returning to the UK has been subject to legal challenges since it was first announced by Boris Johnson in April 2022.

The government has already spent £140m on the scheme but flights were prevented from taking off in June last year after the Court of Appeal ruled the approach was unlawful due to a lack of human rights safeguards.

Now that the UK’s most senior court has agreed, the policy’s chances of being realised without major revisions are effectively ended.

But Mr Sunak told MPs at Prime Minister’s Questions that he was ready to finalise a formal treaty with Rwanda and would be “prepared to revisit our domestic legal frameworks” in a bid to revive the plan.

A treaty - which Downing Street has said it will publish in the “coming days” - would upgrade the agreement between the UK and Rwanda from its current status as a “memorandum of understanding”, which the government believes would put the arrangement on a stronger legal footing.

The new text would provide the necessary “reassurances” the Supreme Court has asked for, the prime minister’s official spokesman said.

LIVE: Reaction to Supreme Court Rwanda ruling
Chris Mason: Ruling leaves Rwanda policy in tatters
How many people cross the Channel in small boats?
What was the UK’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda?

Ministers have been forced to reconsider their flagship immigration policy after 10 claimants in the Supreme Court case argued that ministers had ignored clear evidence that Rwanda’s asylum system was unfair and arbitrary.

The legal case against the policy hinges on the principle of “non-refoulement” - that a person seeking asylum should not be returned to their country of origin if doing so would put them at risk of harm - which is established under both UK and international human rights law.

In a unanimous decision, the court’s five justices agreed with the Court of Appeal that there had not been a proper assessment of whether Rwanda was safe.

The judgement does not ban sending migrants to another country, but it leaves the Rwanda scheme in tatters - and it is not clear which other nations are prepared to do a similar deal with the UK.

The Supreme Court justices said there were “substantial grounds” to believe people deported to Rwanda could then be sent, by the Rwandan government, to places where they would be unsafe.

It said the Rwandan government had entered into the agreement in “good faith” but the evidence cast doubt on its “practical ability to fulfil its assurances, at least in the short term”, to fix “deficiencies” in its asylum system and see through “the scale of the changes in procedure, understanding and culture which are required”.

A spokesman for the Rwandan government said the policy’s legality was “ultimately a decision for the UK’s judicial system”, but added “we do take issue with the ruling that Rwanda is not a safe third country”.

It leaves Mr Sunak - who has made tackling illegal immigration a central focus his government - looking for a way to salvage the policy.

In a statement issued after the ruling, the prime minister said the government had been “planning for all eventualities and we remain completely committed to stopping the boats”.

He continued: “Crucially, the Supreme Court - like the Court of Appeal and the High Court before it - has confirmed that the principle of sending illegal migrants to a safe third country for processing is lawful. This confirms the government’s clear view from the outset.”

Mr Sunak is expected to hold a televised press conference in Downing Street at 16:45 GMT on Wednesday.

The Supreme Court decision comes amid the political fallout from the sacking of Suella Braverman on Monday, who, as home secretary had championed the Rwanda policy.

In a highly critical letter, published after her sacking and the day before the ruling, she said the prime minister had “failed to prepare any sort of credible Plan B” in the event the Supreme Court halts the policy.

Newly appointed Home Secretary James Cleverly told the Commons on Wednesday the government had been “working on a plan to provide the certainty that the court demands” for “the last few months”.

He said upgrading the agreement to a treaty “will make it absolutely clear to our courts and to Strasbourg that the risks laid out by the court today have been responded to, will be consistent with international law”.

Lee Anderson MP, the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, urged the government to ignore the Supreme Court and “put planes in the air” anyway.

Natalie Elphicke, Conservative MP for Dover, the landing point for many of the small boats, said the Rwanda policy is “at an end” and “we now need to move forward”.

“With winter coming the timing of this decision couldn’t be worse. Be in no doubt, this will embolden the people smugglers and put more lives at risk,” she continued.

But charity Asylum Aid said the government must “abandon the idea of forcibly removing people seeking asylum to third countries”, describing the policy as “cruel and ineffective”.

More than 100,000 people have arrived in the UK via illegal crossings since 2018, though the number appears to be falling this year.

In 2022, 45,000 people reached the UK in small boats. The total is on course to be lower for 2023, with the total for the year so far below 28,000 as of November 12.

▻https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-67423745

Supreme court rules Rwanda plan unlawful: a legal expert explains the judgment, and what happens next

The UK supreme court has unanimously ruled that the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is unlawful.

Upholding an earlier decision by the court of appeal, the supreme court found that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda may be at risk of refoulement – being sent back to a country where they may be persecuted, tortured or killed.

The courts cited extensive evidence from the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) that Rwanda does not respect the principle of non-refoulement – a legal obligation. The UNHCR’s evidence questioned the ability of Rwandan authorities to fairly assess asylum claims. It also raised concerns about human rights violations by Rwandan authorities, including not respecting non-refoulement with other asylum seekers.

It is important to note that the supreme court’s decision is not a comment on the political viability of the Rwanda plan, or on the concept of offshoring asylum processes generally. The ruling focused only on the legal principle of non-refoulement, and determined that in this respect, Rwanda is not a “safe third country” to send asylum seekers.

The ruling is another blow to the government’s promise to “stop the boats”. And since the Rwanda plan is at the heart of its new Illegal Migration Act, the government will need to reconsider its asylum policies. This is further complicated by Conservative party infighting and the firing of home secretary Suella Braverman, just two days before the ruling.
How did we get here?

For years, the UK government has been seeking to reduce small boat arrivals to the UK. In April 2022, the UK and Rwanda signed an agreement making it possible for the UK to deport some people seeking asylum in Britain to Rwanda, without their cases being heard in the UK. Instead, they would have their cases decided by Rwandan authorities, to be granted (or rejected) asylum in Rwanda.

While the Rwanda plan specifically was found to be unlawful, the government could, in theory, replicate this in other countries so long as they are considered “safe” for asylum seekers.

The government has not yet sent anyone to Rwanda. The first flight was prevented from taking off by the European court of human rights in June 2022, which said that British courts needed to consider all human rights issues before starting deportations.

A UK high court then decided in December 2022 that the Rwanda plan was lawful.

Ten asylum seekers from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Sudan and Albania challenged the high court ruling, with the support of the charity Asylum Aid. Their claim was about whether Rwanda meets the legal threshold for being a safe country for asylum seekers.

The court of appeal said it was not and that asylum seekers risked being sent back to their home countries (where they could face persecution), when in fact they may have a good claim for asylum.

The government has since passed the Illegal Migration Act. The law now states that all asylum seekers arriving irregularly (for example, in small boats) must be removed to a safe third country. But now that the Rwanda deal has been ruled unlawful, there are no other countries that have said they would take asylum seekers from the UK.

What happens next?

It is clear that the government’s asylum policies will need rethinking. Should another country now be designated as a safe country and different arrangements put in place, these will probably be subject to further legal challenges, including in the European court of human rights and in British courts.

This ruling is likely to revive discussion about the UK leaving the European convention on human rights (ECHR), which holds the UK to the non-refoulement obligation. Some Conservatives, including the former home secretary Suella Braverman, have argued that leaving the convention would make it easier to pass stronger immigration laws.

But while handing down the supreme court judgment, Lord Reed emphasised that there are obligations towards asylum seekers that go beyond the ECHR. The duty of non-refoulement is part of many other international conventions, and domestic law as well. In other words, exiting the ECHR would not automatically make the Rwanda plan lawful or easier to implement.

The prime minister, Rishi Sunak, has said that he is working on a new treaty with Rwanda and is prepared to change domestic laws to “do whatever it takes to stop the boats”.

The UK is not the only country to attempt to off-shore asylum processing. Germany and Italy have recently been considering finding new safe third countries to accept asylum seekers as well.

But ensuring these measures comply with human rights obligations is complicated. International law requires states to provide sanctuary to those fleeing persecution or risk to their lives. As this ruling shows, the UK is not going to find an easy way out of these obligations.

▻https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-rules-rwanda-plan-unlawful-a-legal-expert-explains-th

La décision:
R (on the application of AAA and others) (Respondents/Cross Appellants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant/Cross Respondent)

Case ID: #2023/0093
Case summary
Issues

The Supreme Court is asked to decide the following legal questions:

Did the Divisional Court apply the wrong test when determining whether removal to Rwanda would breach article 3?
If the Divisional Court applied the right test, was the Court of Appeal entitled to interfere with its conclusion that Rwanda was a safe third country?
If the Divisional Court applied the wrong test or there was another basis for interfering with its conclusion, was the Court of Appeal right to conclude that Rwanda was not a safe third country because asylum seekers would face a real risk of refoulement?
Did the Home Secretary fail to discharge her procedural obligation under article 3 to undertake a thorough examination of Rwanda’s asylum procedures to determine whether they adequately protect asylum seekers against the risk of refoulement?
Were there substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda will face a real risk of treatment contrary to article 3 in Rwanda itself, in addition to the risk of refoulement?
Does the Asylum Procedures Directive continue to have effect as retained EU law? This is relevant because the Directive only permits asylum seekers to be removed to a safe third country if they have some connection to it. None of the claimants has any connection to Rwanda.

Facts

These appeals arise out of claims brought by individual asylum seekers ("the claimants") who travelled to the UK in small boats (or, in one case, by lorry). The Home Secretary declared the claimants’ claims for asylum to be inadmissible, intending that they should be removed to Rwanda where their asylum claims would be decided by the Rwandan authorities. Her decisions were made in accordance with the Migration and Economic Development Partnership ("MEDP") between the UK and Rwanda, recorded in a Memorandum of Understanding and a series of diplomatic “Notes Verbales”.

Under paragraphs 345A to 345D of the Immigration Rules, if the Home Secretary decides that an asylum claim is inadmissible, she is permitted to remove the person who has made the claim to any safe third country that agrees to accept the asylum claimant. On the basis of the arrangements made in the MEDP, the Home Secretary decided that Rwanda was a safe third country for these purposes. This is “the Rwanda policy”.

The claimants (and other affected asylum seekers) challenged both the lawfulness of the Rwanda policy generally, and the Home Secretary’s decisions to remove each claimant to Rwanda. The Divisional Court held that the Rwanda policy was, in principle, lawful. However, the way in which the Home Secretary had implemented the policy in the claimants’ individual cases was procedurally flawed. Accordingly, her decisions in those cases would be quashed and remitted to her for reconsideration.

The appeal to the Court of Appeal concerned only the challenges to the lawfulness of the Rwanda policy generally. By a majority, the Court allowed the claimants’ appeal on the ground that the deficiencies in the asylum system in Rwanda were such that there were substantial reasons for believing that there is a real risk of refoulement. That is, a real risk that persons sent to Rwanda would be returned to their home countries where they face persecution or other inhumane treatment, when, in fact, they have a good claim for asylum. In that sense Rwanda was not a safe third country. Accordingly, unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum processes are corrected, removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda will be unlawful under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This is because it would breach article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the claimants’ other grounds of appeal.

The Home Secretary now appeals to the Supreme Court on issues (1) to (3) below. AAA (Syria) and others and HTN (Vietnam) cross appeal on issues (4) and (5). AS (Iran) also cross appeals on issue (4). ASM (Iraq) appeals on issue (6).

▻https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2023-0093.html

Alasdair Mackenzie sur X:

Here’s my take on the Rwanda judgment in the Supreme Court today.

It’s a longish one, but tl;dr: it’s a disaster for the Home Office and also for the Rwandans, & surely leaves the idea of outsourcing refugee protection to other countries in tatters, perhaps permanently sunk 1/
First up, it’s extremely interesting that the Supreme Court was keen to dispel the idea that the problem with the Rwanda policy is only that it’s contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights 2/
The SC points out that the principle of non-refoulement (not returning people directly or indirectly to face risks of human rights abuses) is also prohibited by other international conventions & by UK law – a clear attempt to defuse criticism of the ECHR 3/
(Whether that will stop the usual suspects from calling for the UK to leave the ECHR is of course doubtful, but they’d have said that anyway – indeed Braverman’s letter yesterday seems to have been setting herself up to do so whichever way this judgment went.) 4/
Second, the Divisional Court (High Court) – the only court to have upheld the Rwanda policy – comes in for sharp criticism.
It’s said to be unclear that it understood its own function properly, ie to assess risk in Rwanda, not to review the Home Office’s assessment 5/
The High Court also failed to engage with the evidence before it of “serious and systemic defects in Rwanda’s procedures and institutions for processing asylum claims” 6/
The High Court also took “a mistaken approach” to a key plank of the govt’s case, ie that it was for the govt itself to assess diplomatic assurances given by Rwanda – in fact it shd’ve been for the Court to do so.
(The last sentence has a nice little barb towards ministers.) 7/
The High Court also failed to address crucial evidence, including evidence of how asylum seekers transferred from Israel to Rwanda under an earlier deal had been treated, despite its (you might have thought) obvious implications for how those sent by the UK would fare in Rw 8/
The High Court is particularly criticised for dealing “dismissively” with the crucial evidence of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, which was largely uncontradicted and should have been given “particular importance” 9/
The High Court was of course the court which primarily refused to stop the removals of people on 14 June last year, meaning that people had to apply to the European Court at the last minute. 10/
So having disposed of the High Ct, the next Q for the Supreme Ct was whether to uphold the Court of Appeal’s decision that the Rwanda policy was unlawful.

The SC strikingly doesn’t limit itself (as it cdve) to saying the CA’s view was lawful, but strongly agrees with it. 11/
The SC, again strikingly, dives straight in with this devastating summary of Rwanda’s abject human rights record, including its threats to kill dissidents on the streets of the UK (the point about the first line here is to show that the Home Office knew about this very well) 12/
The SC summarises numerous problems with Rwanda’s asylum processes (set out in more detail by the Court of Appeal), incl lack of training, “ingrained scepticism” towards some groups, lack of understanding of the Refugee Convention, lack of judicial independence etc 13/
Why, you might ask by now, didn’t the Home Office know all this? Well, they shdve done, but it seems officials, under pressure (implicitly from ministers) did inadequate & one-sided research into Rwandan asylum processes, something which ultimately undermined the whole policy 14/
The HO’s fallback argument was basically: “well, even if the Rwandan system is a mess, people won’t be going anywhere anyway”. The SC is as contemptuous as can be of this (to translate for non-legal folk, “somewhat surprising” is as dismissive as it gets) 15/
Now we move to the Israel-Rwanda deal, a catastrophe for Rwanda’s credibility & thus for the HO case – and ofc a total disaster for those affected, who were routinely secretly expelled from Rwanda (some were also left without documents, effectively forced out, trafficked etc) 16/
The HO, again, knew about this but wasn’t deflected from potentially repeating the same mistakes: its lame answer was that the Israel-Rw deal wasn’t even relevant bc the UK-Rw one was new. You might think that was also a “surprising” submission and so, it seems, did the SC 17/
However sadly – if only because it would’ve been what we lawyers call “the ultimate banter outcome” – the Rwanda scheme is found not to be contrary to retained EU law [aspects of EU law which remain part of UK law], bc in fact the relevant provisions were abolished in 2020 18/
It’s important to note that the SC doesn’t rule out that the Rwandan system could be improved, & it hasn’t found that the idea of a scheme like this is prohibited (it wasn’t asked to decide that). 19/
But what are the prospects of that happening? The Court of Appeal previously pointed to a real need for thorough culture change in the Rwandan civil service & judiciary, & to an absence of any sort of roadmap for achieving it (in a state ofc uninterested in the rule of law). 20/
For all the govt’s attempts to put a brave face on it & claim it’ll upgrade the Rwandan system, personally I don’t think flights will go soon, if ever (NB the idea that it would make a difference if there was a treaty w Rwanda is pie in the sky imho) 21/
And whilst this decision is a disaster for Patel, Braverman, Johnson & Sunak & all else who supported the policy, it’s surely a catastrophe for Rwanda, whose record has been pored over in detail in the most public way. (I’ve never understood why they didn’t predict that.) 22/
For the same reason I can’t personally see any other state wanting to line up to replace Rwanda, whatever ££ incentives are offered (and remember we still don’t know the full extent of these in respect of Rwanda). 23/
Any attempt to amend or replicate this policy will almost certainly be scrutinised with great care & intensity by the courts, inspired by the example of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in this case.

The government will not get an easy ride. 24/
At the heart of this of course have been the asylum seekers left in a state of fear & anxiety by this appalling policy – principally those like our client who were actually on the June 2022 flight until the last minute – but also others directly or indirectly affected. 25/
Let this, please, be a turning point in how we treat refugees, and the catalyst for working towards humane, non-racist immigration policies more broadly.

Refugees welcome here, always. 26/
Finally, tributes: the team at @Refugees
– UNHCR – put together compelling evidence about Rwanda which formed the basis for this outcome. Its legal team presented that evidence with awesome clarity & force. 27/
The legal team for the lead group of claimants (AAA etc) have been outstanding and although it’s invidious to single out anyone, I’m going to anyway, as no praise can be too high for the skill, dedication & humanity of the leading counsel for the AAA team, @RazaHusainQC 28/
I was privileged to play a small part in this case, representing one of the co-claimants, “RM”, instructed by Daniel Merriman & Tim Davies of Wilsons LLP, alongside David Sellwood & Rosa Polaschek, led initially by Richard Drabble KC & in the SC by Phillippa Kaufmann KC 29/

▻https://twitter.com/AlasdairMack66/status/1724776723160748310

La Cour suprême britannique juge illégal de renvoyer des demandeurs d’asile au Rwanda

La Cour suprême britannique a confirmé mercredi 15 novembre l’illégalité du projet hautement controversé du gouvernement d’expulser vers le Rwanda les demandeurs d’asile, d’où qu’ils viennent, arrivés illégalement sur le sol britannique.

Les hauts magistrats ont ainsi rejeté l’appel du gouvernement du Premier ministre Rishi Sunak et jugé que c’est à juste titre que la cour d’appel avait conclu que le Rwanda ne pouvait être considéré comme un pays tiers sûr.

Le projet avait été rejeté par une cour d’appel britannique en juin dernier.

La Cour suprême a rendu son jugement à l’unanimité.

Pour justifier leur décision, les juges s’appuient sur le bilan rwandais en matière de droits de l’Homme et de traitement des demandeurs d’asile, rapporte notre correspondante à Londres, Émeline Vin. Selon eux, le Rwanda ne respecte pas ses obligations internationales, il rejette 100 % des demandes d’asile venant de Syriens, de Yéménites ou d’Afghans - qui fuient des zones de conflit.

Ils reprochent aussi au pays de renvoyer des demandeurs voire des réfugiés dans leur pays d’origine, une pratique contraire à la Convention des Nations unies.

Ce partenariat ferait courir des risques aux demandeurs d’asile et enfreint les lois britanniques.

Cette décision est un coup dur pour le Premier ministre Rishi Sunak, qui doit faire face aux pressions de son parti conservateur et d’une partie de l’opinion publique sur la question de l’immigration, à moins d’un an des prochaines élections législatives.

Même s’il avait hérité le projet de ses prédécesseurs, Rishi Sunak en avait fait le pilier de sa promesse de faire baisser l’immigration. Le gouvernement fraîchement remanié n’a pas encore dévoilé son « plan B » ; des sources ministérielles rejettent la possibilité de quitter la Convention européenne des droits de l’Homme.
Kigali « conteste » la décision, Londres affiche vouloir poursuivre le projet

Malgré ce revers juridique, Londres a affiché sa volonté de poursuivre le projet en question. Devant les députés, Rishi Sunak a indiqué que son gouvernement travaillait déjà à un « nouveau traité » avec Kigali. « S’il apparaît clairement que nos cadres juridiques nationaux ou nos conventions internationales continuent de nous entraver, je suis prêt à modifier nos lois et à réexaminer ces relations internationales », a-t-il ajouté, alors que certains élus de sa majorité réclament un retrait de la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme (CEDH).

Après l’annonce, Kigali aussi a immédiatement annoncé « contester » la décision juridique. « Nous contestons la décision selon laquelle le Rwanda n’est pas un pays tiers sûr pour les demandeurs d’asile et les réfugiés », a déclaré la porte-parole de la présidence rwandaise Yolande Makolo.

Lors d’un entretien téléphonique, le Premier ministre britannique Rishi Sunak et le président rwandais Paul Kagame « ont réitéré leur ferme engagement à faire fonctionner (leur) partenariat en matière d’immigration et ont convenu de prendre les mesures nécessaires pour s’assurer que cette politique soit solide et légale », a indiqué Downing Street dans un communiqué.

▻https://www.rfi.fr/fr/afrique/20231115-la-cour-supr%C3%AAme-britannique-juge-ill%C3%A9gal-de-renvoyer-des-dema

Devant les députés, Rishi Sunak a indiqué que son gouvernement travaillait déjà à un « nouveau traité » avec Kigali. « S’il apparaît clairement que nos cadres juridiques nationaux ou nos conventions internationales continuent de nous entraver, je suis prêt à modifier nos lois et à réexaminer ces relations internationales », a-t-il ajouté, alors que certains élus de sa majorité réclament un retrait de la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme (#CEDH).

Darmanin, fais gaffe ! il est possible que les anglais tirent les premiers.
Et, cela se lit le jour où l’on apprend que « Une directive en préparation sur les violences faites aux femmes prévoit de caractériser le viol par l’absence de consentement. L’objectif est de faire converger les législations européennes. Plusieurs Etats, dont la France, s’y opposent. »
▻https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/11/15/emmanuel-macron-refuse-que-bruxelles-intervienne-dans-la-definition-du-viol_

souveraineté en crise, chauvinisme en essor.

Envoyer les demandeurs d’asile au Rwanda ? La Cour suprême du Royaume-Uni dit non

Dans une décision rendue mercredi 15 novembre, la plus haute juridiction britannique s’est prononcée sur le projet du gouvernement visant à expédier les migrants au Rwanda le temps de l’examen de leur demande de protection. Il n’en sera pas question pour l’instant.

La décision était très attendue. Voilà près de deux ans que le Royaume-Uni avait signé un accord – informel – avec le Rwanda pour y expédier ses demandeurs et demandeuses d’asile, dans un contexte où les arrivées de migrant·es par la Manche atteignaient des niveaux records

La nouvelle s’inscrivait dans un contexte de surenchère politique nauséabonde s’agissant de l’immigration, après que le gouvernement eut envisagé les pires scénarios possible pour repousser les exilé·es en mer et les empêcher d’atteindre les côtes anglaises.

Mercredi 15 novembre, la Cour suprême s’est enfin prononcée, plusieurs mois après avoir été saisie. Cinq juges ont estimé, à l’unanimité, que le risque d’envoyer des demandeurs et demandeuses d’asile au Rwanda était trop grand : non seulement cela pourrait créer des inégalités de traitement dans les requêtes formulées par les exilé·es, mais ces personnes pourraient être renvoyées dans leur pays d’origine en cas de rejet de leur demande, alors même qu’elles pourraient y encourir un danger.

Une pratique qui violerait le principe de « non-refoulement », qui interdit aux États d’expulser, « de quelque manière que ce soit », un·e réfugié·e « sur les frontières des territoires où sa vie ou sa liberté seraient menacées en raison de sa race, de sa religion, de sa nationalité, de son appartenance à un certain groupe social ou de ses opinions politiques ».

Dans sa prise de parole, le président de la Cour suprême a rappelé l’importance de la Convention de Genève relative aux réfugié·es, dont le Royaume-Uni est signataire, de même que la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme et le droit international de manière générale, qui interdit de renvoyer des personnes en quête de protection dans leur pays d’origine sans qu’un examen sérieux de leur demande n’ait été réalisé au préalable.

Le juge, Robert Reed, a également pris soin de souligner qu’il ne s’agissait pas d’une « décision politique » mais bien d’une question de droit, relevant de ce qui est légal ou non.
Un risque trop grand pour les réfugié·es

« Nous avons conclu qu’il existait des raisons sérieuses de croire qu’un risque réel de refoulement existait. Un changement est nécessaire pour éliminer ce risque, mais il n’a pas été démontré qu’il était en place actuellement », a-t-il justifié, rappelant les violations de droits humains régulièrement dénoncées au Rwanda, ainsi que les effets concrets déjà observés à l’occasion d’un autre accord similaire, signé entre le Rwanda et Israël, ayant mené à des refoulements réguliers de personnes exilées.

« Si le Rwanda ne dispose pas d’un système adéquat pour traiter les demandes d’asile, les véritables réfugiés pourraient être renvoyés dans leur pays d’origine. En d’autres termes, ils feraient l’objet d’un refoulement », a complété le juge dans son propos.

La requête du ministère de l’intérieur, qui contestait une décision antérieure de la cour d’appel, a ainsi été rejetée. Récemment, une grande campagne de communication lancée par le premier ministre Rishi Sunak ambitionnait d’« arrêter les bateaux » (stop the boats, en anglais), en s’appuyant notamment sur ce projet d’accord avec le Rwanda, qui devait avoir un effet « dissuasif » pour les personnes migrantes aspirant à rejoindre le Royaume-Uni.

« J’ai promis de réformer non pas seulement notre système d’asile mais aussi nos lois. Nous avons donc introduit une législation sans précédent pour faire en sorte que les personnes arrivant illégalement soient placées en détention et expulsées en quelques semaines, soit vers le pays d’origine, soit vers un pays tiers sûr comme le Rwanda », avait déclaré le premier ministre lors d’un point organisé le 5 juin.

La décision de la Cour suprême représente donc un sérieux camouflet pour le gouvernement britannique dans ce contexte, à l’heure où celui-ci faisait de la sous-traitance de l’asile une solution miracle.

Mercredi, Rishi Sunak n’a pas tardé à réagir sur les réseaux sociaux, rappelant que lorsqu’il avait promis d’arrêter les bateaux, il « le pensait sérieusement ». « Il faut mettre fin à ce manège. Nous travaillons sur un nouveau traité international avec le Rwanda et nous le ratifierons sans tarder. Nous fournirons une garantie légale que ceux qui seront relocalisés vers le Rwanda seront protégés d’une éventuelle expulsion », a-t-il réaffirmé.

En juin dernier, le premier ministre vantait également la possibilité de placer les demandeurs et demandeuses d’asile sur une barge, surnommée le « Bibby Stockholm » et installée dans le port de Portland, dans le sud de l’Angleterre. Celle-ci devait permettre, selon le gouvernement, de réaliser des économies en cessant d’héberger les demandeurs et demandeuses d’asile à l’hôtel : elle a finalement fait polémique.

À peine installé·es à bord, les occupant·es ont alerté sur les conditions d’hygiène avant d’être évacué·es à la suite de la découverte d’une bactérie sur place. Le 26 octobre, un jeune Nigérian a tenté de mettre fin à ses jours lorsqu’il a appris qu’il serait transféré sur cette barge. Selon le quotidien The Guardian, deux décès « récents » s’apparentant à des suicides ont été répertoriés dans les hôtels hébergeant des exilé·es au Royaume-Uni cette année.

▻https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/161123/envoyer-les-demandeurs-d-asile-au-rwanda-la-cour-supreme-du-royaume-uni-di

La Corte Suprema del Regno Unito giudica illegale l’accordo con il Ruanda

Il Ruanda non è un paese sicuro dove trasferire i richiedenti asilo

Mercoledì 15 novembre la più alta Corte del Regno Unito ha bloccato almeno per un periodo la volontà politica del governo di deportare i richiedenti asilo in paesi dell’Africa o in paesi extra Ue che non possono garantire per diversi motivi le tutele previste dal diritto internazionale.

La Corte ha infatti stabilito che il Ruanda non è un Paese terzo sicuro in cui inviare i richiedenti asilo. Secondo tutte le organizzazioni che si battono per i diritti dei rifugiati e per i diritti fondamentali si tratta di un’enorme vittoria, un risultato ottenuto anche per merito della mobilitazione diffusa e che proteggerà i diritti di innumerevoli persone giunte nel Regno Unito in cerca di sicurezza e accoglienza.

L’accordo tra Regno Unito e Ruanda era stato fortemente voluto nell’aprile del 2022 dall’allora primo ministro Boris Johnson (dimessosi poi il 9 giugno 2023 per aver mentito alla Camera dei Comuni in relazione ai festini a Downing street nel corso del lockdown). Nella pomposa conferenza stampa del 14 aprile 2022 l’ex premier disse: «Tutti coloro che raggiungono illegalmente il Regno Unito, così come coloro che sono arrivati illegalmente dal primo gennaio, possono essere trasferiti in Ruanda. […] Ciò significa che i migranti economici che approfittano del sistema d’asilo non potranno rimanere nel Regno Unito, mentre quelli che ne hanno veramente bisogno avranno […] l’opportunità di costruirsi una nuova vita in un paese dinamico».

Quel giorno il Segretario di Stato per gli Affari Interni e il Ministro Ruandese per gli Affari Esteri e la Cooperazione Internazionale illustrarono l’accordo di cooperazione in materia di sviluppo economico e migrazioni, utilizzando la solita retorica – tanto cara anche al governo italiano – del contrasto all’immigrazione illegale, della necessità di controllare le frontiere e di reprimere le organizzazioni di trafficanti.

Tuttavia, solo due mesi dopo, il 16 giugno 2022, la Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo (CEDU) bloccò, insieme alla proteste di diverse organizzazioni, il volo che avrebbe dovuto deportare i primi sette richiedenti asilo verso il paese africano.

Le motivazioni alla base di quella decisione solo le stesse riprese mercoledì dalla Corte Suprema e prima ancora dalla Corte di Appello: ci sono motivi sostanziali per ritenere che i richiedenti asilo deportati in Ruanda corrano il rischio reale di essere rimpatriati nel loro Paese d’origine dove potrebbero subire trattamenti inumani e degradanti. Ciò porterebbe il Regno Unito a violare gli obblighi di non respingimento (non-refoulement) previsti dal diritto internazionale e nazionale.

Emilie McDonnell di Human Rights Watch spiega che «la Corte Suprema ha richiamato l’attenzione sulla pessima situazione del Ruanda in materia di diritti umani, tra cui le minacce ai ruandesi che vivono nel Regno Unito, oltre alle esecuzioni extragiudiziali, alle morti in custodia, alle sparizioni forzate, alla tortura e alle restrizioni ai media e alle libertà politiche».

L’esperta di diritti umani e diritto internazionale ricorda che nel 2022 Human Rights Watch scrisse al Ministro degli Interni del Regno Unito, chiarendo che il Ruanda non poteva essere considerato un Paese terzo sicuro, date le continue violazioni dei diritti umani. «L’Alto Commissariato delle Nazioni Unite per i Rifugiati (UNHCR) ha fornito prove schiaccianti dei problemi sistemici del sistema di asilo ruandese, della potenziale mancanza di indipendenza della magistratura e degli avvocati e del tasso di rifiuto del 100% per le persone provenienti da zone di conflitto, in particolare Afghanistan, Siria e Yemen, probabili Paesi di origine dei richiedenti asilo trasferiti dal Regno Unito. L’UNHCR ha inoltre presentato almeno 100 accuse di respingimento, una pratica che è continuata anche dopo la conclusione dell’accordo con il Regno Unito».

La linea del governo inglese è stata bocciata in tutto e per tutto dalla Corte Suprema, anche nella parte relativa al monitoraggio dell’accordo: il tribunale ha dichiarato che “le intenzioni e le aspirazioni non corrispondono necessariamente alla realtà“.

«La Corte ha ritenuto che il Ruanda non abbia la capacità pratica di determinare correttamente le richieste di asilo e di proteggere le persone dal respingimento», aggiunge Emilie McDonnell. «Questo dovrebbe essere un monito per gli altri governi che stanno pensando di esternalizzare e spostare le proprie responsabilità in materia di asilo su altri Paesi».

Di sicuro questa sentenza metterà in difficoltà anche il governo austriaco che sta pensando di stringere un accordo simile con il Ruanda, ma anche lo stesso governo italiano che circa 10 giorni fa ha stipulato un protocollo illegale e disumano con l’Albania.

▻https://www.meltingpot.org/2023/11/la-corte-suprema-del-regno-unito-giudica-illegale-laccordo-con-il-ruanda

L’asilo è un diritto, la Gran Bretagna deve rispettarlo: è un dovere

La sua spregiudicata strategia di esternalizzazione ha subito un duro colpo ma molte questioni restano aperte. A partire dal tentativo del Regno Unito di disfarsi di ogni responsabilità sui rifugiati

Con sentenza del 15 novembre 2023 la Corte Suprema del Regno Unito ha confermato “la conclusione della Corte d’Appello secondo cui la politica sul Ruanda è illegittima. Ciò in quanto ci sono motivi sostanziali per ritenere che i richiedenti asilo affronterebbero un rischio reale di maltrattamenti a causa del respingimento nel loro Paese d’origine se fossero trasferiti in Ruanda” afferma la Corte.

Il Memorandum siglato tra il Regno Unito e il Ruanda il 6 aprile 2022 prevedeva che le domande di asilo presentate da chi arriva in modo irregolare nel Regno Unito, specie se attraverso il canale della Manica, sarebbero state tutte dichiarate inammissibili.

Nel Memorandum si conveniva infatti di dare avvio ad un «meccanismo per la ricollocazione dei richiedenti asilo le cui richieste non sono state prese in considerazione dal Regno Unito, in Ruanda, che esaminerà le loro richieste e sistemerà o espellerà (a seconda dei casi) le persone dopo che la loro richiesta è stata decisa, in conformità con il diritto interno ruandese».

Subito dopo si precisava altresì che «gli impegni indicati in questo Memorandum sono presi tra il Regno Unito e il Ruanda e viceversa e non creano o conferiscono alcun diritto a nessun individuo, né il rispetto di questo accordo può essere oggetto di ricorso in qualsiasi tribunale da parte di terzi o individui».

Sarebbe stato il Regno Unito a determinare «i tempi di una richiesta di ricollocamento (in inglese il termine usato è relocation n.d.r.) di individui in base a questi accordi e il numero di richieste di ricollocazione da inoltrare» al Ruanda il quale sarebbe divenuto il solo Paese responsabile ad occuparsi della sorte dei richiedenti anche se con esso i richiedenti non hanno alcun legame.

Anche in caso di accoglimento della loro domanda di asilo, non veniva prevista per i rifugiati alcuna possibilità di rientro verso la Gran Bretagna, nonostante si tratti del Paese al quale inizialmente avevano chiesto asilo. Nel valutare come illegale il Memorandum tra UK e il Ruanda, l’U.N.H.C.R. (Alto Commissariato delle Nazioni Unite per i Rifugiati) aveva sottolineato come “Gli accordi di trasferimento non sarebbero appropriati se rappresentassero un tentativo, in tutto o in parte, da parte di uno Stato parte della Convenzione del 1951 di liberarsi dalle proprie responsabilità”.

Le sole inquietanti parole del Memorandum laddove precisa che le misure adottate “non creano o conferiscono alcun diritto a nessun individuo” sono sufficienti a far comprendere il livello di estremismo politico che caratterizzava il Memorandum nel quale l’individuo veniva spogliato dei suoi diritti fondamentali e veniva ridotto a mero oggetto passivo del potere esecutivo.

Già la Corte Europea per i Diritti dell’Uomo aveva ritenuto, con misura di urgenza (caso N.S.K. v. Regno Unito del 14.06.22) di bloccare tutte le operazioni di trasferimento coatto dal Regno Unito al Ruanda per due principali ragioni: la prima è che il Ruanda non è in grado di garantire una effettiva applicazione della Convenzione di Ginevra e che quindi detto rinvio violerebbe l’art. 3 della CEDU che prescrive che «Nessuno può essere sottoposto a tortura né a pene o trattamenti inumani o degradanti».

La seconda ragione riguarda l’impossibilità legale di contestare la decisione di trasferimento coatto verso il Ruanda; come sopra richiamato infatti, non solo non sarebbe stato possibile garantire alcuna effettività al ricorso, ma veniva negato alla radice lo stesso diritto di agire in giudizio.

Nel rigettare il ricorso presentato dal premier Sunak la Corte Suprema del Regno Unito si è concentrata principalmente su due motivi di ricorso: a) il rischio di violazione del divieto di non respingimento; 2) la violazione del diritto dell’UE in materia di asilo. Sotto quest’ultimo profilo la Corte Suprema ha rigettato il ricorso correttamente evidenziando che, a seguito della Brexit, le disposizioni del diritto dell’Unione “hanno cessato di avere effetto nel diritto interno del Regno Unito quando il periodo di transizione è terminato il 31.12.2020”.

Tanto il diritto interno che la Convenzione Europea sui Diritti dell’Uomo e le libertà fondamentali (CEDU), e in particolare l’art. 3, vanno però rispettati, e ad avviso della Corte “ le prove dimostrano che ci sono motivi sostanziali per ritenere che vi sia un rischio reale che le richieste di asilo non vengano esaminate correttamente e che i richiedenti asilo rischino quindi di essere rimpatriati direttamente o indirettamente nel loro Paese d’origine”.

In un passaggio della sentenza la Corte afferma che “i cambiamenti strutturali e il rafforzamento delle capacità necessarie per eliminare tale rischio (il rischio che i rifugiati subiscano respingimenti illegali in Ruanda ndr) possono essere realizzati in futuro” (paragrafo 105). Tale espressione rinvia a un futuro ipotetico e non rappresenta alcuna apertura di credito verso le scelte del Governo.

Nonostante ciò il Premier Sunak, per il quale la decisione finale assunta dalla Suprema Corte rappresenta una catastrofe politica, ha cercato di piegare a suo vantaggio tale passaggio della sentenza dichiarando in Parlamento che la Suprema Corte ha chiesto in realtà solo maggiori garanzie sul rispetto dei diritti dei richiedenti asilo in Ruanda e che il governo sta già lavorando a un nuovo trattato con il Ruanda e che esso sarà finalizzato alla luce della sentenza odierna.

Probabilmente Sunak vende fumo per prendere tempo perché sa bene che i richiesti cambiamenti strutturali non sono realizzabili. Tuttavia la politica del governo inglese, almeno al momento, non sembra avviata verso un serio ripensamento e alcuni osservatori non escludono la possibilità che vengano adottate scelte ancora più estremiste come l’uscita unilaterale del Regno Unito dal Consiglio d’Europa, cessando dunque di essere parte contraente della Convenzione Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo (come avvenuto per la Russia nel 2022).

Uno scenario destinato ad incidere sui diritti dei migranti come su quelli dei cittadini britannici, che può apparire degno di uno scadente romanzo di fantapolitica, ma che in realtà non può essere escluso. Come non mi stancherò mai di ricordare, le violente politiche di esternalizzazione dei confini e l’attacco al diritto d’asilo stanno causando una profonda crisi a quel sistema giuridico di tutela dei diritti umani in Europa che fino a poco tempo fa tutti ritenevano inscalfibile.

La Corte Suprema ha precisato nella sentenza che “in questo appello, la Corte deve decidere se la politica del Ruanda è legittima”. Rimane dunque irrisolta la più generale e scottante questione della legittimità o meno della politica del Governo inglese, di potersi disfare, completamente e ogni volta che lo desidera, della responsabilità giuridica del Regno Unito di esaminare le domande di asilo che pur vengono presentate sul suo territorio, delegando a tal fine, dietro pagamento, un compiacente paese terzo (sperando di poterne trovare, prima o poi, uno che non presenti gli aspetti critici del Ruanda).

Si tratta dell’obiettivo generale che sta alla base della recentissima controversa legge approvata dal Parlamento inglese a nel luglio 2023 (Illegal Migration Act), successivamente quindi al Memorandum con il Ruanda, che all’art. 1.1 afferma che “scopo della presente legge è prevenire e scoraggiare la migrazione illegale, in particolare la migrazione per rotte non sicure e illegali, richiedendo la rimozione (“the removal” nel testo originale) dal Regno Unito di alcune persone che entrano o arrivano nel Regno Unito in violazione del controllo dell’immigrazione”.

In una dichiarazione congiunta resa il 18.07.23 da UNHCR e dall’Ufficio delle Nazioni Unite per i Diritti Umani al momento dell’approvazione della legge, entrambe le agenzie delle Nazioni Unite hanno sostenuto che la nuova legge “è in contrasto con gli obblighi del paese ai sensi della legge internazionale sui diritti umani e dei rifugiati (….) la legge estingue l’accesso all’asilo nel Regno Unito per chiunque arrivi irregolarmente, essendo passato attraverso un paese – per quanto brevemente – dove non ha affrontato persecuzioni. Gli impedisce di presentare la protezione dei rifugiati o altre rivendicazioni sui diritti umani, indipendentemente da quanto siano convincenti le loro circostanze. Inoltre, richiede la loro rimozione in un altro paese, senza alcuna garanzia che saranno necessariamente in grado di accedere alla protezione. Crea nuovi poteri di detenzione, con una limitata supervisione giudiziaria”.

La spregiudicata strategia della esternalizzazione del diritto d’asilo condotta dal governo del Regno Unito ha subito un duro colpo con la cancellazione del Memorandum con il Ruanda, ma moltissimi scenari problematici rimangono ancora aperti.

Nel frattempo, come messo in luce dalle associazioni inglesi che operano nel campo della protezione dei rifugiati, il sistema inglese d’asilo sta collassando a causa della paralisi amministrativa prodotto dalle continue tentate riforme, e l’arretrato nella definizione delle domande di asilo ha superato i centomila casi pendenti.

▻https://www.unita.it/2023/11/17/lasilo-e-un-diritto-la-gran-bretagna-deve-rispettarlo-e-un-dovere

L’ultima idea di Londra per i richiedenti asilo: «spedirli» su un’isola in mezzo all’Atlantico

All’Ascensione, territorio dipendente da Sant’Elena. Intanto da ieri decine spostati su una chiatta a Portland

La buona notizia è che, causa golpe, è tramontata definitivamente l’ipotesi di spostare i migranti in Niger. La cattiva notizia? Tutto il resto.

Gli arrivi record nel Regno Unito stanno mettendo a durissima prova il governo Sunak, anche se tra i presunti vantaggi di Brexit c’era proprio quello di «riprendere il controllo dei confini britannici» sottraendoli agli odiati burocrati di Bruxelles.

Così l’ultima ipotesi è quella di portare migliaia di persone — in attesa di verdetto sulla richiesta d’asilo — su un’isola sperduta tra costa africana (1.600 chilometri) e costa sudamericana (2.300 chilometri), l’Isola dell’Ascensione, nell’amministrazione di Sant’Elena di napoleonica memoria. Charles Darwin, che durante il suo viaggio con il veliero Beagle la visitò nel 1836, la definì «orribile».

L’esilio agli antipodi dei migranti non è neanche il problema più urgente di Sunak, che peraltro è in vacanza negli Stati Uniti con la famiglia, sadicamente pedinato dai tabloid inglesi anche alla lezione di spinning in una palestra di lusso a Santa Monica con accompagnamento musicale di Taylor Swift.

È cominciato infatti ieri pomeriggio il trasferimento di alcune decine di migranti su una chiatta, la Bibby Stockholm, ancorata nel porto di Portland . Arrivano da alberghi di Oxford, Bristol, Torbay e Bournemouth: proprio il problema degli hotel è quello più urgente. Il governo paga infatti sei milioni di sterline al giorno (sette milioni di euro) per ospitare in albergo migliaia di migranti. L’idea della chiatta è venuta, semplicemente, per risparmiare mentre le lista d’attesa per le richieste d’asilo si allungano spaventosamente.

Neanche i tabloid stanno facendo sconti al governo: due mesi fa campeggiava sulle loro prime pagine la protesta dei migranti iraniani che rifiutavano la sistemazione in un albergo londinese di Pimlico (centralissimo, 175 euro a notte) perché pretendevano camere singole, e per questo si erano accampati in strada.

La capacità ricettiva dell’apparato dello Stato britannico pare uscita da un vecchio sketch dei Monty Python, e sarebbe un brutto gesto, oggi, quello di rinfacciare alla fazione pro-Brexit le vecchie critiche alle (effettive) falle nell’accoglienza ai migranti targata Ue. Ma certo è che il «piano B» è una priorità del governo Sunak: s’intende l’idea di trasferire fuori dai confini nazionali i migranti finché non sarà definito l’esito delle loro richieste d’asilo. Soltanto quattordici mesi fa, quando il governo Johnson ormai al capolinea ipotizzò di utilizzare il Ruanda come parcheggio per i migranti desiderosi di vivere nel Regno Unito stringendo con Kigali un accordo di cooperazione da 160 milioni di euro, l’allora principe Carlo con una clamorosa e inedita violazione della tradizionale neutralità politica della Corona — sempre silente sulle scelte governative — lasciò trapelare di essere rimasto «allibito».

Un trasferimento di seimila chilometri nel territorio britannico d’oltremare nell’Atlantico meridionale provocherebbe, al netto di ogni altra considerazione politica e umanitaria, una serie di complessi problemi organizzativi, dato che l’isola di 88 chilometri quadrati ha soltanto ottocento abitanti e non è ovviamente attrezzata per diventare un campo profughi. Perfino il Daily Mail, giornale per nulla favorevole all’apertura delle frontiere, la definiva ieri «una pietra vulcanica in mezzo al nulla».

Al momento il piano di collaborazione con Kigali è stato bloccato da un tribunale, ma il governo aspetta il pronunciamento definitivo della Corte suprema in ottobre.

▻https://www.corriere.it/esteri/23_agosto_07/ultima-idea-londra-richiedenti-asilo-spedirli-un-isola-mezzo-all-atlantico-

Source : #Impact_Assessment, The #Home_Office (26.06.2023)

https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/186f813ba-297a89/Aa5oRRWH9QIJ/WbqiGGJ9hVoo6ltgH7ERjiwMHJHd6iIr180wcklQ.png

Reaching removal agreements with recipient third countries may incur additional costs to facilitate agreement and set-up. The only current return agreement with a third country is with the Government of Rwanda (GoR). Agreed and paid as part of the MEDP Programme with GoR has been a total of £120 million in development funding and a further £20 million upfront payment towards accommodation, processing, and integration.

(p.33, § 141)

Page 25, § 87-88 :

An estimated unit cost of £169,000 is found for relocating an individual. This is the estimated additional costs incurred relative to processing an individual through the baseline Option 1, which is the current migration system. This cost will only be incurred for people who arrive in the UK illegally. If an individual is deterred from entering the UK illegally than no cost would be incurred. All non-monetised costs should be considered alongside this monetised cost figure when considering the overall cost impacts of the Bill.

https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/186f813ba-297a89/WRBVzIwDD25X/4VE2MLstUYHaJc0b5qXxNfqFGF5skWzihYpXA0ZH.png

Pour télécharger le document :
▻https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1165397/Illegal_Migration_Bill_IA_-_LM_Signed-final.pdf

In March, UK Home Secretary #Suella_Braverman visited Kigali.

While there, she signed a deal expanding the agreement with Rwanda, which will now also accept “illegal migrants” deported from the UK

▻https://twitter.com/StatewatchEU/status/1650506367055134720

#Addendum to the #Memorandum_of_Understanding

Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding

Between

The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

And

The Government of the Republic of Rwanda

For the Provision of a Partnership Arrangement to strengthen shared international commitments on the protection of refugees and migrants

This document is an addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the “United Kingdom”) and the Government of the Republic of Rwanda (“Rwanda”), together the Participants and in singular the Participant, signed on 13th April 2022. The Participants,

WISHING to continue the excellent bilateral relations between both countries and to develop new and evolving ways of addressing the illegal migration challenge, including bridging gaps in human capital, in order to counter the business model of the human smugglers, preventing people from taking dangerous journeys thereby preventing injury and loss of life, and protecting the most vulnerable;

REAFFIRMING the commitments of both Participants under the arrangement to facilitate co-operation between the Participants in order to contribute to the prevention and combating of illegally facilitated and unlawful cross border migration, in a way that will also allow anyone with genuine protection needs to seek and be provided with safety and supported with opportunities to build a new life;

HAVING regard to the Participants’ commitment to upholding fundamental human rights and freedoms without discrimination, as guaranteed by the Participants’ national legislation, by their strong histories of implementing the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees and by their other respective international legal obligations;

CONSIDERING the United Kingdom’s desire to encourage asylum seekers to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach and deter dangerous onward travel and subsequent illegal entry;

CONSIDERING the United Kingdom’s desire to respond to the current challenges presented by illegal migration and apply the principle of the partnership to all individuals who enter or arrive in the UK illegally regardless of whether they have made a protection claim, human rights claim or claim to be a victim of modern slavery or human smuggling and have not come directly from a territory where their life and freedom was threatened;

REAFFIRMING the commitment to support people in need of protection through safe and legal routes, the United Kingdom will seek to maintain such routes and create more to redress the balance between illegal and legal migration routes;

CONSIDERING Rwanda’s commitment to finding long-term solutions to the major challenge of illegal migration caused by the global imbalance in human capital that drive economic migrants to make perilous journeys. Rwanda will be providing development opportunities to migrants and Rwandans through sustainable bilateral partnerships;

DECIDED as follows:
1 Introduction, Definitions and Interpretations

1.1 In this Addendum Arrangement:

a. “Addendum Arrangement” means this Addendum Memorandum of Understanding to the Arrangement.

b. “Arrangement” means the Memorandum of Understanding between the United Kingdom and Rwanda signed on 13th April 2022.

c. “Joint Committee” means the committee established under paragraph 21 of the Arrangement.

d. “Relocate” means the removal of an individual from the United Kingdom to Rwanda under this Addendum Arrangement.

e. “Relocated Individual” means an individual who is being or has been removed from the United Kingdom and that the Participants have agreed is to be or has been relocated to Rwanda under the provisions of this Addendum Arrangement.

1.2 References to the singular include the plural, and vice versa.

1.3 References in this Addendum Arrangement to Paragraphs are references to the clauses and sub-clauses of this Addendum Arrangement unless otherwise specified.

1.4 The headings in this Addendum Arrangement are for ease of reference only and will not affect the interpretation or construction of the Addendum Arrangement.

1.5 Any references to policy bulletins, enactments, orders, statutes, rules, regulations or other similar instruments will be construed as a reference to the policy bulletin, enactment, order, statute, rules, regulation or instrument as amended or replaced by any subsequent policy bulletin, enactment, order, statute, rules, regulation, or instrument.

1.6 This Addendum Arrangement will not be binding in international law.
2 Objectives

2.1 The objective of this Addendum Arrangement is to create a mechanism for the relocation to Rwanda of individuals arriving illegally in the United Kingdom, who do not make an asylum claim or raise a formal application for protection in the United Kingdom, with the aims of:

2.1.1 deterring dangerous and illegal journeys which are putting people’s lives at risk;

2.1.2 disrupting the business model of people smugglers who are exploiting vulnerable people;

2.1.3 providing an option for people who desire asylum or protection to make such a claim in Rwanda or otherwise make another type of immigration application in accordance with Rwandan domestic law, the Refugee Convention, current international standards, including in accordance with international human rights law.

2.2 For the avoidance of doubt, the commitments set out in this Addendum Arrangement are made by the United Kingdom to Rwanda and vice versa and do not create or confer any right on any individual, nor shall compliance with this Addendum Arrangement be justiciable in any court of law by third-parties or individuals.
Part 1 : Relocation arrangements
3 Details of relocation arrangements

The Participants will make arrangements for the relocation of Relocated Individuals under this Addendum Arrangement in the same manner as provided for individuals in Part 1 of the Arrangement.
Part 2: Responsibilities of the participants
4 Application of the terms of the Arrangement

4.1 Paragraphs 4 to 8, 11, 12, 14 and 17 of the Arrangement will apply in respect of Relocated Individuals and their relocation under this Addendum Arrangement in the same manner as those provisions apply in respect of those relocated and their relocation under the Arrangement, except that the reference in paragraph 5.1 to “asylum seekers” will be read as “individuals”.

4.2 Personal data shared between the Participants for the purpose of relocation of individuals or to give effect to this Addendum Arrangement will be subject to the same controls and safeguards as personal data shared under the Arrangement. In particular, Part 3 and Annex A of the Arrangement will have effect.
5 Assurances as to treatment of Relocated Individuals under this Addendum Arrangement

5.1 Rwanda will provide Relocated Individuals arriving under the terms of this Addendum Arrangement with information detailing how to raise a claim for asylum or humanitarian protection upon arrival and adequate opportunity to raise such a claim.

5.2 In the case of a Relocated Individual who raises an asylum or humanitarian protection claim once they have arrived in Rwanda, the assurances and processes set out in paragraphs 9.1.1 to 9.1.3 and paragraph 10 of the Arrangement will be followed in the case of the Relocated Individual.

5.3 In the case of a Relocated Individual who does not raise an asylum claim or a protection claim in Rwanda, Rwanda will:

5.3.1 offer an opportunity for the Relocated Individual to apply for permission to remain in Rwanda on any other basis in accordance with its domestic immigration laws and ensure the Relocated Individual is provided with the relevant information needed to make such an application;

5.3.2 ensure the Relocated Individual has the same rights as other individuals making an application under Rwandan immigration laws;

5.3.3 provide adequate support and accommodation for the Relocated Individual’s health and security until such a time as their status is regularised or they leave or are removed from Rwanda; and

5.3.4 for those Relocated Individuals who have no basis upon which to remain in Rwanda, only remove such a person to a country in which they have a right to reside. If there is no prospect of such removal occurring for any reason Rwanda will regularise that person’s immigration status in Rwanda.
6 Monitoring of assurances

6.1 Implementation of the assurances in this Addendum Arrangement will be monitored by the Joint Committee and the Monitoring Committee established under the Arrangement in the same way those Committees monitor the implementation of the assurances in the Arrangement.

6.2 The access and other arrangements in paragraph 13 of the Arrangement will apply equally to monitoring of the relocation of Relocated Individuals under this Addendum Arrangement.
Part 3: Financial arrangements
7 Financial arrangements

The Participants will make financial arrangements in support of the relocation of individuals prior to any relocations under this Addendum Arrangement.
Part 4: Other arrangements
8 Amendments to the Addendum Arrangement

This Addendum Arrangement may be amended by the written consent of both Participants.
9 Disputes

The Participants will make all reasonable efforts to resolve between them all disputes concerning this Addendum Arrangement. Neither Participant will have recourse to a dispute resolution body outside of this.
10 Duration and Effect

10.1 This Addendum Arrangement will last for the duration of the Arrangement, unless it ceases to have effect by virtue of paragraph 10.3.

10.2 During any period referred to in paragraph 23.3.1 and paragraph 23.3.2 of the Arrangement, the terms of this Addendum Arrangement will continue to apply in relation to a Relocated Individual who has been relocated in accordance with its provisions.

10.3 This Addendum Arrangement will cease to have effect upon agreement by both Participants.
11 Coming into effect

This Addendum Arrangement will come into effect upon signature by both Participants.

In witness whereof, the undersigned, being duly authorised thereto by the respective Governments, have signed this Arrangement.

Signed in Kigali, 18 March 2023
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The Rt Hon Suella Braverman MP, Secretary of State for the Home Department
The Government of the Republic of Rwanda

Vincent Biruta, Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Co-Operation

▻https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/memorandum-of-understanding-mou-between-the-uk-and-rwanda/addendum-to-the-memorandum-of-understanding

Chronique | Le Rwanda, modèle de #sous-traitance du droit d’asile ?

Souvent présenté comme un exemple de réussite en Afrique, le Rwanda est sous le feu des projecteurs depuis l’annonce d’un pacte très décrié avec le Royaume-Uni le 14 avril 2022. Le traité prévoit la délocalisation de requérant·es d’asile et le traitement de leur demande au Rwanda. L’ex-Premier ministre britannique Boris Johnson se félicitait d’un accord visant à « lutter contre les réseaux de passeurs et l’immigration irrégulière ». Il qualifiait le pays d’Afrique de l’Est comme « un des pays les plus sûrs du monde ». Or, de nombreux rapports s’inquiètent d’une dégradation importante des droits civils et politiques et de l’oppression de l’opposition ces dernières années au Rwanda. De son côté, Kigali met en avant une tradition d’accueil. Cet accord avec l’Angleterre – dont la légalité est examinée par la Haute Cour de justice britannique – pose la question du respect des droits fondamentaux, et notamment des garanties procédurales du traitement des demandes d’asile à l’aune des standards internationaux.

En quoi consiste l’accord ?

Cet accord prévoit d’envoyer au Rwanda les personnes arrivées en Angleterre sans statut de séjour. Kigali procéderait à l’examen des demandes d’asile. Les personnes se voyant reconnaître le statut de réfugié pourraient y séjourner légalement, mais pas retourner en Angleterre. En cas de rejet de la demande, elles seraient expulsées dans leurs pays d’origine. Cette externalisation de la procédure d’asile s’inscrit dans une politique migratoire toujours plus stricte, renforcée par le Brexit, menée par le gouvernement anglais.

Le Rwanda, un pays sûr ?

Si le Rwanda apparaît stable politiquement, le gouvernement est vivement critiqué pour sa politique de répression contre les médias et contre l’opposition. Plusieurs rapports d’Organisations non-gouvernementales documentent la dégradation des droits humains. Reporters sans frontières a placé le pays des Mille Collines en bas de l’échelle du classement concernant la liberté d’expression en 2021. Aujourd’hui le gouvernement exerce un fort contrôle sur la presse. L’État justifie cela par le rôle-clé des médias dans la propagation de la haine raciale pendant le génocide de 1994. De nombreux·euses opposant·es et journalistes critiques vis-à-vis du gouvernement ont été porté·es disparu·es.

Les reproches exprimés

Les critiques, aussi bien sur le plan national qu’international, n’ont pas tardé à fuser. En juin, des défenseur·euses des droits humains se sont fortement mobilisé·es, saisissant la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme avec succès pour empêcher un premier charter vers le Rwanda.
Dans une prise de position, le HCR dénonce l’incapacité du système d’asile rwandais d’assurer une protection des réfugié·es. Il estime l’accord incompatible avec la Convention relative au statut de réfugiés de 1951.
Plusieurs garanties procédurales en matière d’asile ont été violées par le passé, notamment, le refus de motiver la décision négative d’octroi de l’asile et l’inaccessibilité à un·e interprète durant toute la procédure. Le HCR rappelle que l’obligation de respecter le principe de non-refoulement incombe toujours au gouvernement anglais. Or une procédure bâclée implique un risque de renvoi vers un pays où la vie des personnes serait menacée.
L’examen des demandes de protection des victimes de discrimination de genre pourrait ainsi poser problème, le Rwanda étant connu pour son traitement discriminatoire à l’égard des communautés LGBT. L’Agence des Nations unies exprime également ses préoccupations quant aux perspectives d’intégration au Rwanda. Si le pays a longtemps connu une forte croissance et est stable politiquement, le Covid-19 l’a ébranlé et selon les statistiques officielles, le taux de chômage s’élevait à 23,5% en 2021. Une dure réalité à laquelle les requérant·es d’asile ayant obtenu le statut de réfugié·es seraient amené·es à faire face.

Les précédents danois et israélien

Ce n’est pas la première fois que le Rwanda est choisi pour accueillir des requérant·es d’asile d’un pays étranger. En 2013, Israël avait passé un accord similaire, mais secret, qui prévoyait le transfert des requérant·es d’asile d’origines érythréenne et soudanaise vers Kigali. Qualifié d’échec par le gouvernement rwandais, il a été abandonné en 2018. Les témoignages publiés par la BBC montrent que les personnes ont été cueillies à leur arrivée au Rwanda et enfermées quelques jours dans des hôtels avant d’être expulsées en Ouganda voire confiées à des passeurs. Nombre d’entre elles auraient rejoint l’Europe, certaines au coût de leur vie. (voir p.17)
En 2021, le Danemark, connu pour son approche restrictive en matière d’asile, a également créé un tollé en évoquant un mémorandum avec le Rwanda. Sa concrétisation pourrait subir le même sort devant la CourEDH.

Enjeux diplomatiques et géopolitiques

Outre la contribution de 145 millions d’euros promise par Londres en contrepartie de l’accord, les experts soulignent combien le Rwanda pourrait sortir gagnant sur le plan géopolitique. Le Royaume Uni est membre permanent au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies et pourrait être enclin à taire ses critiques à l’égard de son allié, aujourd’hui suspecté de jouer un rôle dans le conflit en République démocratique du Congo. Les observateurs craignent également que le Rwanda fasse pression sur la Grande Bretagne sur des sujets sensibles. Et de citer le conflit opposant Londres à Kigali autour de cinq personnes suspectées d’avoir été impliquées dans le génocide rwandais qui résideraient en Angleterre. Les juges anglais refusent de les extrader vers le Rwanda, craignant qu’une justice impartiale ne leur soit pas garantie. Devant un public de diplomates, le Président Kagame a exprimé le souhait de voir le Royaume-Uni envoyer ces cinq personnes sur la base de l’accord en matière d’asile. Cette stratégie éviterait au gouvernement rwandais d’entamer une procédure ordinaire d’extradition. Tous ces enjeux s’inscrivent dans le contexte des prochaines élections présidentielles de 2024 auxquelles l’actuel Président Kagame pourrait se présenter pour un nouveau mandat.

▻https://asile.ch/2022/10/21/chronique-le-rwanda-modele-de-sous-traitance-du-droit-dasile

#France, 2017

Emmanuel #Macron veut créer des « hotspots » pour gérer les demandes d’asile en #Libye
►https://seenthis.net/messages/618133

Macron veut « identifier » les demandeurs d’asile au #Tchad et au #Niger
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/704970#message704972
voir aussi tout le fil de discussion :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/704970

#hotspot #hotspots #hubs #hub #centres_de_tri

#Allemagne, 2017
Tiré du livre « Entre accueil et rejet, ce que les villes font aux migrants » (►https://www.lepassagerclandestin.fr/catalogue/bibliotheque-des-frontieres/entre-accueil-et-rejet)

« Le projet du gouvernement fédéral allemand de déplacer dans des camps situés dans le Sud tunisien les demandeurs d’asile en cours de procédure » (p.95)
–-> avec cette note de bas de page :
"Il n’a, pour l’heure, pas été donné suite à ce projet. Les accords entre l’Allemagne et la Tunisie concernent uniquement le rapatriement de citoyens tunisiens déboutés du droit d’asile. Voir Jeanne Cavelier, « Tensions entre Berlin et Tunis sur les immigrés », Le Monde, 15.02.2017.
▻https://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2017/02/15/tensions-entre-berlin-et-tunis-sur-les-immigres_5079826_3214.html

voir aussi :
Chahed : No plans for Tunisian asylum centers

With the EU looking to stem the flow of asylum seekers crossing the Sea, Chahed rejected the idea of similar proposals to those adopted by Libya two weeks ago at the EU Malta Summit.
While Libya has agreed to set up “safe” refugee camps for Europe-bound migrants, Chahed said he saw no option for such an agreement between Europe and Tunisia. “Tunisia is a very young democracy and I don’t think that it will work, or that we have the capacity for refugee camps here,” he said, adding that any prospective solution must be made in conjunction with Libya.

▻http://www.dw.com/en/tunisia-prime-minister-we-bear-no-responsibility-for-berlin-attack/a-37539969

#Tunisie

–—

#Allemagne, 2019

Germany wants asylum seekers assessed before reaching Europe
►https://seenthis.net/messages/808684

Les mots de Seehofer :

“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.”

#Horst_Seehofer #Seehofer

–—

Allemagne, novembre 2023 :
Sous la pression des libéraux, l’#Allemagne souhaite externaliser le traitement de demandes d’asile en Afrique
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/1024206

Ni Macron ni Seehofer n’ont rien inventé...

Proposition de l’#Angleterre de #Tony_Blair de 2003...

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

#Blair

#Autriche, 2018

Österreich plant mit einigen EU-Ländern Aufnahmelager außerhalb der EU

►https://seenthis.net/messages/701836

C’est aussi une proposition danoise :
L’Autriche et le #Danemark veulent ouvrir des camps d’expulsés aux portes de l’UE
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/701836#message702655

Et l’#Italie de #Salvini qui s’allie à Seehofer et Kurz sur cette idée :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/701836#message701897

#Albanie #Sebastian_Kurz #Kurz #Afrique_du_Nord

#Espagne, 2018

El Gobierno español no descarta apoyar la creación de centros de selección de inmigrantes en África

▻https://seenthis.net/messages/701836#message703556

#Borrell

#Danemark, 2020

Le Danemark revient à la charge...
Danish government : Pushing migration outside Europe’s boundaries
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/900120

#Angleterre, 2020

Revealed: No 10 explores sending asylum seekers to Moldova, Morocco and Papua New Guinea
►https://seenthis.net/messages/879221

#Moldavie #Maroc #Papouasie-Nouvelle-Guinée
#île_de_l'Ascension et #île_Sainte-Hélène #offshore_detention_centres

Danemark, 2021
Danish lawmakers approve plan to locate asylum center abroad
►https://seenthis.net/messages/918427

Décembre 2021 : Rapport du Comité des Nations Unies de suivi de la Convention pour l’Elimination des Discrimination Raciales (CERD en anglais) —> préoccupations vives à l’encontre de la #loi récemment adopté visant à externaliser l’examen des demandes d’asile au #Rwanda :
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/939363

#Angleterre, 2021

Senior Tories have demanded a radical overhaul of the asylum system to allow migrants to claim refuge at UK embassies anywhere in the world.

►https://seenthis.net/messages/938880
#ambassades #ambassade

#Royaume-Uni-#Rwanda* (depuis 2022)

►https://seenthis.net/messages/966443

#Danemark, 2022

Denmark in talks with #Rwanda on transfer of asylum-seekers
►https://seenthis.net/messages/959222

The EU and Offshore Asylum Processing: Why Looking to Australia Is Not a Way Forward

​The European Union appears to often look to Australia as a country that has successfully managed to seal its – maritime – borders and control migration. This has been most concretely demonstrated by Denmark’s newly passed legislation, which allows for the relocation of asylum seekers to third countries while their applications are being processed. This raises concerns and expectations that other countries might follow suit. In this policy brief, we show why seeking to emulate the Australian model is not a good idea, and how it would breach a number of fundamental human rights principles upon which the EU is built.

▻https://reliefweb.int/report/world/eu-and-offshore-asylum-processing-why-looking-australia-not-way-forward
#Australie #modèle_australien

1986 déjà... le Danemark avait essayé:

*The extra-territorial processing of asylum claims

The extra-territorial processing of asylum claims is not a new idea. As long ago as 1986, Denmark tabled a draft resolution in the United Nations (UN) General Assembly to create UN centres where asylum claims would be processed and the resettlement of refugees would be coordinated among all states. A few years later, the idea of establishing European processing centres was considered at the Intergovernmental Consultations on Migration, Asylum and Refugees following a Dutch initiative. The Danish government also advocated the idea of ‘reception in the region’ during the Danish Presidency of the Council of the European Union (EU) in 2001.

▻https://www.fmreview.org/destination-europe/leonard-kaunert

–---

Del resto, già alcuni anni prima - nel 1986 - la Danimarca aveva proposto una bozza di risoluzione all’assemblea generale dell’Onu in cui si ipotizzava la creazione di centri per l’elaborazione di richieste di asilo nelle diverse regioni di origine di potenziali profughi. Coloro che si fossero recati in paesi terzi per presentarvi domanda di asilo avrebbero dovuto essere respinti verso i centri regionali in modo da essere sottoposti lì alla regolare procedura. Lo stesso concetto sarebbe stato riproposto dal governo dei Paesi Bassi, nel 1993, a una riunione del gruppo Igc (Intergovernmental consultations for asylum). Entrambe le iniziative fallirono.

Source: Cuttitta, 2007, p. 126: ▻https://journals.openedition.org/conflits/5593?&id=5593

#extra-territorialité

#Autriche, 2023:
Austrian government wants to outsource asylum procedures to Africa
►https://seenthis.net/messages/1015796

#Italie et #Albanie, 2023:
Migranti, accordo Italia-Albania. Meloni: “Centri italiani nel loro Paese”. Il Pd: “Un pericoloso pasticcio”. Ue: “L’Italia rispetti il diritto comunitario”

►https://seenthis.net/messages/1025186

#Autriche et #Angleterre, novembre 2023:
Austria to work with UK on Rwanda-style plan for asylum seekers
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/1025269

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

▻https://seenthis.net/messages/1032780

Suggestion : ▻https://seenthis.net/messages/1027498

(Si tu trouves que ce n’est pas pertinent, tu peux effacer).

Mars 2024: Von der Leyen’s EU group plans #Rwanda-style asylum schemes
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/1045616
#EU #UE #Union_européenne

Avril 2024:
#UK: Government considers ’Rwanda-like’ deals with four other countries
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/1050346
#Arménie #Côte_d'Ivoire #Costa_Rica #Botswana #Angleterre