• UK strikes £1M deal with Libya to combat irregular arrivals into Europe

    The announcement comes after Britain’s home office minister concluded a visit to Tripoli with representatives from the European Union, the United Nations, France, Germany, and Malta.

    The United Kingdom will pay Libya £1 million (1.17 million euros) to stop people from entering Europe by crossing the Mediterranean Sea and instead repatriate them to their countries of origin, the German news agency dpa reported.

    The announcement comes after #Michael_Tomlinson, Britain’s home office minister, concluded a visit to Tripoli last week with representatives from the European Union, the United Nations, France, Germany, and Malta. Tomlinson is the first UK home office minister to visit the North African country in decades.

    “As well as supporting survivors of trafficking, the funding will assist migrants who choose to return to their countries of origin. These voluntary returns are one of the most fundamental tools at our disposal for driving down migration numbers globally,” Tomlinson said in a statement published on his website.

    The International Organization for Migration (IOM) defines voluntary returns as the “assisted or independent return to the country of origin, transit or another country based on the voluntary decision of the returnee.”

    Launching pad for entry to Europe

    The previous year saw record-high arrivals in Europe from North Africa, with over 150,000 migrants reaching Italy by sea. Libya, a major departure point for Mediterranean-bound migrants, saw nearly 40,000 arrivals in Europe.

    “The new funding I announced is only the latest step in our drive to bolster international efforts, building on our new deal with Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, and agreements with other countries including Vietnam and Albania,” said Tomlinson in an article he wrote for British newspaper The Telegraph.

    Last month, the UK also announced a new working arrangement with Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency to crack down on people smuggling networks by strengthening Frontex’s border agency capabilities.

    “This isn’t just Libya or North Africa; it isn’t just Europe. It is a global challenge. And we are getting on with the job. We will do whatever it takes to secure our borders, reform our immigration system, and stop the boats,” Tomlinson concluded.

    In addition to Libya, the UK has pledged a £3 million deal with Turkey to construct a new center to coordinate joint operations between the UK and the Turkish border patrol. Tukey is reportedly the starting point for 90 percent of the small boats attempting to enter the UK by crossing the English Channel.

    Last year, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak penned similar bilateral agreements with Belgium, Bulgaria, and Serbia.

    Outsourcing migrant oppression

    The UK and Libya alliance comes in the wake of media reports that the humanitarian rescue group SOS Humanity 1 clashed with the Libyan coast guard while conducting a rescue mission earlier this month. SOS Humanity alleged that the Libyan Coast Guard had fired live bullets and used violence.

    Human rights groups have widely criticized Europe for outsourcing their migration policies to African countries, particularly those with a record of human rights abuses such as Libya.

    In January, Human Rights Watch released a report that revealed the dire conditions faced by migrants and asylum seekers in Libya which include torture, forced labor, and sexual assault.

    After a fact-finding mission in Libya last year, the UN Human Rights Council declared that there are “reasonable grounds to believe that crimes against humanity have been committed against Libyans and migrants throughout Libya since 2016.”

    There are an estimated 600,000 migrants stranded in Libya according to the International Organization for Migration (IOM).

    Failed state

    Libya spiraled into chaos after Muammar Gaddafi’s removal in 2011. Libya plunged into a failed state with two rival political administrations controlled by militias.

    Since then, Libya has faced persistent condemnation from human rights organizations for widespread human rights violations and unchecked actions by the government.

    #Angleterre #UK #Libye #externalisation #migrations #réfugiés #financement #aide_financière

  • Royaume-Uni : les Lords mettent un frein au projet de délocaliser le système d’asile au Rwanda

    Le gouvernement britannique a promis de faire baisser l’immigration. Sa solution : délocaliser son système d’asile au Rwanda pour dissuader les arrivées clandestines, en particulier via la Manche. Pour l’instant, la justice bloque le projet. Alors, l’exécutif propose une loi qui affirme que le Rwanda est un pays sûr. Mais le processus parlementaire vient de se compliquer lors de l’examen à la #Chambre_des_Lords.

    Les Lords britanniques ont approuvé mercredi soir une dizaine d’amendements au projet de loi sur la sécurité du Rwanda. La plupart avec une marge de plus de 100 voix.

    Parmi ces amendements, la possibilité pour les tribunaux britanniques d’intervenir dans l’expulsion des demandeurs d’asile. C’est le principal revers pour le gouvernement, qui a présenté ce texte précisément pour contourner les injonctions judiciaires.

    Les membres de la Chambre haute ont également voté pour renforcer les protections pour les mineurs non accompagnés, les victimes de l’esclavage moderne et les anciens collaborateurs des services britanniques.

    Un amendement réclame enfin la publication de données chiffrées de la part du gouvernement, qui n’a toujours pas indiqué combien de demandeurs d’asile il comptait envoyer au Rwanda.

    Le vote de ces amendements – qui affaiblissent le texte du gouvernement – va rallonger la navette parlementaire : les députés doivent valider le texte dans les mêmes termes pour qu’il soit adopté. De quoi retarder l’entrée en vigueur du partenariat avec le Rwanda promis par l’exécutif depuis deux ans.


    https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/55697/royaumeuni--les-lords-mettent-un-frein-au-projet-de-delocaliser-le-sys

    #UK #Angleterre #asile #migrations #réfugiés #externalisation #offshore_asylum_processing #Rwanda

    –-

    ajouté à cette métaliste sur la mise en place de l’#externalisation des #procédures_d'asile au #Rwanda par l’#Angleterre :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/966443

  • Royaume-Uni : les Lords mettent un frein au projet de délocaliser le système d’asile au Rwanda - InfoMigrants
    https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/55697/royaumeuni--les-lords-mettent-un-frein-au-projet-de-delocaliser-le-sys

    Royaume-Uni : les Lords mettent un frein au projet de délocaliser le système d’asile au Rwanda
    Par RFI Publié le : 08/03/2024
    Le gouvernement britannique a promis de faire baisser l’immigration. Sa solution : délocaliser son système d’asile au Rwanda pour dissuader les arrivées clandestines, en particulier via la Manche. Pour l’instant, la justice bloque le projet. Alors, l’exécutif propose une loi qui affirme que le Rwanda est un pays sûr. Mais le processus parlementaire vient de se compliquer lors de l’examen à la Chambre des Lords.
    Les Lords britanniques ont approuvé mercredi soir une dizaine d’amendements au projet de loi sur la sécurité du Rwanda. La plupart avec une marge de plus de 100 voix.Parmi ces amendements, la possibilité pour les tribunaux britanniques d’intervenir dans l’expulsion des demandeurs d’asile. C’est le principal revers pour le gouvernement, qui a présenté ce texte précisément pour contourner les injonctions judiciaires.
    Les membres de la Chambre haute ont également voté pour renforcer les protections pour les mineurs non accompagnés, les victimes de l’esclavage moderne et les anciens collaborateurs des services britanniques.
    Un amendement réclame enfin la publication de données chiffrées de la part du gouvernement, qui n’a toujours pas indiqué combien de demandeurs d’asile il comptait envoyer au Rwanda. Le vote de ces amendements – qui affaiblissent le texte du gouvernement – va rallonger la navette parlementaire : les députés doivent valider le texte dans les mêmes termes pour qu’il soit adopté. De quoi retarder l’entrée en vigueur du partenariat avec le Rwanda promis par l’exécutif depuis deux ans.

    #Covid-19#migrant#migration#royaumeuni#rwanda#asile#expulsion#payssur#politiquemigratoire#droit#sante

  • The (many) costs of border control

    I have recently finished writing up a four-year study of the UK immigration detainee escorting system. This fully outsourced form of border control has not been the subject of academic inquiry before. While there is a growing body of work on deportation, few people have studied the process and its organisation in person, while sites of short-term detention have similarly been overlooked.

    The escorting contract is run as two separate businesses: ‘in-country’, known (confusingly for those more familiar with the US) as ICE, and Overseas, also referenced as OSE. ICE includes 31 sites of short-term immigration detention, many of which are in ports and airports including four in Northern France around Calais and Dunkirk, and a fleet of secure vans and vehicle bases. Overseas officers enforce removals and deportations. While staff may be cross deployed for ‘operational needs’, and some people do move from one part to another over the course of their careers, ICE and OSE are managed separately and staff in each tend to view themselves as distinct from colleagues working for the other.

    The study took many years to arrange and then was severely disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. It was one of the most taxing pieces of research I have ever done, and I am still recovering from it. A book about the project is currently in press and should be out later this year, with Princeton University Press. Here I explore some of the ‘costs’ of this system; in financial terms, in its impact on those employed within it, and on their communities. All these matters occur in the context of the impact of the system of those subject to it, as they are denied entry and forced to leave. As a researcher, I was also adversely affected by studying this system, but I shall leave reflections on that to a different piece.

    The current ten-year contract was awarded to Mitie, Care & Custody, in December 2017 at an estimated cost to the public of £525 million. Previous incumbents included Tascor, (part of the Capita group) and G4S. Like those competitors, Mitie holds many other contracts for a variety of public and private organisations. In their 2023 annual report, ‘Business Services’ (29%, £1172m) and ‘Technical’ Services (29% £1154m) provided the lion’s share of the company’s income, followed by ‘Central Government and Defence’ (20%, £828m). Profits generated by ‘Care & Custody’, which includes those generated by three immigration removal centres (Harmondsworth, Colnbrook and Derwentside) that are run under a different set of legal and financial arrangements, were not listed separately. Instead, they formed part of a general category of ‘Specialist Services’ made up of three other businesses areas: ‘Landscapes’, ‘Waste Management’ and, rather incongruously, ‘Spain’. Together, these four sets of contracts constituted just 10% of the company’s revenue (£411m) that year.

    The precise agreement that the Home Office signed for the services Mitie provides is hidden, like all contracts, under the veil of corporate confidentiality. But some information is available. The escorting contract, for instance, is subject to what is known as a ‘cap and collar’. This financial arrangement, which is designed to reduce exposure to financial risk for both parties, meant that during the pandemic, when the borders closed and the numbers detained in immigration removal centres dropped, that the company did not lose money. Despite detaining or deporting very few people, the collar ensured that staff continued to be paid as normal. Similarly, the cap means that Mitie is restricted in the additional costs they demand from the Home Office. The internal transportation of people under immigration act powers, for example, is paid for by ‘volume’, i.e. by the number of people moved within a daily requirement. Any additional movements that are requested that above that level generates profit for the company, but only within a set parameter.

    The cap and collar does not entirely protect Mitie from losing money. The contract includes a range of ‘service credits’, ie fines, which are applied by the Home office for cancellations, delays, injuries, and, escapes. The Home Office is also subject to small fines if they cancel a request without sufficient time for Mitie to redeploy the staff who had been assigned to the work.

    While a missed collection time (eg a person detained at a police station, who must be taken to an immigration removal centre) may incur Mitie a fine of £100, a delayed deportation would result in a fine ten times that sum, and a death ten times more again. These economic penalties form the basis of regular discussions between Mitie and the Home Office, as each side seeks to evade financial responsibility. They also shape the decisions of administrative staff who distribute detained people and the staff moving them, around the country and across the world. It is better to risk a £100 fine than a £1000 one.

    For staff, border control can also be considered in financial terms. This is not a particularly high paying job, even though salaries increased over the research period: they now hover around £30,000 for those employed to force people out of the country, and somewhat less for those who work in Short-term holding facilities. There is also, as with much UK employment, a north-south divide. A recent job ad for a post at Swinderby Residential Short-Term Holding Facility listed a salary of £26,520.54 for 42 hours a week; for two hours less work per week, a person could go to work in the nearby Vehicle base at Swinderby and earn £25,257.65. Down in Gatwick, the same kind of job in a vehicle base was advertised at £28,564.63. Both sums are well below the mean or median average salary for UK workers, which stand at £33,402 and £33,000 respectively. As a comparison, the salary for starting level prison officers, on band 3, is £32, 851, for fewer weekly hours.

    Under these conditions, it is not surprising to find that staff everywhere complained about their pay. Many struggled to make ends meet. As might be expected, there was a generational divide; unlike their older colleagues who were able to obtain a mortgage on their salary, younger people were often stuck either in the rental market or at home with their parents. Few felt they had many alternatives, not least because many of the sites of short-term holding facilities are in economically depressed areas of the UK, where good jobs are hard to come by. In any case, staff often had limited educational qualifications, with most having left school at 16.

    Border control has other kinds of costs. For those who are detained and deported, as well as their families and friends, these are likely to be highest of all, although they do not directly feature in my study since I did not speak to detained people. I could not see how interviewing people while they were being deported or detained at the border would be ethical. Yet the ethical and moral costs were plain to see. In the staff survey, for example, 12.35% of respondents reported suicidal thoughts in the past week, and 7.4% reported thoughts of self-harm over the same period. Both figures are considerably higher than the estimates for matters in the wider community.

    Finally, and this part is the springboard for my next project, there are clearly costs to the local community. When I first started visiting the short-term holding facility at Manston, near Dover, when the tents had only just gone up and the overcrowding had not yet begun, I was shocked at the size of it. A former RA base, it includes many buildings in various states of disrepair, which could have been redeveloped in any number of ways that did not include depriving people of their liberty. Perhaps it could have included affordable homes for those trapped in the rental market, as well as non-custodial accommodation for new arrivals, new schools, a hospital, perhaps some light industry or tech to employ people nearby. What would it take to work for a vision of the future which, in principle, would have room for us all?

    https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/border-criminologies-blog/blog-post/2024/03/many-costs-border-control
    #UK #Angleterre #rétention #détention_administrative #renvois #expulsions #business #ICE #OSE #Overseas #Calais #ports #aéroports #Dunkerque #privatisation #migrations #réfugiés #coûts #Mitie #Tascor #Care_&_Custody #G4S #Harmondsworth #Colnbrook #Derwentside #home_office #Swinderby_Residential_Short-Term_Holding_Facility #Swinderby #Gatwick #travail #salaire #contrôles_frontaliers #frontières #santé_mentale #suicides #Manston

  • Rwanda : UK to pay at least $470m to Rwanda for asylum deal, watchdog says

    Rwanda will receive at least**$**470million from the UK as part of the plan to have asylum seekers in the UK relocate there.

    The UK government’s spending watchdog National Audit Office (NAO) on Friday revealed up to $190, 000 will also be paid for each person sent to the east African country over a five-year period.

    The NAO report comes after MPs have been calling for greater transparency over the cost of the scheme. But the amounts have been criticised by Labour which called it a “national scandal”.

    In January, Rwandan President Paul Kagame suggested U.K. efforts to introduce an asylum deal with his country are taking too long to implement after criticism of the plan have brought about protests, lawsuits and rulings that have halted it. A Supreme Court ruling in November described the plan as ’illegal’.

    Britain’s Home Secretary James Cleverly and Rwandan Minister of Foreign Affairs Vincent Biruta signed a new treaty in Kigali, Rwanda’s capital, in December.

    Under the five-year deal, the UK would be able to send individuals who arrive in the country illegally to Rwanda to claim asylum there.

    Britain and Rwanda first signed the deal in April 2022.

    https://www.africanews.com/2024/03/01/rwanda-uk-to-pay-at-least-470m-to-rwanda-for-asylum-deal-watchdog-says
    #financement #aide_financière #Rwanda #externalisation #asile #réfugiés #UK #Angleterre #migrations

    –—

    ajouté à la métaliste sur mise en place de l’#externalisation des #procédures_d'asile au #Rwanda par l’#Angleterre
    https://seenthis.net/messages/966443

    • Quand tu fais partie des 10 premières puissances mondiales et que seuls les riches peuvent se soigner correctement !!!

    • #sans-dent : la #macronisation était déjà « en marche » ...

      « Je suis à leur service, les plus humbles, les plus fragiles, les plus pauvres, c’est ma raison d’être. »
      « la fonction présidentielle doit être respectée. (...) Pas pour protéger la personne mais pour protéger nos institutions. »

      (François Hollande en réaction à la sortie de « Merci pour ce moment », livre de son ex-compagne Valérie Trierweiler)

      Je me souviens d’un soir, au sortir d’un repas de Noël passé chez ma mère, à Angers, avec tous mes frères et sœurs, les conjoints, neveux et nièces, vingt-cinq personnes en tout. François se tourne vers moi, avec un petit rire de mépris et me jette :

      – Elle n’est quand même pas jojo, la famille Massonneau…

      Cette phrase est une gifle. Des mois plus tard, elle me brûle encore. Comment François peut-il dire cela de ma propre famille ? « Pas jojo, la famille Massonneau » ? Elle est pourtant tellement typique de ses électeurs.

      J’ai longtemps hésité avant de raconter cette anecdote si révélatrice de ce qu’il est, qui va blesser les miens, eux qui étaient si heureux de le connaître et si fiers de le recevoir. Mais je veux me laver de tant de mensonges, sortir de ce livre sans le poids des non-dits.

      Je vous demande pardon, à vous ma famille, d’avoir aimé un homme capable de ricaner sur les « Massonneau pas jojo ». Je suis fière de vous. Pas un de mes frères et sœurs n’a dévié. Certains ont réussi, d’autres moins, mais nous savons tous tendre les bras et exprimer notre amour, les mots « famille » et « solidarité » ont un sens concret, alors que pour François, ce ne sont que des abstractions. Pas une seule fois il n’a invité son père à l’Élysée, ni son frère. Il se veut un destin hors norme, un Président orgueilleusement seul.

      Mais où faut-il donc être né pour être jojo ? C’est vrai, dans ma famille, personne n’a fait l’ENA ni HEC. Aucun d’entre nous n’a possédé de clinique, ni fait des affaires dans l’immobilier comme son père. Nul n’a de propriété à Mougins sur la Côte d’Azur comme lui. Personne n’est haut fonctionnaire ou célèbre comme les gens qu’il fréquente depuis la promotion Voltaire de l’ENA. Les Massonneau sont une famille de Français modestes. Modestes mais fiers de ce que nous sommes.
      Son expression tellement dédaigneuse me hante maintenant que le charme est rompu, que je suis désenvoûtée de son regard. Il s’est présenté comme l’homme qui n’aime pas les riches. En réalité, le Président n’aime pas les pauvres. Lui, l’homme de gauche, dit en privé « les sans-dents », très fier de son trait d’humour.

      (extrait du témoignage de Valérie Trierweiler née Massoneau)

  • Jury convicts #Ibrahima_Bah : Statement from Captain Support UK

    Following a three-week trial, Ibrahima Bah, a teenager from Senegal, has been convicted by an all-white jury at Canterbury Crown Court. The jury unanimously found him guilty of facilitating illegal entry to the UK, and by a 10-2 majority of manslaughter by gross negligence. This conviction followed a previous trial in July 2023 in which the jury could not reach a verdict.

    Ibrahima’s prosecution and conviction is a violent escalation in the persecution of migrants to ‘Stop the Boats’. Observing the trial has also made it clear to us how anti-black racism pervades the criminal ‘justice’ system in this country. The verdict rested on the jury’s interpretation of generic words with shifting meanings such as ‘reasonable’, ‘significant’, and ‘minimal’. Such vagueness invites subjective prejudice, in this case anti-black racist profiling. Ibrahima, a teenage survivor, was perceived in the eyes of many jurors to be older, more mature, more responsible, more threatening, with more agency, and thus as more ‘guilty’.
    Why Ibrahima was charged

    Ibrahima was arrested in December 2022 after the dinghy he was driving across the Channel broke apart next to the fishing vessel Arcturus. Four men are known to have drowned, and up to five are still missing at sea. The court heard the names of three of them: Allaji Ibrahima Ba, 18 years old from Guinea who had travelled with Ibrahima from Libya and who Ibrahima described as his brother; Hajratullah Ahmadi, from Afghanistan; and Moussa Conate, a 15 year old from Guinea.

    The jury, judge, defense, and prosecution agreed the shipwreck and resultant deaths had multiple factors. These included the poor construction of the boat, water ingress after a time at sea, and later everyone standing up to be rescued causing the floor of the dinghy ripping apart. A report by Alarm Phone and LIMINAL points to other contributing factors, including the lack of aerial surveillance, the failure of the French to launch a search and rescue operation when first informed of the dinghy’s distress, and the skipper of Arcturus’ delay in informing Dover Coastguard of the seriousness of the wreck. Nonetheless, the Kent jury has decided to exclusively punish a black teenaged survivor.

    What the jury heard

    Many of the other survivors, all of whom claimed asylum upon reaching the UK, testified that Ibrahima saved their lives. At the moment the dinghy got into danger, Ibrahima steered it towards the fishing vessel which rescued them. He was also shown holding a rope to keep the collapsed dinghy alongside the fishing vessel while others climbed onboard. One survivor told the court that Ibrahima “was an angel”.

    The story told by witnesses not on the dinghy contrasted greatly to that of the asylum seekers who survived. Ray Strachan, the captain of the shipping vessel Arcturus offered testimony which appeared particularly prejudiced. He described Ibrahima using racist tropes – “mouthy”, not grateful enough following rescue, and as behaving very unusually. He complained about the tone in which Ibrahima asked the crew to rescue his drowning friend Allaji, who Strachan could only describe as being “dark brown. What can you say nowadays? He wasn’t white.” Strachan also has spoken out in a GB News interview against what he considers to be the “migrant taxi service” in the Channel, and volunteered to the jury, “It wasn’t my decision to take them to Dover. I wanted to take them back to France.” This begs the question of whether Strachan’s clearly anti-migrant political opinions influenced his testimony in a way which he felt would help secure Ibrahima’s conviction. It also raises the question if jury members identified more with Strachan’s retelling than the Afghans who testified through interpreters, and to what extent they shared some of his convictions.

    When Ibrahima took the stand to testify in his defense he explained that he refused to drive the rubber inflatable after he was taken to the beach and saw its size compared to the number of people expecting to travel on it. He told how smugglers, who had organised the boat and had knives and a gun, then assaulted him and forced him to drive the dinghy. The other survivors corroborated his testimony and described the boat’s driver being beaten and forced onboard.

    The prosecutor, however, sought to discredit Ibrahima, cross-examining him for one-and-a-half days. He demonised Ibrahima and insisted that he was personally responsible for the deaths because he was driving. Ibrahima’s actions, which survivors testified saved their lives, were twisted into dangerous decisions. His experiences of being forced to drive the boat under threat of death, and following assault, were disbelieved. The witness stand became the scene of another interrogation, with the prosecutor picking over the details of Ibrahima’s previous statements for hours.

    Ibrahima’s account never waivered. Yes he drove the dinghy, he didn’t want to, he was forced to, and when they got into trouble he did everything in his power to save everybody on board.
    Free Ibrahima!

    We have been supporting, and will continue to support, Ibrahima as he faces his imprisonment at the hands of the racist and unjust UK border regime.

    This is a truly shocking decision.

    We call for everybody who shares our anger to protest the unjust conviction of Ibrahima Bah and to stand in solidarity with all those incarcerated and criminalised for seeking freedom of movement.

    https://captainsupport.net/jury-convicts-ibrahima-bah-statement-from-captain-support-uk

    #scafista #scafisti #UK #Angleterre #criminalisation_de_la_migration #migrations #réfugiés #procès #justice #condamnation #négligence #Stop_the_Boats #verdict #naufrage #responsabilité #Arcturus

    • “NO SUCH THING AS JUSTICE HERE”. THE CRIMINALISATION OF PEOPLE ARRIVING TO THE UK ON ‘SMALL BOATS’

      New research shows how people arriving on small boats are being imprisoned for their ‘illegal arrival’. Among those prosecuted are people seeking asylum, victims of trafficking and torture, and children with ongoing age disputes.

      This research provides broader context surrounding the imprisonment of Ibrahima Bah, a Senegalese teenager, who has recently been found ‘guilty’ of both facilitating illegal entry and manslaughter. He was sentenced to 9 years and 6 months imprisonment on Friday 23rd February. In their statement, Captain Support UK argue that “Ibrahima’s prosecution and conviction is a violent escalation in the persecution of migrants to ‘Stop the Boats’.”

      The research

      This report, published by the Centre for Criminology at the University of Oxford and Border Criminologies, shows how people have been imprisoned for their arrival on a ‘small boat’ since the Nationality and Borders Act (2022) came into force. It details the process from sea to prison, and explains how this policy is experienced by those affected. Analysis is based on observations of over 100 hearings where people seeking asylum were prosecuted for their own illegal arrival, or for facilitating the arrival of others through steering the dinghy they travelled on. The report is informed by the detailed casework experience of Humans for Rights Network, Captain Support UK and Refugee Legal Support. It also draws on data collected through Freedom of Information requests, and research interviews with lawyers, interpreters, and people who have been criminalised for crossing the Channel on a ‘small boat’.

      Background

      In late 2018, the number of people using dinghies to reach the UK from mainland Europe began to increase. Despite Government claims, alternative ‘safe and legal routes’ for accessing protection in the UK remain inaccessible to most people. There is no visa for ‘seeking asylum’, and humanitarian routes to the UK are very restricted. For many, irregular journeys by sea have become the only way to enter the UK to seek asylum, safety, and a better life.

      Soon after the number of people arriving on small boats started to increase, the Crown Prosecution Service began to charge those identified as steering the boats with the offences of ‘illegal entry’ or ‘facilitation’. These are offences within Section 24 and Section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971. However, in 2021, a series of successful appeals overturned these prosecutions. This was on the basis that if the people on a small boat intended to claim asylum at port, there was no breach of immigration law through attempted ‘illegal entry’. The Court of Appeal found that those who arrive by small boat and claim asylum do not enter illegally, as they are granted entry as an asylum seeker.

      In response, in June 2022, the Nationality and Borders Act expanded the scope of criminal offences relating to irregular arrival to the UK. First, the offence of ‘illegal arrival’ was introduced, with a maximum sentence of 4 years. Second, the offence of ‘facilitation’ was expanded to include circumstances in which ‘gain’ was difficult to prove, and the maximum sentence was increased from 14 years to life imprisonment. During Parliamentary debates, members of both Houses of Parliament warned that this would criminalise asylum seeking to the UK.

      Who has been prosecuted since the Nationality and Borders Act (2022)?

      New data shows that in the first year of implementation (June 2022 – June 2023), 240 people arriving on small boats were charged with ‘illegal arrival’ off small boats. While anyone arriving irregularly can now be arrested for ‘illegal arrival’, this research finds that in practice those prosecuted either:

      – Have an ‘immigration history’ in the UK, including having been identified as being in the country, or having attempted to arrive previously ( for example, through simply having applied for a visa), or,
      – Are identified as steering the dinghy they travelled in as it crossed the Channel.

      49 people were also charged with ‘facilitation’ in addition to ‘illegal arrival’ after allegedly being identified as having their ‘hand on the tiller’ at some point during the journey. At least two people were charged with ‘facilitation’ for bringing their children with them on the dinghy.

      In 2022, 1 person for every 10 boats was arrested for their alleged role in steering. In 2023, this was 1 for every 7 boats. People end up being spotted with their ‘hand on the tiller’ for many reasons, including having boating experience, steering in return for discounted passage, taking it in turns, or being under duress. Despite the Government’s rhetoric, both offences target people with no role in organised criminal gangs.

      The vast majority of those convicted of both ‘illegal arrival’ and ‘facilitation’ have ongoing asylum claims. Victims of torture and trafficking, as well as children with ongoing age disputes, have also been prosecuted. Those arrested include people from nationalities with a high asylum grant rate, including people from Sudan, South Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Eritrea, and Syria.

      Those imprisoned are distressed and harmed by their experiences in court and prison

      This research shows how court hearings were often complicated and delayed by issues with interpreters and faulty video link technology. Bail was routinely denied without proper consideration of each individual’s circumstances. Those accused were usually advised to plead guilty to ‘illegal arrival’ at the first opportunity to benefit from sentence reductions, however, this restricted the possibility of legal challenge.

      Imprisonment caused significant psychological and physical harm, which people said was particularly acute given their experiences of displacement. The majority of those arrested are imprisoned in HMP Elmley. They frequently reported not being able to access crucial services, including medical care, interpretation services including for key documents relating to their cases, contact with their solicitors, immigration advice, as well as work and English lessons. People shared their experiences of poor living conditions, inadequate food, and routine and frequent racist remarks and abuse from prison staff as ‘foreign nationals’.

      Children with age disputes are being imprisoned for their arrival on small boats

      Research (see, for example, here) by refugee support organisations has highlighted significant flaws in the Home Office’s age assessment processes in Dover, resulting in children being aged as adults, and treated as such. One consequence of this is that children with ongoing age disputes have been charged as adults with the offences of ‘illegal arrival’ and ‘facilitation’ for their alleged role in steering boats across the Channel.

      Humans for Rights Network has identified 15 age-disputed children who were wrongly treated as adults and charged with these new offences, with 14 spending time in adult prison. This is very likely to be an undercount. The Home Office fails to collect data on how many people with ongoing age disputes are convicted. These young people have all claimed asylum, and several claim (or have been found to be) survivors of torture and/or trafficking. The majority are Sudanese or South Sudanese, who have travelled to the UK via Libya.

      Throughout the entirety of the criminal process, responsibility lay with the child at every stage to reject their ‘given’ age and reassert that they are under 18. Despite this, the Courts generally relied on the Home Office’s ‘given age’, without recognition of evidence highlighting clear flaws in these initial age enquiries. Children who maintained that they were under 18 in official legal proceedings faced substantial delays to their cases, due to the time required by the relevant local authority to carry out an age assessment, and delays to the criminal process. Due to this inaction, several children have decided to be convicted and sentenced as adults to try to avoid spending additional time in prison.

      These young people have experienced serious psychological and physical harm in adult courts and prisons, raising serious questions around the practices of the Home Office, Border Force, Ministry of Justice, magistrates and Judges, the CPS, defence lawyers, and prison staff.

      Pour télécharger le rapport :
      Full report:https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2024-02/No%20such%20thing%20as%20justice%20here_for%20publication.pdf
      Summary : https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2024-02/SUMMARY_No%20such%20thing%20as%20justice%20here_for%20publication.pd

      https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/content/news/report-launch-no-such-thing-justice-here
      #rapport

    • Ibrahima Bah was sentenced to nine years for steering a ‘death trap’ dinghy across the Channel. Was he really to blame?

      The young asylum seeker was forced into piloting the boat on which at least four people drowned. Under new ‘stop the boats’ laws, he’s responsible for their deaths – but others say he’s a victim

      In the dock at Canterbury crown court, Ibrahima Bah listened closely as his interpreter told him he was being sentenced to nine years and six months in prison.

      In December 2022, Bah had steered an inflatable dinghy full of passengers seeking asylum in the UK across the Channel from France. The boat collapsed and four people were confirmed drowned – it is thought that at least one other went overboard, but no other bodies have yet been recovered.

      Bah’s conviction – four counts of gross negligence manslaughter and one of facilitating a breach of immigration law – is the first of its kind. The Home Office put out a triumphant tweet after his sentencing, with the word “JAILED” in capital letters above his mugshot. According to the government, Bah’s sentence is proof that it is achieving one of Rishi Sunak’s main priorities: to “Stop the Boats”. But human rights campaigners are less jubilant and fear his conviction will be far from the last.

      Of the 39 passengers who survived that perilous journey in December 2022, about a dozen were lone children. Bah is a young asylum seeker himself, from Senegal. The judge determined he is now 20; his birth certificate says he is 17. Either way, he was a teenager at the time of the crossing. So how did his dream of a new life in the UK end up here, in this courtroom, being convicted of multiple counts of manslaughter?

      As with so many asylum seekers, details about Bah’s life are hazy and complicated. He has had little opportunity to speak to people since he arrived in the UK because he has been behind bars. His older sister, Hassanatou Ba, who lives in Morocco, says the whole family is devastated by his imprisonment, especially their mother. Hassanatou says her brother – the only son in the family, and the only male after the death of their father – has always been focused on helping them all.

      “He is gentle, kind and respectful, and loves his family very much,” she says. “He always wanted to take care of all of us. He knew about the difficulties in our lives and wanted our problems to stop.”

      In court, the judge, Mr Justice Johnson KC, noted that Bah’s early upbringing was difficult and that he was subjected to child labour. His initial journey from Senegal was tough, too, as he travelled to the Gambia, then Mali (where the judge acknowledged he had been subjected to forced labour), Algeria and Libya before crossing the Mediterranean to reach Europe. The risk of drowning in a flimsy and overcrowded boat in the Mediterranean is extremely high, with more than 25,000 deaths or people missing during the crossing since 2014. The Immigration Enforcement Competent Authority found there were reasonable grounds to conclude Bah was a victim of modern slavery based on some of his experiences on his journey. He told the police the boat journey was “terrifying”, and took four days and four nights in an “overcrowded and unsuitable” vessel.

      Bah and his fellow travellers were rescued and taken to Sicily. From there, he travelled to France and met Allaji Ba, 18, from Guinea, who became his friend and who he has described as his “brother”. The pair spent five months in Bordeaux before travelling to Paris, then Calais, then Dunkirk, spending three months in an area known as the Jungle – a series of small, basic encampments. The refugees who live there are frequently uprooted by French police. The vast original Calais refugee encampment – also known as the Jungle – was destroyed in October 2016, but the camps still exist, albeit in more compact and makeshift forms. Some people have tents, while others sleep in the open air, whatever the weather.

      In the Jungle, Bah met a group of smugglers. He was unable to pay the going rate of about £2,000 for a space on a dinghy to come to the UK, so instead he agreed to steer the boat in exchange for free passage. Smugglers don’t drive boats themselves: they either offer the job to someone like Bah, who can’t afford to pay for their passage; force a passenger to steer; or leave it to the group to share the task between them.

      When Bah saw how unseaworthy and overcrowded the boat was, he refused to pilot it, and in court, the judge accepted there was a degree of coercion by the smugglers. Bah said smugglers with a knife and a gun assaulted him, and other survivors corroborated his account of being beaten after refusing to board the boat.

      Once the dinghy was afloat, survivors have said the situation became increasingly terrifying. Out at sea, under a pitch black sky, the dinghy began taking in water up to knee level. It was when the passengers saw a fishing vessel, Arcturus, that catastrophe struck, with some standing up, hoping that at last they were going to be saved from what they believed was certain drowning.

      At Bah’s trial, witnesses gave evidence about his efforts to save lives by manoeuvring the stricken dinghy towards the fishing trawler, so that people could be rescued.

      One witness said that if it hadn’t been for Bah, everyone on board would have drowned. “He was trying his best,” he said. Another survivor called him an “angel” for his efforts to save lives, holding a rope so others could be hoisted to safety on the fishing vessel and putting the welfare of others first. The judge acknowledged that Bah was one of the last to leave the dinghy and tried to help others after he did so, including his friend Ba, “who tragically died before your eyes”.

      The dinghy was described by the judge as a “death trap”; he also recognised that the primary responsibility for what happened that night rests with the criminal gangs who exploit and endanger those who wish to come to the UK. He noted that Bah was “significantly less culpable” than the gangs and did not coerce other passengers or organise the trip.

      “Everything that has happened to Ibrahima since he was forced to drive the boat in 2022 has been bad luck,” says Hassanatou. “In fact, Ibrahima’s whole journey has been suffering on top of suffering.”

      Had Bah made the journey just a few months earlier, he would not be in this courtroom today. His conviction was made possible by recent changes in the law – part of the Conservative government’s clampdown on small boats. In June 2022, the Nationality and Borders Act (NABA) expanded the scope of criminal offences relating to irregular arrival to the UK. The offence of “illegal arrival” was introduced, with a maximum sentence of four years. This criminalises the act of arriving in the UK to claim asylum – and effectively makes claiming asylum impossible since, by law, you have to be physically in the country to make a claim.

      At the same time, the pre-existing offence of “facilitation” – making it possible for others to claim asylum by piloting a dinghy, for example – was expanded, with the maximum sentence increased from 14 years to life imprisonment. Hundreds of people, including children and victims of torture and smuggling, have subsequently been jailed for the first offence and a handful for the second.

      The reasons Bah and thousands of others are forced into this particularly deadly form of Russian roulette on the Channel is due to government policy not to provide safe and legal routes for those who are fleeing persecution. Last year, the government went further than NABA with the Illegal Migration Act, making any asylum claim by someone arriving by an “irregular” means, such as on a small boat, inadmissible. It is hard to overstate the significance of this change. The right to claim asylum was enshrined in the 1951 Geneva Convention after the horrors of the second world war – and has saved many lives. The UK is still signed up to that convention, but the Illegal Migration Act now makes it almost impossible to exercise that essential right, and has been strongly criticised by the UN.

      None of these legal changes are stopping the boats. Although the number of Channel crossings fell by 36% last year, much of that reduction was due to 90% fewer crossings by Albanians (there had been a spike in the numbers of Albanians coming over in 2022). Those fleeing conflict zones are still crossing in large numbers, and according to a report by the NGO Alarm Phone, measures introduced to stop the boats are likely to have increased the number of Channel drownings.

      Most asylum seekers do not seek sanctuary in the UK but instead head to the nearest safe country. Those who do come here often have family in the UK, or speak English. The decisions people make before stepping into a precarious dinghy on a beach in northern France are not a result of nuanced calculations based on the latest law to pass through parliament. “I come or I die,” one Syrian asylum seeker told me recently, when I asked about his decision to make a high-risk boat crossing after experiencing torture in his home country.

      Some lawyers who have followed Bah’s case and the broader implications of the new legislation are worried about these developments. “There is now no legal way to claim asylum,” one lawyer says.

      “The use of manslaughter in these circumstances is completely novel and demonstrates how pernicious the new laws are. It is the most vulnerable who end up piloting the boats and asylum seekers have no knowledge that the law has changed.”

      Bah’s case has also caused consternation among campaigners. “The conviction of Ibrahima Bah demonstrates a violent escalation in the prosecution of people for the way in which they arrive in the UK,” reads a joint statement from Humans for Rights Network and Refugee Legal Support, two of the organisations supporting Bah. They also point out that Bah had already spent 14 months in prison without knowing how long he would remain there, after a previous trial against him last year collapsed when the jury failed to reach a verdict.

      “He too is a survivor of the shipwreck he experienced in December 2022,” the statement continues. “Imprisonment has severely impacted his mental health and will continue to do so while he is incarcerated. Ibrahima navigated a horrific journey to the UK in the hope of finding safety here through the only means available to him and yet he has been punished for the deaths of others seeking the same thing, sanctuary.”

      The organisation Captain Support is helping 175 people who face prosecution as a result of the new laws to find legal representation. A letter-writing campaign calling for Bah to be freed has been launched.

      Hassanatou says she is struggling to comprehend the UK’s harsh laws towards people like her little brother, and she fears his age will make it particularly difficult for him to cope behind bars. He will be expected to serve two-thirds of his sentence in custody, first in a young offenders’ institute and then in an adult jail.

      In his sentencing remarks the judge said to Bah: “This is also a tragedy for you. Your dream of starting a new life in the UK is in tatters.”

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/12/ibrahima-bah-teenage-asylum-seeker-manslaughter

  • Human rights monitors: new UK-Frontex agreement risks “axis of abuse”

    Charities on both sides of the English Channel have hit out at the new cooperation agreement between EU border agency Frontex and UK authorities signed in London today between UK officials and EU Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson; citing human rights scandals surrounding both organisations and an enforcement approach that is “flawed from conception.”

    - The “integrated border management” between countries described in today’s deal has had serious consequences. Frontex was recently found (https://www.lighthousereports.com/investigation/frontex-and-the-pirate-ship) to be systematically sharing the coordinates of Mediterranean boats in distress with militias and pirates that return people crossing to conditions of abuse and violence.
    - This news came over a year on from the forced resignation of its former director (now a European Parliament candidate for the French far-right National Rally) over the agency’s complicity and cover-ups in Greece’s deadly border campaign, which was supposed to herald a culture change.
    - The number of UK border drownings has doubled in the past year, which rescue NGO Alarmphone says is linked to Anglo-French border policy (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/29/uk-france-small-boats-pact-doubling-drownings-directly-linked). UK and French authorities have faced allegations of serious shortcomings in responding to Channel shipwrecks.
    - Meanwhile the UK continues to attempt to undermine its own courts and international refugee law with its plans to outsource its asylum processes to Rwanda, and its abuse-ridden detention estate is widely documented.

    Quotes from organisations responding to the move can be found below.

    Michele LeVoy, Director of the Brussels-based Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), said:

    “Frontex is signing this new agreement with the UK border forces after countless reports of complicity by the EU agency in serious violence.”

    “The plan is flawed from conception. Tougher enforcement does not reduce irregular crossings; it only makes people’s journeys more dangerous. These resources should instead be used to provide safe routes and proper support for people seeking safety.”

    Mary Atkinson, Campaigns and Networks Manager at the London-based Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, said:

    “People move – they always have and always will. It’s something we should welcome, not something which needs to be ‘tackled’ or ‘cracked down’ upon. We urgently need change so that people can move without risking – and too often losing – their lives.

    “This latest development is just more of the same tired old thinking. Making our borders more violent has never stopped those in need from coming here and all these measures will do is make it more dangerous. The government needs to wake up and accept that ‘deterrents’ never have – and never will – work. Instead, we need to listen to the evidence and develop policies that prioritise people’s safety and human rights.”

    A spokesperson for Calais-based Human Rights Observers said:

    “Frontex, the EU’s biggest agency, which squanders European taxpayers’ money by massively violating human rights, is preparing to land on the French-British border. With at least 28 people killed by the murderous border policies of France and the UK in 2023, the presence of Frontex would only increase the insecurity of people seeking protection.”

    Josephine Valeske at Europe-wide campaign Abolish Frontex said:

    “UK border policy has seen deaths by drowning double in the last year, and its government continues to insist on violating both UK and international law by deporting people seeking asylum to Rwanda.”

    “Frontex claims to have made progress on rights – but joining the UK for its new so-called “crackdown” on migration shows that nothing has changed. The EU cannot claim to defend human rights while Frontex continues to exist, and expand a European axis of abuse, at our expense.”

    https://picum.org/blog/human-rights-monitors-new-uk-frontex-agreement-risks-axis-of-abuse

    #Frontex #Manche #La_Manche #migrations #réfugiés #contrôles_frontaliers #UK #Angleterre #accord #coopération #frontières #Calais #France

  • Complicit of data surveillance tools? Bordering and education data tracking tools

    The University of #Sheffield has recently introduced an attendance monitoring app which tracks the location of students. Attendance monitoring was introduced in UK universities in order to fulfill the requirements around international student monitoring for the purposes of Home Office visa issuing status. While attendance monitoring, now in app form, is couched in the language of student wellbeing, monitoring and now tracking actually reflect the imperatives of government immigration monitoring.

    https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/migration-research-group/events/complicit-data-surveillance-tools-bordering-and-education-data-tracking
    #université #UK #Angleterre #frontières #surveillance #contrôles_frontaliers #Home_Office #app #hostile_environment #visas #géolocalisation #étudiants_étrangers #complicité

    • New tools available to support attendance monitoring

      New tools to support staff with attendance monitoring - following a successful pilot scheme - are being made available in the Faculty of Science.

      Staff across the Faculty will begin to use two tools to support attendance monitoring following a successful pilot undertaken in the previous academic year.

      The tools will support departments to efficiently collect attendance data in a transparent way that complies with UKVI and GDPR requirements, and supports greater consistency in the student experience across the University.

      The Digital Register app (used by students for data collection) will be supported by a new Attendance and Engagement Dashboard which shows - at a glance- where there may be attendance concerns, so that appropriate support can be offered to students.

      Dr Thomas Anderson, Director of Education in Chemistry, said: "It has been transformative for our administrative team in checking attendance of international students which they need to report for visa reasons - avoiding a great deal of paperwork and dealing with personal tutors directly. This has saved a significant amount of staff time.

      “The system has been excellent for easily being able to identify students at-a-glance who are serial non-attenders, allowing us to intervene before their situation becomes irrevocable.”

      More information about the tools are available on the web support pages. An online demo is also available that lasts just over two minutes.

      In preparation for teaching in semester one, lecturers should download the iSheffield app from the Apple App Store or Google Play store and look for the check in tile. Before each teaching event, a six-digit code will be accessible that lecturers will need to share with students. Students will then input this code into their sheffield app to register their attendance at their event.

      Jo Marriott, Deputy Faculty Director of Operations in the Faculty of Science, is overseeing the implementation of the tools in our departments and is keen to hear about your experiences as we move over to this new way of attendance monitoring. Questions, and details of any challenges you face, can also be directed to the wider development team at StudentProductTeam@sheffield.ac.uk

      https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/science/news/new-tools-available-support-attendance-monitoring

  • Au Royaume-Uni, un rapport parlementaire étrille le projet de loi qui permet l’expulsion de migrants vers le Rwanda

    Une commission parlementaire britannique a estimé dans un rapport publié lundi que ce texte est « fondamentalement incompatible » avec les obligations du Royaume-Uni en matière de droits humains.

    Considéré par le gouvernement britannique comme le socle de sa politique migratoire, le projet de loi visant à expulser les migrants arrivés illégalement au Royaume-Uni vers le Rwanda a été sévèrement critiqué par une commission parlementaire, lundi 12 février.

    Celle-ci, composée de douze membres travaillistes et conservateurs de la Chambre des communes et de la Chambre des lords, a jugé dans un rapport que ce texte est « fondamentalement incompatible » avec les obligations du Royaume-Uni en matière de droits humains.

    Le projet de loi a été rédigé en réponse à la Cour suprême britannique qui a jugé illégal en novembre 2023 d’envoyer des migrants au Rwanda où leurs demandes d’asile seraient évaluées. Pour les hauts magistrats, le pays ne pouvait être considéré comme sûr pour les clandestins. Pour répondre à ce camouflet juridique, le gouvernement britannique avait signé un nouveau traité avec Kigali en décembre 2023 afin de garantir « entre autres que le Rwanda n’expulsera pas vers un autre pays les personnes transférées dans le cadre du partenariat », avait alors assuré le ministère de l’intérieur britannique. Le gouvernement avait également annoncé la présentation d’une « législation d’urgence » pour désigner le Rwanda comme un pays sûr.

    Vous pouvez partager un article en cliquant sur les icônes de partage en haut à droite de celui-ci.
    La reproduction totale ou partielle d’un article, sans l’autorisation écrite et préalable du Monde, est strictement interdite.
    Pour plus d’informations, consultez nos conditions générales de vente.
    Pour toute demande d’autorisation, contactez syndication@lemonde.fr.
    En tant qu’abonné, vous pouvez offrir jusqu’à cinq articles par mois à l’un de vos proches grâce à la fonctionnalité « Offrir un article ».

    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2024/02/12/au-royaume-uni-un-rapport-parlementaire-etrille-le-projet-de-loi-qui-permet-

    Le texte adopté par la Chambre des communes

    C’est ce projet de loi qui a été étrillé lundi par la commission parlementaire. Dans son rapport, cette dernière s’inquiète ainsi de « l’obligation pour les tribunaux de considérer le Rwanda comme un pays “sûr” et de la limitation de l’accès aux tribunaux pour faire appel des décisions ». De plus, il n’est « pas clair », selon elle, que les migrants expulsés vers le Rwanda puissent avoir « la garantie » de ne pas être envoyés dans un pays où ils pourraient être persécutés.

    « Les droits humains sont universels », souligne la commission parlementaire. Mais le projet de loi « porte atteinte à ce principe essentiel en refusant à un groupe particulier [les migrants expulsés] les protections garanties par la loi sur les droits humains ». Avec ce projet, des organismes publics seraient « autorisés à agir en violation de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme », alerte la commission.

    Qualifiant ce projet de « priorité nationale urgente », le premier ministre britannique, Rishi Sunak, souhaite par ce biais dissuader les migrants de traverser la Manche sur des embarcations de fortune – près de 30 000 personnes sont arrivées par ce moyen sur les côtes britanniques en 2023.

    Malgré de nombreuses critiques au Royaume-Uni – le projet divise même au sein du parti conservateur de M. Sunak –, le gouvernement est parvenu à faire adopter son texte en janvier par la Chambre des communes en récoltant 320 votes pour et 276 contre. Alors qu’il est débattu actuellement à la Chambre des lords, le Labour, mené par Keir Starmer, a d’ores et déjà promis de l’abroger s’il arrive au pouvoir après les législatives, prévues en l’état à l’automne.

    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2024/02/12/au-royaume-uni-un-rapport-parlementaire-etrille-le-projet-de-loi-qui-permet-
    #UK #Angleterre #asile #migrations #réfugiés #externalisation #offshore_asylum_processing
    #rapport_parlementaire

    –-

    ajouté à cette métaliste sur la mise en place de l’#externalisation des #procédures_d'asile au #Rwanda par l’#Angleterre
    https://seenthis.net/messages/966443

    • Il 1 Maggio del 2000 (ed anche l’anno successivo) la capitale inglese venne invasa da una partecipatissima protesta popolare anticapitalista che sfociò in una giornata di rivolte e di feroce repressione poliziesca.

      Protagonisti delle proteste sono i #WOMBLES (#White_Overalls_Movement_Building_Libertarian_Effective_Struggles) gruppo anarchico e anticapitalista che si distingueva per il loro abbigliamento bianco, simile alle Tute Bianche italiane.

      Nonostante gli scontri violenti, alcuni manifestanti (i “ragazzi eleganti” della rivolta) mantennero sempre un aspetto impeccabile.

      Pete Doherty ha raccontato di essere passato in quell’occasione accanto a una guardia in assetto antisommossa con tanto di scudo di plastica. Pete usò lo scudo come specchio per sistemarsi la pettinatura, gesto che non fu molto apprezzato dall’agente, il quale pensò che lo stesse prendendo per i fondelli e gli assestò una manganellata.

      La canzone, un vero e proprio classico del garage rock, con aperture melodiche nella miglior tradizione del pop inglese, è anche un’efficace denuncia del classismo della società britannica (moriremo nella stessa classe sociale in cui siamo nati) e della subordinazione della cultura inglese all’imperialismo statunitense (simboleggiato dall’uomo inglese con un cappello da baseball, tipico sport USA).

      –—

      Did you see the stylish kids in the riot?
      Shoveled up like muck
      Set the night on fire
      Wombles bleed
      Truncheons and shields
      You know I cherish you, my love

      But there’s a rumour spreadin’ nasty disease around town
      You’re caught around the houses with your trousers down
      A headrush hid in the bush
      You know I cherish you, my love
      Oh, how I cherish you, my love

      Tell me, what can you want, now you’ve got it all?
      The scene is obscene
      Time will strip it away
      A year and a day
      Oh, Bill Bones
      Bill Bones knows what I mean

      He knows it’s eating, it’s chewing me up
      It’s not right for young lungs to be coughing up blood
      Then it’s all
      It’s all in my hands
      And it’s all up the walls

      So the stale chips are up and the hope stakes are down
      It’s all these ignorant faces that bring this town down
      And I sighed and sunken with pride
      Well, I passed myself down on my knees
      Yes, I passed myself down on my knees

      Now tell me what can you want now you’ve got it all?
      The scene is obscene
      Time will strip it away
      A year and a day
      And Bill Bones
      Bill Bones knows what I mean

      It was a few or more distressing sights than that
      Of an Englishman in a baseball cap
      And we’ll die in the class we were born
      Well, that’s a class of our own, my love
      A class of our own, my love

      Did you see the stylish kids in the riot?
      Shoveled up like muck
      Set the night on fire
      Wombles bleed
      Truncheons and shields
      You know I cherish you, my love
      Yeah, I cherish you, my love

      #musique #chanson #musique_et_politique #violences_policières #histoire #Angleterre #UK #1er_mai #musique_et_politique #manifestation #résistance

  • #UK and France’s small boats pact and doubling in drownings ‘directly linked’

    Report says greater police presence on French beaches and more attempts to stop dinghies increases risks to refugees

    The most recent illegal migration pact between the UK and France is “directly linked” to a doubling of the number of Channel drownings in the last year, a report has found.

    The increased police presence on French beaches – along with more dinghies being stopped from reaching the coast – is leading to more dangerous overcrowding and chaotic attempts to board the boats, the paper said.

    The lives lost in 2023 – when the deal was signed – were close to the French shore and to police patrols on the beaches, in contrast to earlier Channel drownings such as the mass drowning on 24 November 2021, where at least 27 people lost their lives after their boat got into difficulty in the middle of the Channel.

    “We directly link the recent increase in the number of deadly incidents to the agreement between the British and French governments to Stop The Boats,” the report states.

    It adds that the increased police presence and their attacks on some of the migrants trying to cross “create panicked and dangerous situations in which dinghies launch before they are fully inflated”. This scenario can increase the risk of drowning in shallow water.

    The paper, named the Deadly Consequences of the New Deal to Stop the Boats, condemns what it describes as increased police violence as the most visible consequence of last year’s deal.

    The report compares data in the year before the March 2023 deal with last year’s data after the deal was signed.

    The data was analysed by the organisation Alarmphone, which operates an emergency helpline for migrants crossing the seas who get into distress, and passes on location and other information to rescue services.

    In 2022, six lives were lost at sea in three separate incidents. In 2023, at least 13 lives were lost in six separate incidents.

    The most recent incident was on 14 January this year where five people lost their lives near the beach of Wimereux, north of Boulogne-sur-Mer, as more than 70 people tried to board a dinghy.

    The BBC reported that two of those who drowned were Obada Abd Rabbo, 14, and his older brother, Ayser, 24, who lost their lives a few metres from the French coast when people rushed into the sea to try to board the dinghy.

    Crossings reduced by a third in 2023 compared with 2022. But there are indications more migrants are turning to lorries and other methods of transport to reach the UK as the clampdown on sea crossings increases.

    Incidents last year in which people lost their lives close to the French shore include:

    - 12 August 2023: six Afghan men drowned in an overloaded dinghy which got intro trouble close to the French shore

    - 26 September 2023: Eritrean woman, 24, died in Blériot-Plage after being asphyxiated in a crush of 80 people trying to board one dinghy

    - 22 November 2023: three people drowned close to Équihen-Plage as the dinghy collapsed close to the shore. Fifty-seven survivors returned to the beach.

    The report concludes that the UK/French deal has further destabilised an already dangerous situation while police are still unable to prevent most crossings on a busy day. It identifies “victim blaming” of those trying to cross by politicians.

    A Home Office spokesperson said: “Fatal incidents in the Channel are the result of dangerous, illegal and unnecessary journeys in unseaworthy craft, facilitated by criminals in the pursuit of profit.

    “Asylum seekers should seek protection in the first country where it is reasonable for them to do so and we continue to take robust action to crackdown on criminal gangs, deter migrants from making dangerous crossings and intercept vessels.”

    The French interior ministry was approached for comment.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/29/uk-france-small-boats-pact-doubling-drownings-directly-linked

    #Calais #France #asile #migrations #réfugiés #mourir_aux_frontières #morts_aux_frontières #militarisation_des_frontières #rapport #létalité #risques #Manche #La_Manche #violences_policières #accord #Wimereux #Boulogne-sur-Mer #responsabilité #Angleterre

    • The deadly consequences of the new deal to ‘#Stop_the_Boats’

      There were more deadly incidents in the Channel in 2023 due to the new ’Stop the Boats’ deal. Increased funding for the French has meant more police, more violence on the beaches, and thus more of the dangerously overcrowded and chaotic embarkations in which people loose their lives.

      On 14 January 2024, around 2am CET, another five people were killed attempting to cross the Channel to the UK. Survivors report that their dinghy collapsed near the beach of Wimereux, north of Boulogne-sur-Mer, as more than 70 people tried to get onboard during the launch. The Préfecture maritime’s press release states the police forces present first tried rescuing the people returning to the beach, as rescue boats and a helicopter spotted four unconscious people in the sea. Later in the morning, a walker discovered a fifth body washed up on the beach. In addition to the five who died, one person was taken into intensive care in the Boulogne hospital due to severe hypothermia, and another 33 needed additional care ashore after the incident. The identities of those who died have not yet been officially published. Testimonies of survivors identify them as four Syrian nationals; two aged 14 and 16. The fifth person remains unidentified but is thought to be a man from the Middle East.

      This incident is the most recent in a disturbing trend we have observed develop over the latter part of 2023: an increase in the loss of life in the Channel very close to the French beaches and often in the presence of police.

      The increasing activities of French police since the newest Franco-British declaration in March 2023 have had two main consequences:

      - Fewer dinghies are reaching the French coast, causing dangerous overcrowding and chaotic embarkations;
      – More police attacks on the dinghies as they launch, provoking panic and further destabilising an already unsafe situation.

      The result has been not only more dangerous and deadly embarkations, but further injury and trauma for travellers at the hands of police, as well as the increased separation of families.

      In this report we show the evolution in state policy and practices which are responsible for this trend, while drawing attention to those who lost their lives as a result.
      More deadly incidents

      Since the start of 2023 there has been an alarming increase in the number of deadly incidents in the Channel compared with 2022. Of the 29 people1 known to have died at the Franco-British border last year according to Calais Migrant Solidarity, at least 13 lost their lives in six incidents related to sea crossings. This includes the shipwreck of 12 August in which six Afghan men drowned.2 This is significantly more than the six people known to have lost their lives in three events related to sea crossings in 2022.

      There is a common misperception that people most often die in the Channel far out to sea, when the search and rescue response is not properly initiated or help takes too long to arrive. This is understandable considering the shipwreck of 24 November 2021 where the UK and French coastguards refused to assist a group of more than 30 people, passing responsibility back and forth to one another. Only two people survived. The misperception may also have been bolstered by the shipwreck of 14 December, 2022 in which up to four people lost their lives, and more are still missing, despite the authorities being informed of their distress. See our analysis of what really happened here. However, as a result of their previous failures, the Coastguards have since improved their organisation, coordination, and resources for search and rescue missions on both sides of Channel. French boats routinely shadow dinghies as they make their way to the UK to be on hand to rescue if necessary, and the UK Border Force anticipate the arrivals and rescue people as they cross the borderline

      What we observed last year, however, is that the deadly incidents all happened despite the presence or near immediate intervention of French rescue boats, for example on 12 August, 15 December 2023 and 14 January 2024. Even more concerning is that they all occurred on or within sight of French shores. The cause in all of the cases seems to be the same; the dinghies being overcrowded and failing shortly after departure, or dangerous situations created by chaotic launches.
      2023 Deaths during sea crossing attempts
      12 August: 6 Afghan men drown after the sponson of their dinghy of around 65 people collapses off of Sangatte.

      36 survivors are taken to the port of Calais by the French coastguard, and 22 or 23 more are taken to Dover by the British coastguard. 2 people remain missing at sea.

      Survivors told us their dinghy was moving slowly because of the high number of people (65 or 66). One of the sponsons gave out suddenly and half of the travellers were thrown into the water. Some tried to swim to the shore as they reported they could still see Sangatte. The search and rescue operation included 5 French assets, 2 UK assets, a French helicopter and aeroplane. The search and rescue operation was not able to recover all the travellers because most of them were already in the water when the first vessel arrived on scene. Two survivors are in custody in France, accused of piloting the dinghy.
      26 September: A 24-year-old Eritrean woman dies in Blériot-Plage after being asphyxiated in a crush of 80 people trying to board one dinghy.

      Witnesses told us a group approached the dinghy at the last moment before it departed and attempted to get onboard too. The dinghy was already overcrowded and this intervention led to mass panic among travellers. We know of at least two Eritrean families who were separated as some were pushed out of the boat and others unable to leave due to physical pressure from the mass of people. Wudase, a 24 year old woman from Eritrea was unable to get out and died from asphyxiation, crushed underneath the other travellers. Her body was lowered from the boat and around 75 people continued their journey to arrive in the UK.
      8 October: A 23-year-old Eritrean man is found drowned in Merlimont, after 60 people in dinghy collapsed near the beach.

      Around 60 people tried to board a dinghy towards the UK but the craft was unable to take the weight of the people and collapsed. The travellers swam or waded back to the shore but one man, Meron, was unable to swim and drowned at the beach. The emergency services on scene were unable to resuscitate him.
      22 November: Three people drown off of Equihen-Plage as the dinghy collapsed in sight of the shore. 57 survivors return to the beach.

      Two bodies, one man, Aman and a woman, Mulu were recovered on scene. A third body, of Ezekiel, a man also from Ethiopia was found on the beach of Dannes on the 4th of December.
      15 December: One Kurdish man name Rawezh from Iraq drowns 8kms off the coast of Grand-Fort-Philippe after attempting to cross to the UK by sea. 66 other people are rescued.

      As a French Navy vessel military approached the dinghy at around 1am, the crew informed CROSS Gris-Nez that one of the dinghy’s tubes had deflated and that some people were in the water. Despite the fast response of the French, it was already too late to recover all of the people alive. Two young men Hiwa and Nima both Kurdish Iranian are still missing after the incident.
      15 December: A Sudanese man named Ahmed drowns.

      An overloaded boat struggled to leave from Sangatte’s beach amidst a cloud of tear gas launched by the French police. Some people fell into the water as the dinghy turned around due to a non-functioning engine. One young man from Sudan drowned, trapped under the collapsed dinghy, and died later from cardio-respiratory arrest in hospital.
      What changed?: dangerous deals

      We directly link the recent increase in the number of deadly incidents to agreements between the British and French governments to ‘Stop the Boats’. Since the introduction of juxtaposed border controls in the 1990s there has been intense cooperation between the French and British in attacking and harassing people on the move in Northern France to prevent and deter them from crossing to the UK. The UK gives huge sums of money to France to intensify its policing of the border in the North, and secure its ports. From 2014 to 2022 £319m was handed over according to the House of Commons Library. This included £150m in four deals between 2019 and 2022 focused on stopping boat crossings.

      This money paid for an increase of the numbers of gendarmes patrolling the coast under Operation Poseidon; more surveillance tech including night-vision goggles, drones, aeroplanes, and ANPR cameras on the roads; and several all-terrain vehicles for patrolling the beaches and dunes. This equipment has made the French police and gendarmes more effective at detecting stashed dinghies, engines, fuel and life-jackets as well as groups of people while they wait for several hours hidden in the dunes before a crossing. It also marginally increased their ability to disrupt departures on the beach, but they remained unable to prevent most on a busy crossing day. Additionally, the deals increased law enforcement cooperation and intelligence sharing between the French and British to dismantle the networks of those who organise the journeys, as well as disrupt their supply chains.

      Despite the vast sums put up by the British, previous deals were criticised for still not providing the French with enough resources to ‘Stop the Boats’. They also took place in a period of cooler relations between France and Britain in the post-Brexit period of Johnson’s premiership when the French may have been less enthusiastic about being Britain’s border police. Last March, however, both governments doubled-down and made a new declaration in which the UK promised £478m to the French over three years for 500 more police, a new detention centre, and more surveillance capacity ‘to enable swifter detection of crossing attempts’ and ‘monitor a larger area of northern France and prevent more crossings’. It is after this deal that we have really noticed an uptick in the numbers of police interventions to stop dinghies being delivered to the coast, violence on the beaches (and sometimes at sea) to stop them launching, and by consequence the number of deadly incidents occurring at or near the shores.
      Consequences of the new deal
      1: Dangerously overcrowded dinghies

      Despite the fewer overall number of people crossing in 2023 compared to 2022, each dinghy making the trip was more crowded than in any previous year.

      Illustrated in the graphs above, the 47 days with the highest average number of people per dinghy ever all took place in 2023. The highest, 26 September 2023, had an average over 70, and there were 27 days with 56 or more people per dinghy, with all except one being after June. By comparison, the highest average day in 2022 saw not-quite 53 people per dinghy. These averages do not show the actual figures of each dinghy which have recently been stretching to more than 70, and sometimes 80. Meanwhile the number of crossings on any given day has gone down.

      A key factor driving this overcrowding are the police operations against the logistical networks to organise the dinghies used for crossings, which stretch as far as Turkey and other European countries like Germany. The vehicles and drivers which do the deliveries to the French coast during periods of good weather are also targeted by police on the coastal roads. The UK government recently boasted that in 2023 246 people were arrested as ‘people smugglers’ and an international operation led to the seizure of 136 dinghies and 46 outboard motors.

      These attacks on the supply chain, however, do not reduce the overall demand. They simply mean there are fewer total vessels for the overall number of passengers. It has been observed that, with fewer boats reaching the shores on a crossing day, people who are expecting to travel try to force their way onto any dinghy that has been delivered and inflated. This had led to one person being crushed to death inside a dinghy as well as others being pushed out into the sea. It also means that the extremely overcrowded dinghies are failing close to the French shores, like in the case of 12 August 2023.
      2: Increased police violence

      Increased police violence on the French beaches is the most visible consequence of the new ‘Stop the Boats’ deal, and exacerbates the dangers of already overcrowded embarkations.

      In previous years, the fewer numbers of police patrolling the beaches were unable to deal with the large groups of people who gathered during a dinghy launch, and many times they chose to look on rather than intervene. They also had difficulties to cover the whole stretch of coastline between Belgium and Berck. Now with more aerial support, double the number of officers, and increased resources like dune buggies the police are more able to intervene at the moment of departure. Typically they will fire tear gas at the people to try and disperse them and then use knives to slice the dinghy. We have also been told about policing using ‘less-lethal’ grenades and wading into the sea to cut a dinghy as people try to board it and start the motor.

      The police’s presence and their attacks create panicked and dangerous situations in which dinghies launch before they are fully inflated and in which people have to scramble on board whilst in water up to their necks. During these moments people have drowned in the shallow water like on 8 October, and families have been separated like on 26 September 2023. The danger of the police attacks compounds that of overcrowding. It is now common to observe chaotic embarkations where more than 70 or even 80 people all try at once to get on an inflatable of just a few meters length while the police try to stop them. We have also been told that if the police do successfully destroy a dinghy as it launches the would-be travellers will look to get onboard another rather than give up, again increasing the risks of overcrowding.

      The British authorities have proudly acknowledged the increased violence, publicising a French police officer’s bodycam video where we see tear gas being used indiscriminately against a group of people which we know included those in a situation of vulnerability. In a statement celebrating the fact that two people shown in the video trying to hold the violence of the police at bay were arrested and jailed in the UK, the Home Office states:

      “Tension on French beaches is increasing due to the successful efforts of law enforcement in frustrating this organised criminal enterprise. Incidents like this highlight the complex and brave work of our French colleagues in the face of challenging conditions.”

      Despite the increased violence on the shore, for now, it still appears that the policy of the French is to not intervene to stop the boats once they are at sea and underway. This illustrates a clear contradiction between the apparent concern for safety of life while at sea, and creating extremely dangerous situations for people by attacking their dinghies as they launch.
      No borders, not ‘Stop the Boats’

      The hypocrisy of the French and British governments is that their increased border policing activities, which they sanctimoniously describe as protecting people who have to travel to the UK by boat, have only made their crossings more dangerous. Unfortunately it seems these policies will only continue over the coming years, evidenced by the three year funding agreement from March. We must then expect only more victim blaming and lies for each death in the coming years that will occur as a result. The people who continue to have to make this journey, denied access to the safe ferries and trains the rest of us are able to take, are being sacrificed for the sake of politicians’ electoral ambitions. What those politicians understand, but do not want to admit, is that it is impossible to ‘stop the boats’ so long as the border exists. Further militarisation and police intervention will only increase the number of people who die, as we have been seeing. How far the states will go in pursuing their policies of harm and death in the name of protecting their border remains to be seen. In the meantime we must continue doing all we can to not only present them the account of the consequences for their obstinance, but practically organise against it, together with those who already doing so.

      https://alarmphone.org/en/2024/01/28/the-deadly-consequences-of-the-new-deal-to-stop-the-boats
      #Alarmphone #Alarm_phone #bateaux #statistiques #chiffres

  • Royaume-Uni : la Chambre des lords désapprouve le projet de loi qui organise le transfert des migrants vers le Rwanda

    La chambre haute du Parlement britannique a voté une #motion demandant au gouvernement de repousser la ratification d’un traité signé avec Kigali, sur lequel doit s’adosser la future loi.

    Un nouvel écueil pour le projet de loi controversé de Rishi Sunak sur l’immigration. Les lords britanniques ont exprimé, lundi 22 janvier au soir, leur désapprobation à l’égard du texte porté par le premier ministre britannique, qui vise à expulser les migrants au Rwanda – défini comme un pays tiers sûr – et empêche leur renvoi vers leurs pays d’origine.

    Une majorité de représentants siégeant à la chambre haute du Parlement ont demandé au gouvernement de repousser la ratification du traité signé avec Kigali, 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. C’est sur la base de ce traité que le projet de loi du gouvernement conservateur, socle de la politique de lutte du gouvernement contre l’immigration clandestine, a été élaboré.

    Ainsi, 214 lords ont 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.

    Le texte signé en décembre 2023 avec le Rwanda est, en effet, 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.
    Un texte critiqué par les associations humanitaires

    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, M. Sunak a enjoint aux lords d’adopter eux aussi au plus vite le projet, vivement critiqué par les associations humanitaires, qu’il espère mettre en application avant les élections législatives prévues à la fin de l’année.
    Le texte doit être débattu à la chambre haute du Parlement britannique la semaine prochaine. 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.

    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2024/01/23/royaume-uni-la-chambre-des-lords-desapprouve-le-projet-de-loi-qui-organise-l

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

    –-

    ajouté à cette métaliste sur la 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

  • Royaume-Uni : le premier ministre, #Rishi_Sunak, parvient à faire voter le projet de loi visant à expulser des migrants vers le #Rwanda

    La Chambre des communes a approuvé le texte soutenu par le premier ministre conservateur, qui a réussi à surmonter une tentative de fronde au sein de sa majorité.

    Vous pouvez partager un article en cliquant sur les icônes de partage en haut à droite de celui-ci.
    La reproduction totale ou partielle d’un article, sans l’autorisation écrite et préalable du Monde, est strictement interdite.
    Pour plus d’informations, consultez nos conditions générales de vente.
    Pour toute demande d’autorisation, contactez syndication@lemonde.fr.
    En tant qu’abonné, vous pouvez offrir jusqu’à cinq articles par mois à l’un de vos proches grâce à la fonctionnalité « Offrir un article ».

    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2024/01/18/royaume-uni-le-premier-ministre-rishi-sunak-parvient-a-faire-voter-le-projet

    Le premier ministre britannique, Rishi Sunak, a franchi une étape cruciale pour sa survie politique. Après deux jours sous haute tension au palais de Westminster avec des débats houleux, des tractations à huis clos et des démissions retentissantes, les députés ont adopté, mercredi 17 janvier au soir, le projet de loi controversé sur l’expulsion de migrants vers le Rwanda. Avec le retour dans le rang des dissidents, le texte a été approuvé en troisième lecture à la Chambre des communes par 320 votes pour et 276 contre.

    Chef d’une majorité largement devancée dans les sondages par les travaillistes en ce début d’année électorale, Rishi Sunak a mis tout son poids dans la balance pour faire aboutir ce projet censé montrer sa fermeté sur une préoccupation majeure de sa base électorale, mais qui aura exposé à vif les divisions de sa majorité, les modérés redoutant une atteinte au droit international et les plus à droite voulant aller plus loin.

    Vous pouvez partager un article en cliquant sur les icônes de partage en haut à droite de celui-ci.
    La reproduction totale ou partielle d’un article, sans l’autorisation écrite et préalable du Monde, est strictement interdite.
    Pour plus d’informations, consultez nos conditions générales de vente.
    Pour toute demande d’autorisation, contactez syndication@lemonde.fr.
    En tant qu’abonné, vous pouvez offrir jusqu’à cinq articles par mois à l’un de vos proches grâce à la fonctionnalité « Offrir un article ».

    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2024/01/18/royaume-uni-le-premier-ministre-rishi-sunak-parvient-a-faire-voter-le-projet

    Ce texte vise à répondre aux objections de la Cour suprême britannique, qui a jugé le projet illégal dans sa version précédente par crainte notamment pour la sécurité des demandeurs d’asile expulsés envoyés au Rwanda. Selon le projet, ces derniers, d’où qu’ils viennent, verraient leur dossier examiné au Rwanda et ne pourraient ensuite en aucun cas retourner au Royaume-Uni, ne pouvant obtenir l’asile que dans le pays africain.
    Démission de deux vice-présidents des tories

    Lors de son examen, des dizaines de députés conservateurs ont soutenu, en vain, des amendements visant à durcir le texte, tentant notamment de limiter le droit des migrants à faire appel de leur expulsion. La tension est également montée d’un cran après la démission, mardi, de deux vice-présidents des tories, partisans d’une ligne plus dure, qui ont reçu le soutien de l’ancien premier ministre Boris Johnson.

    Annoncé en avril 2022 par ce dernier, ce projet visait à décourager l’afflux de migrants dans des petites embarcations à travers la Manche : près de 30 000 en 2023 après un sommet de 45 000 en 2022.

    Vous pouvez partager un article en cliquant sur les icônes de partage en haut à droite de celui-ci.
    La reproduction totale ou partielle d’un article, sans l’autorisation écrite et préalable du Monde, est strictement interdite.
    Pour plus d’informations, consultez nos conditions générales de vente.
    Pour toute demande d’autorisation, contactez syndication@lemonde.fr.
    En tant qu’abonné, vous pouvez offrir jusqu’à cinq articles par mois à l’un de vos proches grâce à la fonctionnalité « Offrir un article ».

    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2024/01/18/royaume-uni-le-premier-ministre-rishi-sunak-parvient-a-faire-voter-le-projet

    Ce week-end, cinq migrants sont morts alors qu’ils tentaient de rejoindre une embarcation dans une eau glaciale. Mercredi matin, d’autres bateaux ont été vus en train de tenter cette traversée périlleuse, a constaté un photographe de l’Agence France-Presse. Le texte n’a jusque-là jamais pu être mis en œuvre. Un premier avion a été bloqué in extremis par une décision de la justice européenne, puis la justice britannique avait, jusqu’à la Cour suprême, déclaré le projet illégal dans sa version initiale.
    Nouveau traité avec le Rwanda

    Pour tenter de sauver son texte, vivement critiqué par les associations humanitaires, le gouvernement a signé un nouveau traité avec Kigali. Il est adossé à ce nouveau projet de loi qui définit le Rwanda comme un pays tiers sûr et empêche le renvoi des migrants vers leurs pays d’origine. Il propose également de ne pas appliquer aux expulsions certaines dispositions de la loi britannique sur les droits humains, pour limiter les recours en justice. Le Haut-Commissariat pour les réfugiés des Nations unies a estimé, mercredi, que la dernière version du projet n’était « pas compatible » avec le droit international.

    Un peu plus d’un an après son entrée à Downing Street, M. Sunak compte bien sur le succès de ce projet pour montrer qu’il est capable de tenir l’une de ses promesses-phares : celle de mettre fin à l’arrivée des bateaux de migrants sur les côtes britanniques.

    Son projet de loi devra désormais être approuvé par les membres non élus de la Chambre des lords, qui pourraient fort bien l’amender. Et s’il est adopté à temps avant les législatives, prévues en l’état à l’automne, le Labour, mené par Keir Starmer, a promis de l’abroger s’il arrive au pouvoir après quatorze ans dans l’opposition.

    Un durcissement trop important pourrait par ailleurs fragiliser le partenariat avec le Rwanda, qui a déjà reçu près de 240 millions de livres (280 millions d’euros) de la part du Royaume-Uni. « Cet argent ne sera utilisé que si les [migrants] viennent. Si ce n’est pas le cas, nous pourrons le rendre », a assuré le président rwandais, Paul Kagame, interrogé mercredi au Forum économique mondial à Davos, en Suisse.

    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2024/01/18/royaume-uni-le-premier-ministre-rishi-sunak-parvient-a-faire-voter-le-projet

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

    –-

    ajouté à cette métaliste sur la mise en place de l’#externalisation des #procédures_d'asile au #Rwanda par l’#Angleterre
    https://seenthis.net/messages/966443

  • Head of Britain’s police chiefs says force ‘institutionally racist’

    Exclusive: #Gavin_Stephens becomes most senior serving officer to accept discrimination in policing operates at a ‘fundamental level’

    The leader of Britain’s police chiefs’ organisation has become the most senior serving leader to say that policing is institutionally racist, as he called for a fundamental redesign of national policies and practices to eliminate discrimination.

    Gavin Stephens, the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), said black people should no longer experience disproportionate use of force, and that too little progress had been made to reform policing, with some leaders slow to accept the size of the challenge.

    Stephens – elected by his fellow chief constables to lead their representative body – emphasised it was his personal view that discrimination in policing operated at an “institutional level”.

    In an interview with the Guardian, he said: “It’s a leadership responsibility for us to describe to them what it [institutional racism] means and what it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean that all police officers are racist.

    “The way our policies, procedures [and] training have been designed and implemented for many years have not had the voices of black people involved in the design, the implementation, of those practices. And as a consequence of that, we get disproportionate outcomes in places where there shouldn’t be disproportionate outcomes.

    “The most helpful discussion for policing to have in the future is how we redesign the policies, the practices, the implementation, of policing to remove that discrimination.”

    Stephens’ remarks come as policing continues to wrestle with the issue of whether it should accept it suffers from institutional discrimination, a debate dating back more than 30 years.

    His intervention will add to pressure on the heads of England’s biggest forces to adopt the idea – including the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley. Rowley refused to accept the terms “institutionally racist” and “institutionally misogynistic” after a damning report last year, with the Met commissioner claiming their meanings were unclear.

    Those findings, by Louise Casey in March after the murder of Sarah Everard in 2021, were contained in the second report to find police to be institutionally racist. The first, by Sir William Macpherson in 1999, followed an inquiry into failings that allowed the racist killers of Stephen Lawrence to escape justice. Police leaders accepted the findings, then later claimed to have reformed the service to the extent that it no longer applied.

    Stephens said his personal view was that the reports were correct. He said: “The problems that we need to solve across policing are at the institutional level and they need institutional changes. Whether you look at the Macpherson definition in the Stephen Lawrence report, or whether you look at Louise Casey’s definition, my personal view is that they apply to policing.”

    Asked for clarity on whether his personal view was that “police are institutionally racist”, Stephens replied “yes”, while emphasising that his reasoning for reaching that conclusion was important.

    Police chiefs debated whether to admit to institutional racism in 2022, with most being against making the admission.

    Police Scotland, the second biggest force in the UK, as well as Avon and Somerset police and the British Transport Police, have accepted that the term applies to them. But the biggest three forces in England – the Met, West Midlands police and Greater Manchester police – all disagree.

    Stephens said: “Colleagues have valid reasons why they don’t want to go down that route.”

    After the murder of George Floyd in the US and the subsequent Black Lives Matter protests in 2020, the NPCC promised reform and launched a race action plan – which critics say has done little or nothing after three years.

    Stephens said progress had been made, but that some of his fellow chiefs had been slow to accept the scale of the problems. “We have got some tangibles. I’d be the first to accept that we haven’t made progress at the rate that we would want to,” he said. “To get acceptance of the scale of that challenge took longer than we’d anticipated.”

    The NPCC chair said he personally supported the idea of police officers being licensed, in the same way nurses or doctors were. He believed it would help professionalise the service and hoped for an “active” debate on it among his fellow chiefs.

    Stephens became NPCC chair in March 2023, having previously been the chief constable of Surrey police.

    The scale of the racial disparity in the use of force in England and Wales was laid out by police leaders in 2022, when they launched the first written version of their race plan.

    They wrote: “Black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people and five times more likely to be subjected to the use of force … 10% of our recorded searches, 27% of use-of-force incidents and 35% of Taser incidents involved someone from a Black ethnic group. The latest estimates suggest that only 3.5% of the population is Black.”

    Some have said that police stereotype black men as being more dangerous. Stephens, who grew up in Hartlepool, said this was wrong: “This myth that sometimes exists in popular culture that young black men are dangerous. It’s a myth. Yes, young black men get involved in crime – yes, they’re at risk of victimisation – but so do white men if you go to my neck of the woods.”

    He added: “If you’ve got that cultural connection, if you’ve got something in common with the person that you’re dealing with on the street, there’s a higher likelihood that you’re going to be able to resolve that issue without resorting to use of force.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/05/head-of-britains-police-chiefs-says-force-is-institutionally-racist-gav

    #racisme_structurel #racisme_institutionnel #police #UK #Angleterre #racisme #discriminations #responsabilité #formation #procédures #Noirs #stéréotypes

    ping @isskein @karine4

  • #Home_Office refuses to set up Ukraine-style visa scheme for Palestinians

    The government said it has ‘no plans’ to waive fees or tests to help Palestinians reunite with family in the UK.

    The Home Office is refusing to set up a Ukraine-style visa scheme to help Palestinians stranded in Gaza reunite with family in the UK.

    More than 25,000 people signed a parliamentary petition asking for the government to waive fees, salary thresholds and tests for Palestinians displaced by Israel’s attacks on Gaza.

    But the Home Office rejected the request in December, saying it had “no plans to introduce bespoke arrangements for people arriving from the region”.

    More than 22,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip since Hamas killed 1,200 people on 7 October, according to figures from the Gaza health ministry. The United Nations estimates 1.9 million Palestinians in Gaza have been displaced.

    British nationals currently need to apply for visas for their Palestinian relatives through the existing family visa route if they wish to bring them to the UK. Only spouses, partners or children are eligible for visas through the scheme. Relatives such as grandparents, siblings or parents of adult children are not eligible in most cases.

    The Home Office charges £1,846 to apply to bring each family member to the UK, including dependents, and a further £1,560 healthcare surcharge for adults, or £1,175 for children.

    British nationals must also earn at least £18,600 to apply for a visa for a spouse or partner or £24,800 if they also have two children they want to bring over. This minimum income requirement is set to rise to £29,000 in spring. Partners or spouses also need to prove their knowledge of the English language to get a visa.

    The government waived all fees, salary thresholds and language tests under the Ukraine Family Scheme, which was set up within weeks of Russia’s invasion. The scheme allows people fleeing the war in Ukraine to join their family in the UK.

    It is free to apply to the Ukraine Family Scheme and eligibility is extended to parents, grandparents, adult offspring, siblings, and their immediate family members. About 71,400 visas have been issued under the scheme so far.

    Announcing the scheme in the Commons, the former Home Secretary Priti Patel said at the time: “We are striking a blow for democracy and freedom against tyranny. Above all, we are doing right by the courageous people of Ukraine. We will help British nationals and their families to get out of Ukraine safely.”

    Some British-Palestinians have turned to fundraising in desperation to cover the fees for visas needed to bring their relatives to safety.

    Hadil Louz, a PhD student in human rights law at St Andrew’s in Scotland, is fundraising £30,000 to pay for visa and travel costs for her parents, one of whom has cancer, as well as her siblings and their children.

    “On Christmas Day, my family had to evacuate again from the overcrowded house they were staying at, responding to the Israeli evacuation calls in Nusirat, and are currently staying in a tent on a street in Deir Al-Balah, in the cold of the winter.

    “At the moment, their survival without food and shelter in Gaza is a very tangible threat on their lives,” she wrote on the fundraiser.

    A group of 80 British-Palestinian families wrote to foreign secretary David Cameron in December asking him to consider setting up a similar scheme for Palestinians, the BBC reported.

    “While acknowledging the complexities of each conflict, it is disheartening for us, as British citizens and UK residents, to witness the disparity in our government response,” it said.

    The lack of a scheme for Palestinians, the letter said, “stands in stark contrast to the swift and supportive actions taken in similar circumstances, such as in the Ukrainian conflict”.

    Palestinians in the UK “are currently feeling a profound sense of abandonment and neglect” as a result, it said.

    In its response to the petition, the government said its “approach must be considered in the round, rather than on a crisis-by-crisis basis”. It also rejected a second petition signed by more than 16,000 people to create a bespoke immigration route for Palestinian children on the same grounds.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/palestine-family-visa-scheme-petition-home-office-gaza-ukraine
    #réfugiés_ukrainiens #réfugiés_palestiniens #visas #UK #Angleterre #migrations #asile #réfugiés #inégalité_de_traitement #regroupement_familial #Palestine #Gaza #Ukraine

  • UK Migrant GPS Tracking Challenges

    PI filed witness evidence in two cases brought by migrants against their GPS tracking by the UK immigration authorities.

    Privacy International provided witness evidence in two cases (ADL & others v SSHD, and Nelson v SSHD) in support of the Claimants’ claim for judicial review.
    What these cases are about
    ADL & others v Secretary of State for the Home Department

    This case is the first in the UK to get permission before the Administrative Court for judicial review of the Home Office’s GPS tagging of migrants. The Claimants are challenging the decisions of the Secretary of State for the Home Department ("Home Office") to subject them to Electronic Monitoring immigration bail conditions.

    The monitoring is carried out through Global Positioning System ("GPS") ankle trackers. These GPS tracking conditions are highly intrusive surveillance measures. They enable the Home Office to track anyone without immigration status in real time and on a 24/7 basis. The Home Office also states in its Immigration Bail guidance that it will retain the location data generated by the devices for a period of 6 years after they are removed, and may use historical trail data to assess people’s claims to a right to be in the UK on the basis of their right to private and family life.

    The claim challenges the imposition of GPS tracking and the retention of location data on the basis that it fails to comply with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
    Nelson v Secretary of State for the Home Department

    This case was brought by Mark Nelson, a car mechanic and father of five. The claim will be heard in the Upper Tribunal. The Claimant is also challenging the imposition of GPS tagging as a disproportionate and unlawful breach of his right to a private and family life under Article 8 of the ECHR. He is further claiming that the government has no lawful authority to require people to wear broken tag (the Claimant’s tag has been malfunctioning for months), amounting to an undemocratic and arbitrary exercise of power.
    What PI argued in its evidence

    PI’s witness evidence in the ADL case demonstrated the particularly invasive nature of GPS technology and the intrusive ways it has been rolled out by the Home Office. It also explained how tracking an individual at all times can reveal highly sensitive data about them including information relating to their sexuality, political opinion, and even their ethnic origin. The evidence highlighted the frequency with which inaccuracies can arise in the location data collected by the devices with reference to research carried out by PI’s technologists. It also underlined the significant consequences inaccurate location data could have for an individual’s immigration proceedings. In these ways, PI’s witness evidence built on the ongoing complaints before the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Forensic Science Regulator, which challenge both the quality of the devices used by the Home Office and their compliance with data protection laws.

    PI’s witness evidence in the Nelson case similarly explained the the GPS tags’ functioning and data collection relying on the research conducted by PI’s technologists, and exposed data reliability concerns. It also questioned the Home Office’s explanation of the malfunctioning of the Claimant’s tag.
    Case updates

    On 28 March 2023 the ADL & others claim was granted permission to proceed to a final hearing by the Administrative Court.

    The Nelson case is listed to be heard on 10 and 13 November 2023 in the Upper Tribunal.

    https://privacyinternational.org/legal-action/uk-migrant-gps-tracking-challenges
    #tracking #GPS #géolocalisation #surveillance #migrations #réfugiés #Angleterre #UK #justice

  • Le #Royaume-Uni plonge dans une #pauvreté historique

    Les écarts entre riches et pauvres retrouvent des niveaux proches de l’ère victorienne, avant l’État providence. Les #bas_salaires en sont la cause.

    Au cours des quinze dernières années, les inégalités se sont accrues de manière spectaculaire au sein de la société britannique. Au point que « le Royaume-Uni risque de retomber dans les « deux nations » de l’ère victorienne, marquée par un fossé grandissant entre la société dominante et une classe inférieure déprimée et frappée par la pauvreté, alerte un rapport sur la pauvreté, publié le 11 décembre.

    Le coefficient de Gini des #revenus, après impôts et prestations sociales, dans le pays – un indicateur qui permet de rendre compte de leur niveau d’inégalité – était le plus élevé d’Europe occidentale en 2022, avec 0,35 point. À titre de comparaison il ressort à 0,31 en Suisse, 0,29 en France et 0,28 en Allemagne.

    Le pays n’a jamais été aussi inégalitaire

    Le Royaume-Uni du premier ministre Rishi Sunak n’est néanmoins plus celui d’Oliver Twist, l’orphelin pauvre du livre de Charles Dickens, publié en 1838. « Évidemment, les conditions de vie sont meilleures pour l’individu moyen qu’au milieu du XIXe siècle », tempère David Gordon, professeur de justice sociale à l’Université de Bristol et directeur du Bristol Poverty Institute. La capitale anglaise, cadre de ce roman, n’en continue pas moins de concentrer ces maux. La City of London, centre de la finance nationale, était alors mitoyenne de plusieurs des arrondissements les plus pauvres d’Angleterre qui le demeurent aujourd’hui encore.

    « En termes d’écart de richesse entre les plus riches et les plus pauvres, nous avons reculé de vingt-cinq ans à la fin des dix-huit années de thatchérisme », indique le professeur. « L’écart se rapproche du niveau enregistré avant la mise en place de l’État providence au Royaume-Uni, tout au long de la première partie du XXe siècle, qui avait permis une réduction considérable de la pauvreté », poursuit ce dernier.

    Une constante apparaît dans les différents rapports publiés sur le sujet au cours des derniers mois : les deux plus forts mouvements d’accroissement des inégalités de l’époque contemporaine ont eu lieu lors de longues périodes de gouvernement conservateur. Ainsi à partir de l’arrivée au pouvoir de Margaret Thatcher, en 1979, qui « a cassé le consensus de l’après-guerre en mettant en place des politiques néolibérales qui ont augmenté les ressources de la moitié supérieure de la société aux dépens de celles des plus modestes », explique le spécialiste. Puis avec les mesures d’austérité budgétaire déployées en 2010 par David Cameron – qui ont notamment touché les personnes handicapées et les enfants – poursuivies par ses successeurs Theresa May de 2016 à 2019 puis Rishi Sunak depuis 2022.
    Insécurité professionnelle

    Cette évolution amène son lot de « problèmes déjà visibles pendant les époques victorienne et édouardienne (ndlr : 1837 à 1914), poursuit David Gordon – des niveaux de criminalité et de maladie élevés, une société moins cohésive. »

    Le Centre for Social Justice les traite dans le détail dans son rapport et place l’accent sur le monde du travail, central dans l’accroissement de la pauvreté. Depuis 2000, 20 à 25% des travailleurs disent ainsi ressentir une insécurité professionnelle à la suite du développement de l’auto-entrepreneuriat et des contrats « zéro heure » – qui n’assurent aucune heure de travail hebdomadaire et donc aucun revenu. Mais aussi en raison de la détérioration des conditions de travail ainsi que du remplacement de nombreux emplois industriels « qualifiés, sûrs et souvent bien rémunérés » par des postes dans les services, non qualifiés et moins bien payés.

    Des #salaires insuffisants

    En septembre 2023, « 38% des bénéficiaires d’aides sociales avaient un emploi, ce qui signifie que leurs #revenus ne sont pas suffisants [pour vivre] sans le soutien du système d’#aide_sociale », confirme le rapport.

    David Gordon rappelle que « c’était déjà le cas lors de la première véritable enquête sur la pauvreté réalisée dans les années 1880 par Charles Boothe : la pauvreté est largement due à des revenus bas ». Le directeur du Bristol Poverty Institute rappelle que, à l’époque déjà, les politiciens ne voulaient pas croire à ses découvertes, certains que le comportement des plus pauvres – en l’occurrence l’alcoolisme ou la dépendance à la drogue – était la cause principale de leurs difficultés.

    https://www.tdg.ch/explosion-des-inegalites-a-londres-le-royaume-uni-plonge-dans-une-pauvrete-histo
    #inégalités #Londres #UK #Angleterre #statistiques #chiffres

  • Au Royaume-Uni, les députés adoptent le projet de loi permettant d’expulser des migrants au Rwanda

    Cette nouvelle mouture du texte votée au Parlement visait à répondre aux objections de la Cour suprême britannique, qui a bloqué le mois dernier une précédente version du projet.

    Le projet de loi du premier ministre britannique, Rishi Sunak, permettant l’expulsions de migrants vers le Rwanda a été adopté lors d’un vote au Parlement, mardi 12 décembre. Il s’agit du texte considéré comme « le plus dur » jamais présenté contre l’immigration illégale, selon les mots du chef du gouvernement conservateur.

    Lors d’un premier vote à la Chambre des communes, 313 députés se sont prononcés pour le texte, 269 ont voté contre, laissant pour l’heure au chef du gouvernement un répit, alors qu’il risquait de voir son autorité sérieusement ébranlée.

    Cette mouture du texte votée au Parlement visait à répondre aux objections de la Cour suprême britannique, qui a bloqué le mois dernier une précédente version du projet. La plus haute instance juridique du Royaume-Uni avait déclaré le texte illégal, estimant que le risque était « réel », pour les personnes concernées, d’être refoulées vers leur pays d’origine par les autorités rwandaises, même si leur demande de protection était justifiée.

    Une loi jamais appliquée

    Signé en avril 2022 entre le gouvernement de Boris Johnson et celui de Paul Kagame, le « partenariat Rwanda » n’avait alors jamais été mis en œuvre. De fait, en juin 2022, un premier vol qui devait emmener un certain nombre de migrants à Kigali avait été annulé in extremis après une injonction de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme.

    Ce nouveau texte définit le Rwanda comme un pays tiers sûr et empêche le renvoi des migrants vers leur pays d’origine. Il propose également de ne pas appliquer aux expulsions certaines dispositions de la loi britannique sur les droits humains, pour limiter les recours en justice.

    « Le nouveau traité que j’ai signé avec le Rwanda et le projet de loi qui l’accompagne changent la donne », a déclaré à l’ouverture des débats le ministre de l’intérieur britannique, James Cleverly, assurant que le texte est « conforme aux termes de la convention sur les réfugiés ».

    Insatisfaction de l’aile droite des conservateurs

    Toutefois, ce texte avait été jugé insuffisant pour l’aile droite du parti conservateur. Certains estiment que Londres devrait se retirer de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme et d’autres conventions internationales sur les droits humains, pour empêcher tous les recours légaux d’aboutir.

    Lundi, les Brexiters radicaux de l’European Reaserch Group (ERG) ont jugé que le projet n’apportait qu’une « solution partielle et incomplète » pour empêcher les recours devant les tribunaux, et nécessitait « des amendements très importants ».

    Lors du débat mardi, le député d’opposition Chris Bryant (travailliste) a jugé que « l’idée que quelqu’un qui n’est pas dissuadé par une dangereuse traversée sur un canot dans l’une des voies maritimes les plus fréquentées du monde le soit par cette absurdité fragile est simplement risible ». Et « on ne peut pas rendre le Rwanda sûr juste en le disant », a-t-il ajouté.

    La semaine dernière, le ministre de l’immigration, Robert Jenrick, a démissionné, refusant de soutenir un texte qui ne va pas « assez loin » selon lui. La pression était telle que le secrétaire d’Etat au climat, Graham Stuart, est revenu à Londres depuis la COP28 à Dubaï pour participer au vote.

    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2023/12/12/au-royaume-uni-les-deputes-adoptent-le-projet-de-loi-permettant-d-expulser-d

    #Rwanda #Angleterre #UK #asile #migrations #réfugiés #offshore_asylum_processing #externalisation

    –-

    ajouté à cette métaliste sur la mise en place de l’#externalisation des #procédures_d'asile au #Rwanda par l’#Angleterre
    https://seenthis.net/messages/966443

    • 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

  • #Royaume-Uni : un migrant décède à bord de la #barge « #Bibby_Stockholm »

    Un exilé est mort, mardi matin, sur la barge « Bibby Stockholm », stationnée dans un port du sud-ouest de l’Angleterre. D’après la presse britannique, l’homme se serait suicidé. La structure, qui accueille des demandeurs d’asile en attente du traitement de leur dossier, est sous le feu des critiques depuis sa mise en place en août dernier.

    Nouvelle polémique à propos de « Bibby Stockholm ». Un demandeur d’asile est décédé mardi 12 décembre à bord de la barge, stationnée à quai dans le port de Portland, au sud-ouest de l’Angleterre. La police du Dorset a indiqué avoir été informée à 06h22, heure locale, de la « mort soudaine d’un résident ».

    Aucun autre détail n’a été rendu public, mais plusieurs sources ont déclaré à la BBC que l’homme décédé se serait suicidé. Le décès est survenu dans l’une des plus de 200 cabines à bord, a indiqué une autre source au média britannique.

    Le porte-parole du Premier ministre a fait savoir au Guardian que « toute personne arrivant à Bibby Stockholm subit une évaluation médicale, est surveillée en permanence pendant son séjour dans l’hébergement et reçoit toute l’assistance nécessaire, à juste titre ». Près de 300 demandeurs d’asile sont actuellement hébergés dans la barge, pour une capacité totale de 500 places.
    « Des conditions » d’hébergement « traumatisantes »

    Le ministre de l’Intérieur James Cleverly a assuré que ce décès ferait l’objet d’une « enquête complète ». « Je suis sûr que les pensées de toute la Chambre, comme la mienne, vont aux personnes concernées », a-t-il ajouté. Richard Drax, député conservateur de South Dorset, a déclaré qu’il s’agissait d’une « tragédie née d’une situation impossible ». « On ne peut qu’imaginer les circonstances désespérées qui ont conduit à ce triste résultat ».

    Le directeur général du Conseil pour les réfugiés Enver Solomon, lui, a demandé qu’une enquête indépendante soit menée afin « d’éviter de nouvelles tragédies de ce type ».

    Steve Smith, président de l’association Care4Calais, pointe également du doigt « le gouvernement britannique » qui « doit assumer la responsabilité de cette tragédie humaine ». « Nous signalons régulièrement des intentions suicidaires parmi les résidents et aucune mesure n’est prise », a-t-il déploré sur X.

    https://twitter.com/FreefromTorture/status/1734552685506875393

    « Cette dernière tragédie nous rappelle une fois de plus que les politiques punitives du gouvernement à l’égard des réfugiés sont non seulement cruelles, mais qu’elles coûtent également des vies », a martelé Ann Salter de l’ONG Freedom from Torture. « D’après les survivants avec lesquels je travaille chaque jour, je sais que les conditions exiguës et dangereuses à bord du Bibby peuvent être profondément choquantes pour ceux qui ont survécu à la torture et à la persécution, en plus des expériences traumatisantes qu’ils ont vécues en route vers le Royaume-Uni ».
    Contamination à la légionellose

    La plateforme de trois étages est utilisée depuis quelques mois pour héberger des migrants malgré de vives critiques. Le recours à cette barge, dénoncé par de nombreuses associations d’aide aux migrants, est destiné à réduire la facture de l’hébergement des demandeurs d’asile. Il figure parmi les nombreuses mesures controversées du gouvernement conservateur en matière d’immigration.

    Les premiers migrants sont arrivés sur le « Bibby Stockholm », lancée par l’ex-ministre de l’Intérieur Suella Braverman, en août dernier. Mais l’embarcation avait dû être évacuée en raison d’une contamination du réseau hydraulique à la légionellose. En octobre, la barge avait pu être de nouveau utilisée.

    D’après le Guardian, le ministère de l’Intérieur a depuis fourni un financement supplémentaire au port de Dorset pour la création d’un centre médical à bord. Un infirmier praticien ou un ambulancier sont présents sur la barge quatre ou cinq jours par semaine et un médecin généraliste, une fois par semaine, avec des services de traduction disponibles, a déclaré l’administration du Dorset en octobre.

    Insuffisant, pour les associations, qui ne cessent de tirer la sonnette d’alarme sur la détérioration de la santé mentale des résidents à bord, exacerbée par l’emplacement isolé de la barge. Suite au décès ce matin, un demandeur d’asile hébergé dans la structure a fait savoir au Guardian « ne pas être surpris » par cette annonce. « C’est un résultat prévisible de la politique appliquée par le ministère de l’Intérieur. Plus il y a de gens ici, plus l’attente est longue, et plus la santé mentale de chacun se détériore », a-t-il soufflé.

    « J’ai un message simple pour le ministère de l’Intérieur : combien de personnes doivent mourir avant que vous ne réalisiez les erreurs que vous avez commises dans la façon dont vous traitez les demandeurs d’asile ? »

    https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/53837/royaumeuni--un-migrant-decede-a-bord-de-la-barge-bibby-stockholm
    #UK #Angleterre #décès #mort #migrations #asile #réfugiés #hébergement #accueil #suicide

    –—

    ajouté à la métaliste sur le Bibby Stockholm :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/1016683

  • Serco, quando la detenzione diventa un business mondiale

    Da decenni l’azienda è partner dei governi per l’esternalizzazione dei servizi pubblici in settori come sanità, difesa, trasporti, ma soprattutto nelle strutture detentive per le persone migranti. Nel 2022 ha acquisito Ors con l’idea di esportare il suo modello anche in Italia

    «Ho l’orribile abitudine di camminare verso gli spari». Si descrive così al Guardian il manager Rupert Soames. Nipote dell’ex primo ministro del Regno Unito Winston Churchill, figlio di Christopher, ambasciatore in Francia e ultimo governatore della Rhodesia – odierno Zimbabwe – e fratello dell’ex ministro della difesa conservatore Nicholas, Rupert Soames per anni è stato il numero uno della multinazionale britannica Serco, quella che il quotidiano britannico chiama «la più grande società di cui non avete mai sentito parlare».

    Serco (Service Company) è un’azienda business to government (B2G), specializzata in cinque settori: difesa, giustizia e immigrazione, trasporti, salute e servizi al cittadino. Opera in cinque continenti e tra i suoi valori principali dichiara: fiducia, cura, innovazione e orgoglio. Dai primi anni Novanta, è cresciuta prendendo in carico servizi esternalizzati dallo Stato a compagnie terze e aggiudicandosi in pochi anni un primato sulla gestione degli appalti privati. Sono arrivati poi indagini dell’antitrust inglese, accuse di frode in appalti pubblici e conseguenti anni di crisi dovuti alla perdita di diverse commesse, fino a quando il nipote di Churchill non è diventato Ceo di Serco, nel 2014. Da allora la società ha costruito un impero miliardario fornendo servizi molto diversi tra loro: dai semafori di Londra, al controllo del traffico aereo a Baghdad. La gestione dei centri di detenzione per persone migranti è di gran lunga il principale business di Serco nelle due macroaree “Europa e Regno Unito” e “Asia e Pacifico”. Ad oggi Serco ha all’attivo più di 500 contratti e impiega più di 50 mila persone in tutto il mondo. Nel 2022 ha totalizzato 4,7 miliardi di sterline in ricavi, un regalo ai suoi azionisti, tra cui i fondi d’investimento BlackRock e JP Morgan.

    –—

    L’inchiesta in breve

    Serco (Service Company) è una multinazionale britannica che fornisce diversi servizi ai governi, soprattutto nei settori della difesa, sanità, giustizia, trasporti e immigrazione, dalla gestione dei semafori di Londra fino al traffico aereo di Baghdad
    Oggi la società ha all’attivo più di 500 contratti e impiega oltre 50 mila persone in tutto il mondo. Nel 2022 ha totalizzato 4,7 miliardi di sterline in ricavi e tra i suoi azionisti ci sono fondi d’investimento come BlackRock e JP Morgan
    Il suo Ceo fino a dicembre 2022 era Rupert Soames, nipote di Winston Churchill, che ha risollevato la società dopo un periodo di crisi economica legato ad alcuni scandali, come i presunti abusi sessuali nel centro di detenzione per donne migranti Yarl’s Wood, a Milton Ernest, nel Regno Unito
    Nelle macroregioni “Europa e Gran Bretagna” e “Asia e Pacifico” il settore dove l’azienda è più presente è l’immigrazione. Su dieci centri per l’espulsione presenti nel Regno Unito, Serco oggi ne gestisce quattro
    In Australia, la multinazionale gestisce tutti i sette centri di detenzione per persone migranti attualmente attivi ed è stata criticata più volte per la violenza dei suoi agenti di sicurezza, soprattutto nella struttura di Christmas Island
    L’obiettivo di Serco è esportare questo modello anche nel resto d’Europa. Per questo, a settembre 2022 ha acquisito la multinazionale svizzera Ors, entrando nel mercato della detenzione amministrativa anche in Italia, dove la sua filiale offre servizi nel settore spaziale

    –—

    In otto anni, Soames ha portato il fatturato della società da circa 3,5 miliardi nel 2015 a 4,5 miliardi nel 2022, permettendo così all’azienda di uscire da una fase di crisi dovuta a vari scandali nel Regno Unito. Secondo il Guardian, dal 2015 al 2021 ha ricevuto uno stipendio di 23,5 milioni di sterline. «Sono molto ben pagato», ha ammesso in un’intervista. Ha lasciato l’incarico nel settembre 2022 sostenendo che fosse arrivato il momento di «esternalizzare» se stesso e andare in pensione. Ma a settembre 2023 è stato nominato presidente di Smith & Nephew, azienda che produce apparecchiature mediche. Al suo posto è arrivato Mark Irwin, ex capo della divisione Regno Unito ed Europa e di quella Asia Pacific di Serco.

    Poco prima di lasciare l’incarico, Soames ha acquisito la multinazionale svizzera Ors, leader nel settore dell’immigrazione in Europa. L’operazione vale 39 milioni di sterline, a cui Serco aggiunge 6,7 milioni di sterline per saldare il debito bancario accumulato da Ors. L’acquisizione, per Serco, avrebbe consentito «di collaborare e supportare i clienti governativi in tutta Europa, che hanno un bisogno continuo e crescente di servizi di assistenza all’immigrazione e ai richiedenti asilo». Con Ors, società appena giunta anche nel sistema di gestione dei centri di detenzione in Italia, Serco vuole «rafforzare la nostra attività europea, raddoppiandone all’incirca le dimensioni e aumentando la gamma di servizi offerti».

    In Europa i centri di detenzione per migranti sono infatti in aumento, soprattutto in Italia, dove, scrive in un report l’Agenzia dell’Unione europea per l’asilo (Euaa), i milioni previsti per queste strutture sono 5,5 nel 2023, 14,4 per il 2024 e 16,2 nel 2025. Degli scandali di Ors, abbiamo scritto in una precedente puntata: «Non accettiamo le accuse di “cattiva gestione” dei servizi offerti da Ors – scrive Serco via mail a IrpiMedia, rispondendo alla richiesta di commento per questa inchiesta -. I casi spesso ripetuti dai media e citati dalle ong risalgono a molto tempo fa e sono stati smentiti più volte». Serco tuttavia riconosce che «in un’azienda con più di 2.500 dipendenti, che opera in un settore così delicato come quello dell’immigrazione, di tanto in tanto si commettono degli errori. È importante riconoscerli rapidamente e correggerli immediatamente». A giudicare dalle inchieste giornalistiche e di commissioni parlamentari nel Regno Unito e in Australia, Paese dove gestisce tutte le strutture detentive per migranti, non è però quello che ha fatto Serco negli anni.

    Yarl’s Wood e le prime accuse di violenze sessuali

    Serco nel 2007 vince l’appalto dell’Home Office, il ministero dell’Interno britannico, per la gestione del centro di espulsione Yarl’s Wood, a Milton Ernest, della capienza di circa 400 persone, fino al 2020 in maggioranza donne. Nel 2013, le detenute iniziano a denunciare il personale per abusi e violenze sessuali. Continui sguardi da parte dello staff, che entrava nelle stanze e nei bagni durante la notte, rapporti non consensuali, palpeggiamenti e ricatti sessuali in cambio di aiuto nelle procedure per i documenti o della libertà, tentativi di rimpatrio delle testimoni, sono alcune delle segnalazioni delle donne del centro, raccolte in alcune inchieste del The Observer. Secondo l’ong Women for Refugee Women molte delle donne rinchiuse nel centro avevano già subito violenze e dovevano essere considerate soggetti vulnerabili.

    Alla richiesta di replica del giornale, la società aveva negato l’esistenza di «un problema diffuso o endemico» a Yarl’s Wood, o che fosse «in qualche modo tollerato o trascurato». «Ci impegniamo a occuparci delle persone nei centri di espulsione per immigrati con dignità e rispetto, in un periodo estremamente difficile della loro vita», ha detto l’azienda a IrpiMedia, riferendo che «ogni volta che vengono sollevate accuse vengono svolte indagini approfondite» (nel caso di Yarl’s Wood condotte dall’ispettorato per le carceri tra il 2016 e il 2017) e che «dal 2012 a Yarl’s Wood non ci sono state accuse di abusi sessuali». Nonostante le denunce, il licenziamento di alcuni dipendenti per condotte inappropriate, la morte sospetta di una donna, i numerosi casi di autolesionismo e i tentativi di suicidio, nel 2014 l’Home Office ha nuovamente aggiudicato l’appalto, del valore di 70 milioni di sterline e della durata di otto anni, a Serco.
    Il mondo avrà ancora bisogno di carceri

    «Il mondo – scriveva Soames nel report annuale del 2015, appena arrivato in Serco – avrà ancora bisogno di prigioni, di gestire l’immigrazione, di fornire sanità e trasporti». Il Ceo dispensava ottimismo nonostante gli scandali che avevano appena travolto la società. Ha avuto ragione: gli appalti si sono moltiplicati.

    Oltre la riconferma della gestione di Yarl’s Wood, nel 2020 Serco si è aggiudicata per 277 milioni di sterline il centro di detenzione Brook House, vicino all’aeroporto di Gatwick, e nel 2023 il centro di Derwentside con un contratto della durata di nove anni, rinnovabile di un anno, del valore di 70 milioni di sterline. Su dieci centri per l’espulsione presenti nel Regno Unito, dove la detenzione amministrativa non ha limiti temporali, Serco oggi ne gestisce quattro.
    Derwentside ha preso il posto di Yarl’s Wood come unico centro detentivo per donne senza documenti nel Regno Unito: con 84 posti, il centro si trova in un luogo isolato nel nord dell’Inghileterra, senza servizi, trasporti e con una scarsa connessione per il telefono. «Le donne vengono tagliate fuori dalle famiglie e dalle comunità, ci sono davvero poche visite da parte dei parenti», spiega a IrpiMedia Helen Groom, presidentessa della campagna che vuole l’abolizione del centro. Ma qualcosa sta per cambiare, dice: «All’inizio dell’anno prossimo dovrebbe diventare un centro di detenzione per uomini, e non più per donne. Probabilmente perché negli ultimi due anni sono stati occupati solo la metà dei posti». Il 18 novembre i movimenti solidali e antirazzisti britannici hanno organizzato una manifestazione per chiedere la chiusura del centro.

    https://twitter.com/No2Hassockfield/status/1727643160103301129

    Brook House è invece stato indagato da una commissione di esperti indipendenti costituita su richiesta dell’allora Home Secretary (ministra dell’Interno) Preti Patel a novembre 2019. Lo scopo era approfondire i casi di tortura denunciati da BBC Panorama, avvenuti tra il primo aprile e il 31 agosto 2017, quando a gestire la struttura era la multinazionale della sicurezza anglo-danese G4S. I risultati del lavoro della commissione sono stati resi pubblici sia con una serie di audizioni sia con un report del settembre 2023. Qui si legge che Brook House è un ambiente che non riesce a soddisfare i bisogni delle persone con problemi psichici, molto affollato, simile a un carcere. Si parla di un «cultura tossica» che crea un ambiente malsano dove esistono «prove credibili» di abusi sui diritti umani dei trattenuti. Accuse che non riguardano Serco, ma per la commissione d’inchiesta che monitora il centro ci sono «prove che suggeriscono che molti dei problemi presenti durante il periodo di riferimento persistono nella gestione di Brook House da parte di Serco».

    Secondo la commissione alcuni dipendenti che lavoravano nella gestione precedente ricoprono ora ruoli di grado più elevato: «[C]iò mette inevitabilmente in dubbio il grado di integrazione dei cambiamenti culturali descritti da Serco». I dati della società mostrano un aumento nell’uso della forza per prevenire l’autolesionismo, continua la presidente della commissione, e «mi preoccupa che si permetta l’uso della forza da parte di agenti non formati». Dall’inizio della gestione, «abbiamo apportato miglioramenti significativi alla gestione e alla cultura del centro», ha replicato Serco a IrpiMedia.

    –-

    I principali appalti di Serco nel mondo

    Serco lavora con i ministeri della Difesa anche negli Stati Uniti e in Australia. La collaborazione con la marina americana è stata potenziata con un nuovo contratto da 200 milioni di dollari per potenziarne l’infrastruttura tecnologica anti-terrorismo. In Australia fornisce equipaggi commerciali per la gestione di navi di supporto della Marina a sostegno della Royal Australian Navy. Ha inoltre collaborato alla progettazione, costruzione, funzionamento e manutenzione della nave australiana RSV Nuyine, che si occupa della ricerca e dell’esplorazione in Antartide. Dal 2006 supporta i sistemi d’arma a corto raggio Typhoon, Mini Typhoon e Toplite e fornisce formazione accreditata alla Royal Australian Navy. Infine offre supporto logistico e diversi servizi non bellici all’esercito australiano in Medio Oriente, grazie a un contratto da 107 milioni di dollari che inizierà nel 2024.

    Serco negli Usa e Australia lavora anche nel settore sanitario. Negli Stati Uniti, la società si è aggiudicata un contratto da 690 milioni di dollari con il Dipartimento della Salute, portando avanti anche in questo caso una collaborazione che va avanti dal 2013, quando gestiva per 1,2 miliardi di dollari l’anno il sistema di assistenza sanitaria noto come Obamacare. In Australia Serco gestisce 21 servizi non sanitari del Fiona Stanley Hospital, un ospedale pubblico digitale, come il desk, l’infrastruttura di rete, i computer, l’accoglienza, il trasporto dei pazienti, le risorse umane, grazie a un contratto da 730 milioni di dollari australiani (435 milioni di euro) rinnovato nel 2021 per sei anni. Nel 2015, l’azienda era stata multata per un milione di dollari australiani (600 mila euro) per non aver raggiunto alcuni obiettivi, soprattutto nella pulizia e nella logistica.

    C’è poi il Medio Oriente, dove Serco lavora dal 1947. Impiega più di 4.500 persone in quattro Paesi: gli Emirati Arabi Uniti, l’Arabia Saudita, il Qatar e l’Iraq. Qui, Serco opera in diversi settori, tra cui i servizi antincendio e di soccorso, i servizi aeroportuali, il settore dei trasporti e il sistema ferroviario. In Arabia Saudita gestisce da tempo 11 ospedali, ma la società sta già individuando nuove opportunità nelle smart cities e nei giga-progetti del Regno Saudita. È del 10 maggio 2023 la notizia che Serco agirà come amministratore dei servizi di mobilità sostenibile nella nuova destinazione turistica visionaria del Regno, il Mar Rosso. La crescita di progetti sauditi porterà questo Paese a rappresentare oltre il 50% dei ricavi di Serco in Medio Oriente entro il 2026.

    –-

    Australia, il limbo dei detenuti 501

    L’Australia è un Paese famoso per la sua tolleranza zero verso la migrazione irregolare. Questo però non ha impedito al sistema detentivo per migranti di crescere: un’interrogazione parlamentare del 2020 rivela che la detenzione dei richiedenti asilo costa ancora poco più di due miliardi e mezzo di dollari australiani, 1,2 miliardi di euro. Tra chi può finire in carcere, dalla riforma del Migration Act del 2014, ci sono anche i cosiddetti detenuti 501, persone a cui è stato revocato il permesso di soggiorno per una serie di motivazioni, come condanne a oltre dodici mesi, sospetta associazione con un gruppo coinvolto in crimini di rilevanza internazionale o reati sessuali su minori.

    «Potrebbero anche non aver commesso alcun crimine, ma si ritiene che abbiano problemi di carattere o frequentino persone losche», spiega l’avvocata Filipa Payne, fondatrice di Route 501, organizzazione che ha seguito i casi di molti “501”. Chi rientra in questa casistica si ritrova quindi a dover scontare una doppia reclusione: dopo il carcere finisce all’interno di un centro di detenzione, dove sono rinchiusi anche i richiedenti asilo, in attesa di ottenere una risposta definitiva sul visto. Queste persone, che oggi rappresentano circa l’80% dei trattenuti, spesso vivono in Australia da diversi anni, ma non hanno mai richiesto o ottenuto la cittadinanza.

    «È molto peggio della prigione perché almeno lì sai quando uscirai – racconta dal Melbourne Immigration Detention Centre James, nome di fantasia, un ragazzo di origine europea che vive in Australia da oltre 30 anni -. È tutto molto stressante e deprimente, passo la maggior parte del tempo nella mia stanza». Dopo aver passato poco più di un anno in carcere per furto, sta scontando una seconda reclusione nei centri gestiti da Serco come detenuto 501 perché, come i richiedenti asilo, non ha in mano un permesso di soggiorno per restare in Australia. Da quando è uscito dal carcere, James ha vissuto in quattro diversi centri di detenzione gestiti da Serco, dove si trova rinchiuso da quasi dieci anni. Fino a una storica sentenza della Corte Suprema australiana dell’8 novembre 2023, la detenzione indefinita non era illegale e ad oggi, secondo i dati del Refugee Council of Australia, i tempi di detenzione in media sono di oltre 700 giorni, quasi due anni.

    Chi come James si trova incastrato nel sistema, può solo sperare di ottenere un documento per soggiornare in Australia, che può essere concesso in ultima istanza dal ministero dell’Immigrazione. Altrimenti «non ci sarà altra soluzione per me che quella di tornare al mio Paese d’origine. Non parlo la lingua, tutta la mia famiglia è qui, la mia vita sarebbe semplicemente finita. Sarebbe molto difficile per me, forse non vorrei più vivere», dice James.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EN8mAkEBMgU&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Firpimedia.irpi.eu%2

    Christmas Island, «un posto orribile»

    Serco arriva in Australia nel 1989 e dopo vent’anni vince un contratto di cinque anni, rinnovato nel 2014, da 279 milioni di dollari australiani (169 milioni di euro) per la gestione di tutte le strutture di detenzione per migranti dell’Australia continentale e quella di Christmas Island, un’isola più vicina all’Indonesia che all’Australia, funzionale al trattamento delle richieste d’asilo fuori dal continente, in un territorio isolato. «È un posto orribile, dove ho visto molta violenza. Ho visto persone tagliarsi con le lamette, impiccarsi, rifiutarsi di mangiare per una settimana», ricorda James, che è passato anche da Christmas Island. Lo scorso 1 ottobre, la struttura è stata chiusa per la seconda volta dopo le raccomandazioni del Comitato delle Nazioni Unite per i Diritti Umani, ma potrebbe nuovamente essere riaperta.

    Tra il 2011 e il 2015, l’epoca di maggiore utilizzo del centro, ci sono state diverse proteste, rivolte, scioperi della fame. Tra il 2014 e il 2015, 128 minori detenuti hanno compiuto atti di autolesionismo, 105 bambini sono stati valutati da un programma di sostegno psicologico “ad alto rischio imminente” o “a rischio moderato” di suicidio. Dieci di loro avevano meno di 10 anni.

    Dopo una visita effettuata nel 2016, alcuni attivisti dell’Asylum Seeker Resource Centre hanno segnalato la mancanza di un’adeguata assistenza sanitaria mentale e una pesante somministrazione di psicofarmaci, che aiutano anche a sopportare l’estremo isolamento vissuto dai trattenuti. Anche James rientra in questa categoria: «Ho iniziato a prendere il mio farmaco circa sette anni fa. Mi aiuta con l’ansia e la depressione ed è molto importante per me».

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvLLcBSpigg

    Come si gestisce la sicurezza nei centri

    Marzo 2022: l’emittente neozelandese Maori Television mostra video di detenuti di un centro di Serco contusi e sanguinanti legati con una cerniera ai mobili di una sala da pranzo. «Se quelle guardie avessero fatto quello che hanno fatto ai detenuti fuori dal centro di detenzione, sarebbe stato considerato un crimine. Ma poiché si tratta di sicurezza nazionale, è considerato appropriato. E questo non va bene», spiega l’avvocata di migranti e detenuti “501” Filipa Payne a IrpiMedia. “Quelle guardie” sono agenti di sicurezza scelti da Serco su mandato dell’Australian Border Force.

    Anche gli addetti alla sicurezza, in Australia, sono gestiti dal privato e non dalle forze dell’ordine nazionali. Serco precisa che prima di iniziare a operare, seguono un corso di nove settimane che comprende «gestione dei detenuti, consapevolezza culturale, supporto psicologico, tecniche di allentamento dell’escalation, controllo e contenzione». Al team si aggiunge una squadra di risposta alle emergenze, l’Emergency Response Team (ERT), che agisce nei casi più complessi. Sono «agenti appositamente addestrati a gestire le situazioni il più rapidamente possibile per evitare l’escalation degli incidenti», afferma la società via mail. Secondo gli attivisti userebbero delle pratiche discutibili: «Le braccia vengono sollevate dietro la schiena, la persona viene gettata a terra, messa in ginocchio e ammanettata da dietro da diversi membri del personale».

    I Centri di permanenza per il rimpatrio (Cpr) in Australia e in Italia, un confronto

    Dal 2018 a marzo 2023 sono stati registrati quasi 800 episodi di autolesionismo, secondo Serco usati come «arma di negoziazione» nei vari centri gestiti dalla società, e 19 morti. Sarwan Aljhelie, un rifugiato iracheno di 22 anni, è deceduto al suo quarto tentativo di suicidio riaprendo il tema della sorveglianza e del supporto mentale alle persone trattenute. Circa tre settimane prima era stato trasferito senza preavviso dal centro di Villawood a quello di Yongah Hill, nei pressi di Perth, a più di tremila chilometri di distanza dalla sua famiglia e dai suoi tre figli. Mohammad Nasim Najafi, un rifugiato afghano, avrebbe invece lamentato problemi cardiaci per due settimane, secondo alcuni suoi compagni, prima di morire per un sospetto infarto.

    In Australia, Serco continua comunque a gestire tutti i sette centri di detenzione attivi e, nonostante il calo del fatturato del 5% – da 540 a 515 milioni di euro – segnalato nel rapporto di metà anno, la compagnia ha annunciato di essere «lieta di aver prorogato il contratto per la gestione delle strutture di detenzione per l’immigrazione e i servizi per i detenuti fino al dicembre 2024». «Siamo fortemente impegnati a garantire un ambiente sicuro e protetto per i detenuti, i dipendenti e i visitatori. I nostri dipendenti si impegnano a fondo per garantire questo obiettivo, spesso in circostanze difficili», scrive la società.

    –—

    La storia di Joey

    Joey Tangaloa Taualii è arrivato in Australia dall’isola di Tonga nel 1975 con i suoi genitori. Oggi ha 49 anni, 12 figli e 5 nipoti, ma è rinchiuso dall’inizio del 2021 nel Melbourne Immigration Detention Centre (MIDC), uno dei sette centri di detenzione per persone migranti gestiti da Serco in Australia. Il suo profilo rientra nella categoria dei detenuti 501, come James.

    La riforma è arrivata quando Joey era appena entrato in carcere dopo una condanna a otto anni per aver aggredito, secondo quanto racconta, un membro di una banda di motociclisti nel 2009. Nonostante viva in Australia da 48 anni, non ha mai ottenuto la cittadinanza, credendo erroneamente che il suo visto permanente avesse lo stesso valore. Ora è in attesa di sapere se potrà tornare dalla sua famiglia ma non ha garanzie su quanto tempo potrà passare recluso.

    «È un posto costruito per distruggerti», dice. Dopo quasi tre anni nel MIDC è diventato difficile anche trovare un modo per passare il tempo. Le attività sono così scarne da sembrare concepite per «bambini» e non c’è «nulla di strutturato, che ti aiuti a stimolare la mente», racconta. Joey preferisce restare la maggior parte del tempo all’interno della sua stanza ed evitare qualsiasi situazione che possa essere usata contro di lui per influenzare il riottenimento del visto. «Ci sono persone deportate in altri continenti, che non hanno famiglia, e allora scelgono di tentare il suicidio», afferma, pensando alla possibilità di essere rimpatriato a Tonga. Parla dalla sua stanza con l’occhio sinistro bendato. La sua parziale cecità richiederebbe un intervento, che sostiene di stare aspettando da due anni.

    L’ultima speranza risiede nella bontà del governo, di solito più aperto verso le persone che vivono in Australia da diversi anni. Per quello, però, ci sarà da aspettare e non si sa per quanto tempo ancora: «Ho frequentato l’asilo, le scuole elementari e le scuole superiori in Australia, i miei genitori sono stati nella stessa casa per 45 anni a Ringwood, dove siamo cresciuti giocando a calcio e a cricket e abbiamo pagato le tasse. Questo è il motivo per cui i 501 si sono suicidati e sono stati deportati. Le nostre lacrime e le nostre preghiere non cadranno nel vuoto».
    –-

    https://irpimedia.irpi.eu/cprspa-serco-ors-multiservizi-globale
    #Serco #ORS #asile #migrations #réfugiés #rétention #détention_administrative #business #privatisation #Italie #Rupert_Soames #Yarl’s_Wood #Australie #Christmas_island #UK #Angleterre #Brook_House #Derwentside

    –—

    ajouté au fil de discussion sur la présence d’ORS en Italie :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/884112

    lui-même ajouté à la métaliste autour de #ORS, une #multinationale #suisse spécialisée dans l’ « #accueil » de demandeurs d’asile et #réfugiés :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/802341

  • Dans la #Manche, les coulisses terrifiantes du sauvetage des migrants

    Il y a deux ans, au moins 27 personnes périssaient dans des eaux glaciales au large de Calais, après le naufrage de leur embarcation. Mediapart a enquêté sur les pratiques des différents acteurs missionnés pour sauver celles et ceux qui tentent de rejoindre le Royaume-Uni par la mer.

    « Parfois, ils refusent notre appel, parfois ils décrochent. Quand j’appelle le 999, ils me disent d’appeler les Français, et les Français nous disent d’appeler les Anglais. Ils se moquent de nous. » Ces quelques phrases, issues d’un échange entre un membre de l’association #Utopia_56 et un exilé se trouvant à bord d’une embarcation dans la Manche, résument à elles seules les défaillances du #secours en mer lorsque celui-ci n’est pas coordonné.

    Elles illustrent également le désarroi de celles et ceux qui tentent la traversée pour rejoindre les côtes britanniques. Le 20 novembre 2021, les membres d’Utopia 56 ont passé des heures à communiquer par messages écrits et audio avec un groupe d’exilé·es qui s’était signalé en détresse dans la Manche. « Nous avons appelé tous les numéros mais ils ne répondent pas. Je ne comprends pas quel est leur problème », leur dit un homme présent à bord. « Restez calmes, quelqu’un va venir. Appelez le 112 et on va appeler les #garde-côtes français, ok ? » peut-on lire dans les échanges consultés par Mediapart.

    « Comme ils ont pu nous contacter, on a relancé le #Cross [#Centre_régional_opérationnel_de_surveillance_et_de_sauvetage_maritimes – ndlr], qui a pu intervenir. Mais on peut se demander ce qu’il se serait passé pour eux si ça n’avait pas été le cas », commente Nikolaï, d’Utopia 56. Cet appel à l’aide désespéré a été passé seulement quatre jours avant le naufrage meurtrier du #24_novembre_2021, qui a coûté la vie à au moins vingt-sept personnes, parmi lesquelles des Afghan·es, des Kurdes d’Irak et d’Iran, des Éthiopien·nes ou encore un Vietnamien.

    Un an plus tard, Le Monde révélait comment le Cross, et en particulier l’une de ses agent·es, avait traité leur cas sans considération, voire avec mépris, alors que les personnes étaient sur le point de se noyer. Une #information_judiciaire a notamment été ouverte pour « homicides », « blessures involontaires » et « mise en danger » (aggravée par la violation manifestement délibérée d’une obligation de sécurité ou de prudence), menant à la mise en examen de cinq militaires pour « #non-assistance_à_personne_en_danger » au printemps 2023.

    « Ah bah t’entends pas, tu seras pas sauvé », « T’as les pieds dans l’eau ? Bah, je t’ai pas demandé de partir »… Rendue publique, la communication entre l’agente du Cross et les exilé·es en détresse en mer, en date du 24 novembre, a agi comme une déflagration dans le milieu associatif comme dans celui du secours en mer. Signe d’#inhumanité pour les uns, de #surmenage ou d’#incompétence pour les autres, cet épisode dramatique est venu jeter une lumière crue sur la réalité que subissent les migrant·es en mer, que beaucoup ignorent.

    « Urgence vitale » contre « urgence de confort »

    Entendue dans le cadre de l’#enquête_judiciaire, l’agente concernée a expliqué faire la différence entre une situation d’« #urgence_vitale » et une situation de « #détresse » : « Pour moi, la détresse c’est vraiment quand il y a une vie humaine en jeu. La plupart des migrants qui appellent sont en situation de détresse alors qu’en fait il peut s’agir d’une urgence de confort », a déroulé la militaire lors de son audition, précisant que certains cherchent « juste à être accompagnés vers les eaux britanniques ».

    Elle décrit aussi des horaires décalés, de nuit, et évoque des appels « incessants » ainsi que l’incapacité matérielle de vérifier les indicatifs de chaque numéro de téléphone. Un autre agent du Cross explique ne pas avoir souvenir d’un « gros coup de bourre » cette nuit-là. « Chaque opération migrant s’est enchaînée continuellement mais sans densité particulière. » Et de préciser : « Ce n’est pas parce qu’il n’y a pas de densité particulière que nous faisons le travail avec plus de légèreté ; aucun n’est mis de côté et chaque appel est pris au sérieux. »

    Deux sauveteurs ont accepté de se confier à Mediapart, peu après le naufrage, refusant que puisse se diffuser cette image écornée du #secours_en_mer. « C’est malheureux de dire des choses comme ça », regrette Julien*, bénévole à la #Société_nationale_de_sauvetage_en_mer (#SNSM). Il y a peut-être, poursuit-il, « des personnes avec moins de jugeote, ou qui ont décidé de se ranger d’un côté et pas de l’autre ».

    L’homme interroge cependant la surcharge de travail du Cross, sans « minimiser l’incident » de Calais. « La personne était peut-être dans le rush ou avait déjà fait un certain nombre d’appels… Ils sont obligés de trier, il peut y avoir des erreurs. Mais on ne rigole pas avec ça. »

    Lorsque des fenêtres météo favorables se présentent, sur une période d’à peine deux ou trois jours, le Cross comme les sauveteurs peuvent être amenés à gérer jusqu’à 300 départs. Les réfugié·es partent de communes de plus en plus éloignées, prenant des « #risques énormes » pour éviter les contrôles de police et les tentatives d’interception sur le rivage.

    « Cela devient de plus en plus périlleux », constate Julien, qui décrit par ailleurs les stratégies employées par les #passeurs visant à envoyer beaucoup d’exilé·es d’un seul coup pour en faire passer un maximum.

    Il y a des journées où on ne fait que ça.

    Alain*, sauveteur dans la Manche

    « En temps normal, on arrive à faire les sauvetages car nos moyens sont suffisants. Mais à un moment donné, si on se retrouve dans le rush avec de tels chiffres à gérer, on a beau être là, avoir notre #matériel et nos #techniques de sauvetage, on ne s’en sort pas. » Julien se souvient de cette terrible intervention, survenue fin 2021 au large de la Côte d’Opale, pour laquelle plusieurs nageurs de bord ont été « mis à l’eau » pour porter secours à un canot pneumatique disloqué dont le moteur avait fini à 23 heures au fond d’une eau à 7 degrés.

    Présents sur zone en une demi-heure, les nageurs récupèrent les exilé·es « par paquet de trois », essayant d’optimiser tous les moyens dont ils disposent. « On aurait peut-être eu un drame dans la Manche si on n’avait pas été efficaces et si les nageurs n’avaient pas sauté à l’eau », relate-t-il, précisant que cette opération les a épuisés. L’ensemble des personnes en détresse ce jour-là sont toutes sauvées.

    Le plus souvent, les sauveteurs font en sorte d’être au moins six, voire huit dans l’idéal, avec un patron qui pilote le bateau, un mécanicien et au moins un nageur de bord. « Le jour où on a frôlé la catastrophe, on était onze. Mais il nous est déjà arrivé de partir à quatre. »

    Alain* intervient depuis plus de cinq années dans la Manche. La surface à couvrir est « énorme », dit-il. « Il y a des journées où on ne fait que ça. » Ce qu’il vit en mer est éprouvant et, « au #drame_humain auquel nous devons faire face », se rajoute parfois « le #cynisme aussi bien des autorités françaises que des autorités anglaises ».

    On a sauvé en priorité ceux qui n’avaient pas de gilet. Les autres ont dû attendre.

    Alain* à propos d’un sauvetage

    Il évoque ce jour de septembre 2021 où 40 personnes sont en danger sur une embarcation qui menace de se plier, avec un brouillard laissant très peu de visibilité. Ne pouvant y aller en patrouilleur, l’équipe de quatre sauveteurs se rend sur zone avec deux Zodiac, et « accompagne » l’embarcation jusqu’aux eaux anglaises. Mais celle-ci commence à se dégonfler.

    La priorité est alors de stabiliser tous les passagers et de les récupérer, un par un. « Ça hurlait dans tous les sens, mais on a réussi à les calmer », relate Alain qui, tout en livrant son récit, revit la scène. « Il ne faut surtout pas paniquer parce qu’on est les sauveteurs. Plus difficile encore, il faut se résoudre à admettre que c’est un sauvetage de masse et qu’on ne peut pas sauver tout le monde. » Alain et ses collègues parviennent à charger tous les passagers en les répartissant sur chaque Zodiac.

    Lors d’un autre sauvetage, qu’il qualifie de « critique », ses collègues et lui doivent porter secours à une quarantaine d’exilés, certains se trouvant dans l’eau, et parfois sans gilet de sauvetage. « On a sauvé en priorité ceux qui n’avaient pas de gilet, explique-t-il. Mais les autres ont dû attendre notre retour parce qu’on manquait de place sur notre bateau. Et par chance, entre-temps, c’est la SNSM qui les a récupérés. » Ce jour-là, confie-t-il, le Cross a « vraiment eu peur qu’il y ait des morts ».

    Négociations en pleine mer

    À cela s’ajoute la « #mise_en_danger » provoquée par les tractations en pleine mer pour déterminer qui a la responsabilité de sauver les personnes concernées.

    Une fois, raconte encore Alain, le boudin d’un canot pneumatique transportant 26 personnes avait crevé. « On leur a dit de couper le moteur et on les a récupérés. Il y avait un bébé de quelques mois, c’était l’urgence absolue. » En mer se trouve aussi le bateau anglais, qui fait demi-tour lorsqu’il constate que les exilé·es sont secouru·es.

    « Les migrants se sont mis à hurler parce que leur rêve s’écroulait. C’était pour nous une mise en danger de les calmer et de faire en sorte que personne ne se jette à l’eau par désespoir. » Le bateau anglais finit par revenir après 45 minutes de discussion entre le Cross et son homologue. « Plus de 45 minutes, répète Alain, en pleine mer avec un bébé de quelques mois à bord. »

    Qu’est devenu ce nourrisson ? s’interroge Alain, qui dit n’avoir jamais été confronté à la mort. Il faut se blinder, poursuit-il. « Nous sommes confrontés à des drames. Ces personnes se mettent en danger parce qu’elles n’ont plus rien à perdre et se raccrochent à cette traversée pour vivre, seulement vivre. » Il se demande souvent ce que sont devenus les enfants qu’il a sauvés. Sur son téléphone, il retrouve la photo d’une fillette sauvée des eaux, puis sourit.

    Pour lui, il n’y aurait pas de « consignes » visant à distinguer les #eaux_françaises et les #eaux_anglaises pour le secours en mer. « On ne nous a jamais dit : “S’ils sont dans les eaux anglaises, n’intervenez pas.” Le 24 novembre a été un loupé et on ne parle plus que de ça, mais il y a quand même des gens qui prennent à cœur leur boulot et s’investissent. » Si trente bateaux doivent être secourus en une nuit, précise-t-il pour illustrer son propos, « tout le monde y va, les Français, les Anglais, les Belges ».

    Lors de ses interventions en mer, la SNSM vérifie qu’il n’y a pas d’obstacles autour de l’embarcation à secourir, comme des bancs de sable ou des courants particulièrement forts. Elle informe également le Cross, qui déclenche les sauveteurs pour partir sur zone.

    « On approche très doucement du bateau, on évalue l’état des personnes, combien ils sont, s’il y a des enfants, s’il y a des femmes, si elles sont enceintes », décrit Julien, qui revoit cet enfant handicapé, trempé, qu’il a fallu porter alors qu’il pesait près de 80 kilos. Ce nourrisson âgé de 15 jours, aussi, qui dépassait tout juste la taille de ses mains.

    Si les exilés se lèvent brutalement en les voyant arriver, ce qui arrive souvent lorsqu’ils sont en détresse, le plancher de l’embarcation craque « comme un carton rempli de bouteilles de verre » qui glisseraient toutes en même temps vers le centre. Certains exilés sont en mer depuis deux jours lorsqu’ils les retrouvent. « En short et pieds nus », souvent épuisés, affamés et désespérés.

    Des « miracles » malgré le manque de moyens

    Les sauveteurs restent profondément marqués par ces sauvetages souvent difficiles, pouvant mener à huit heures de navigation continue dans une mer agitée et troublée par des conditions météo difficiles. « L’objectif est de récupérer les gens vivants, commente Julien. Mais il peut arriver aussi qu’ils soient décédés. Et aller récupérer un noyé qui se trouve dans l’eau depuis trois jours, c’est encore autre chose. »

    En trois ans, le nombre de sauvetages a été, selon lui, multiplié par dix. Le nombre d’arrivées au Royaume-Uni a bondi, conduisant le gouvernement britannique à multiplier les annonces visant à durcir les conditions d’accueil des migrant·es, du projet d’externalisation des demandes d’asile avec le Rwanda, à l’hébergement des demandeurs et demandeuses d’asile à bord d’une barge, plus économique, et non plus dans des hôtels.

    Pour Julien, les dirigeant·es français·es comme britanniques s’égarent dans l’obsession de vouloir contenir les mouvements migratoires, au point de pousser les forces de l’ordre à des pratiques parfois discutables : comme le montrent les images des journalistes ou des vacanciers, certains CRS ou gendarmes viennent jusqu’au rivage pour stopper les tentatives de traversée, suscitant des tensions avec les exilé·es. Aujourd’hui, pour éviter des drames, ils ne sont pas autorisés à intercepter une embarcation dès lors que celle-ci est à l’eau.

    Dans le même temps, les sauveteurs font avec les moyens dont ils disposent. Un canot de sauvetage vieillissant, entretenu mais non adapté au sauvetage de migrants en surnombre, explique Julien. « On porte secours à près de 60 personnes en moyenne. Si on est trop lourd, ça déséquilibre le bateau et on doit les répartir à l’avant et au milieu, sinon l’eau s’infiltre à l’arrière. » Ses équipes ont alerté sur ce point mais « on nous a ri au nez ». Leur canot devrait être remplacé, mais par un bateau « pas plus grand », qui ne prend pas ce type d’opérations en compte dans son cahier des charges.

    En un an, près de « 50 000 personnes ont pu être sauvées », tient à préciser Alain, avant d’ajouter : « C’est un miracle, compte tenu du manque de moyens. » Il peut arriver que les bénévoles de la SNSM reçoivent une médaille des autorités pour leur action. Mais à quoi servent donc les médailles s’ils n’obtiennent pas les moyens nécessaires et si leurs requêtes restent ignorées ?, interroge-t-il.

    « La France est mauvaise sur l’immigration, elle ne sait pas gérer », déplore Alain, qui précise que rien n’a changé depuis le drame du 24 novembre 2021. Et Julien de conclure : « Les dirigeants sont dans les bureaux, à faire de la politique et du commerce, pendant que nous on est sur le terrain et on sauve des gens. S’ils nous donnent des bateaux qui ne tiennent pas la route, on ne va pas y arriver… »

    Mercredi 22 novembre, deux exilés sont morts dans un nouveau naufrage en tentant de rallier le Royaume-Uni.

    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/france/241123/dans-la-manche-les-coulisses-terrifiantes-du-sauvetage-des-migrants
    #Calais #mourir_en_mer #morts_aux_frontières #mourir_aux_frontières #France #UK #Angleterre #GB #sauvetage #naufrage #frontières #migrations #asile #réfugiés

  • Supreme court rejects Rishi Sunak’s plan to send asylum seekers to #Rwanda

    Judges uphold appeal court ruling over risk to deported refugees and deals blow to PM’s ‘stop the boats’ strategy

    Rishi Sunak’s key immigration policy has been dealt a blow after the UK’s highest court rejected the government’s plans to deport people seeking asylum to Rwanda.

    Five judges at the supreme court unanimously upheld an appeal court ruling that found there was a real risk of deported refugees having their claims in the east African country wrongly assessed or being returned to their country of origin to face persecution.

    The ruling undermines one of the prime minister’s key pledges: to “stop the boats”. The government claimed that the £140m Rwanda scheme would be a key deterrent for growing numbers of asylum seekers reaching the UK via small boats travelling across the Channel, a claim that refugee charities have rejected.

    Reading out the judgment, Lord Reed, the president of the supreme court, said the judges agreed unanimously with the court of appeal ruling that there was a real risk of claims being wrongly determined in Rwanda, resulting in asylum seekers being wrongly returned to their country of origin.

    He pointed to crucial evidence from the United Nations’ refugee agency, the UNHCR, which highlighted the failure of a similar deportation agreement between Israel and Rwanda.

    The ruling came the day after the sacked home secretary, Suella Braverman, released an incendiary letter accusing the prime minister of breaking an agreement to insert clauses into UK law that would have “blocked off” legal challenges under the European convention on human rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act.

    Braverman said Sunak had no “credible plan B” and added: “If we lose in the supreme court, an outcome that I have consistently argued we must be prepared for, you will have wasted a year and an act of parliament, only to arrive back at square one.”

    A meeting of hard-right Conservative MPs on Wednesday morning to consider the judgment was expected to back calls to leave the ECHR.

    Sir John Hayes, a close ally of Braverman, said on Tuesday that in the event of losing, ministers should table a narrow piece of legislation to enact the Rwanda plan before Christmas, and later include withdrawing from the ECHR in the Tory election manifesto.

    Reacting to the ruling, Sunak said the government would consider its next steps and claimed there was a “plan B”, despite Braverman’s criticisms.

    He said: “This was not the outcome we wanted, but we have spent the last few months planning for all eventualities and we remain completely committed to stopping the boats.

    “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.”

    The home secretary, James Cleverly, said: “Our partnership with Rwanda, while bold and ambitious, is just one part of a vehicle of measures to stop the boats and tackle illegal migration.

    “But clearly there is an appetite for this concept. Across Europe, illegal migration is increasing and governments are following our lead: Italy, Germany and Austria are all exploring models similar to our partnership with Rwanda.”

    The judgment will raise serious questions about expenditure on the scheme. More than £140m has already been paid to the Rwandan government. The government has refused to disclose a further breakdown of costs on the scheme and on legal fees.

    A spokesperson for the Rwandan government said: “The money has been already allocated to a number of government projects.”

    Reed said the legal test in the case was whether there were substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of being sent back to the countries they came from, where they could face ill treatment.

    “In the light of the evidence which I have summarised, the court of appeal concluded that there were such grounds. We are unanimously of the view that they were entitled to reach that conclusion. Indeed, having been taken through the evidence ourselves, we agree with their conclusion,” he said.

    Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, said it was a victory for men, women and children who simply wanted to be safe.

    He said: “The plan goes against who we are as a country that stands up for those less fortunate than us and for the values of compassion, fairness and humanity. The government should be focusing on creating a functioning asylum system that allows people who seek safety in the UK a fair hearing on our soil and provides safe routes so they don’t have to take dangerous journeys.”

    Toufique Hossain of Duncan Lewis solicitors, one of the lawyers representing asylum seekers who brought the legal challenge, said: “This is a victory for our brave clients who stood up to an inhumane policy. It is also a victory for the rule of law itself and the separation of powers, despite the noise. It is a timely reminder that governments must operate within the law. We hope that now our clients are able to dream of a better, safer future.”

    Sonya Sceats, the chief executive of Freedom from Torture, said: “This is a victory for reason and compassion. We are delighted that the supreme court has affirmed what caring people already knew: the UK government’s ‘cash for humans’ deal with Rwanda is not only deeply immoral, but it also flies in the face of the laws of this country.

    “The stakes of this case could not have been higher. Every day in our therapy rooms we see the terror that this scheme has inflicted on survivors of torture who have come to the UK seeking sanctuary.”

    Steve Smith, the chief executive of the refugee charity Care4Calais, a claimant in the initial legal challenge, said the judgment was “a victory for humanity”.

    He added: “This grubby, cash-for-people deal was always cruel and immoral but, most importantly, it is unlawful. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent on this cruel policy, and the only receipts the government has are the pain and torment inflicted on the thousands of survivors of war, torture and modern slavery they have targeted with it.

    “Today’s judgment should bring this shameful mark on the UK’s history to a close. Never again should our government seek to shirk our country’s responsibility to offer sanctuary to those caught up in horrors around the world.”

    Care4Calais continues to support claimants in the case.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/15/supreme-court-rejects-rishi-sunak-plan-to-deport-asylum-seekers-to-rwan

    #justice #cour_suprême #asile #migrtions #réfugiés #externalisation #UK

    –-

    ajouté à cette métaliste sur la mise en place de l’#externalisation des #procédures_d'asile au #Rwanda par l’#Angleterre
    https://seenthis.net/messages/966443

    • 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    –-

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