#capacit

Palestinian Lives Matter Too: Jewish Scholar Judith Butler Condemns Israel’s “Genocide” in Gaza

We speak with philosopher Judith Butler, one of dozens of Jewish American writers and artists who signed an open letter to President Biden calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. “We should all be standing up and objecting and calling for an end to genocide,” says Butler of the Israeli assault. “Until Palestine is free … we will continue to see violence. We will continue to see this structural violence producing this kind of resistance.” Butler is the author of numerous books, including The Force of Nonviolence: An Ethico-Political Bind and Parting Ways: Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism. They are on the advisory board of Jewish Voice for Peace.

▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAbzV40T6yk

Fil de discussion commencé en 2020 (fin : 2021) sur le pacte, contenu :
– Migrants : le règlement de #Dublin va être supprimé
– Germany’s #Seehofer cautiously optimistic on EU asylum reform
– Relocation, solidarity mandatory for EU migration policy : #Johansson
– #Droit_d’asile : Bruxelles rate son « #pacte »
– Le #pacte_européen sur l’asile et les migrations ne tire aucune leçon de la « crise migratoire »
– The New Pact on Migration and Asylum. A Critical ‘First Look’ Analysis
– #Pacte_européen_sur_la_migration : un “nouveau départ” pour violer les #droits_humains
– Whose Pact ? The Cognitive Dimensions of the New EU Pact on Migration and Asylum
– First analysis of the EU’s new asylum proposals
– Pacte européen sur les migrations et l’asile : Le rendez-vous manqué de l’UE
– EU’s new migrant ‘pact’ is as squalid as its refugee camps
– The EU’s #pact_against_migration, Part One
– Towards a European pact with migrants, Part Two
– Pacte européen sur la migration et l’asile : Afin de garantir un nouveau départ et d’éviter de reproduire les erreurs passées, certains éléments à risque doivent être reconsidérés et les aspects positifs étendus.
– Nouveau Pacte européen  : les migrant.e.s et réfugié.e.s traité.e.s comme des « # colis à trier  »
– A “Fresh Start” or One More Clunker ? Dublin and Solidarity in the New Pact
– European Refugee Policy : What’s Gone Wrong and How to Make It Better
– The Future EU Action Plan on Integration and Inclusion : Ensuring an Approach Inclusive of All
– The New Pact on Migration and Asylum : Turning European Union Territory into a non-Territory
– EU’s proposed screening rules for migrants are based on « failed and violent » Greek law
– Le nouveau Pacte européen sur la migration et l’asile
– New pact on migration and asylum. Perspective on the ’other side’ of the EU border
– Impakter | Un « nouveau » pacte sur l’asile et les migrations ?
– The EU Pact on Migration and Asylum in light of the United Nations Global Compact on Refugees. International Experiences on Containment and Mobility and their Impacts on Trust and Rights
– Le nouveau pacte européen : un mécanisme de « solidarité » pour les expulsions et l’externalisation des politiques migratoires

#règlement_Dublin #relocalisation #droits_fondamentaux

#Migration_and_Asylum_Package: New Pact on Migration and Asylum documents adopted on 23 September 2020

►https://seenthis.net/messages/879881

#new_pact #pacte #migrations #UE #EU #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Union_européenne #23_septembre_2020 #Dublin #règlement_dublin #fin #fin_de_Dublin #suppression

Fil de discussion commencée en juillet 2022:
– Première étape dans la mise en œuvre graduelle du #Pacte_européen_sur_la_migration_et_l’asile : mode opératoire d’un mécanisme de #solidarité_volontaire
– Croatia announced that it would receive about 60 refugees through relocations from Greece, Italy and Cyprus initiated by France
– First asylum seekers relocated from Italy to France via new EU mechanism

▻https://seenthis.net/messages/966186

#asile #migrations #réfugiés #relocalisations #relocalisation (#relocalisation_bis) #EU #Europe #UE #filtrage #eurodac #pression #mécanisme #Dublin #règlement_Dublin #mécanisme_de_solidarité_volontaire #assistance #contributions_financières #tri #catégorisation #vulnérabilité #flux_secondaires #mouvements_secondaires #pacte_européen #2022 #Europe #EU #UE #demandeurs_d'asile #voluntary_solidarity_mechanism

Fil de discussion commencé en juin 2023 :
– UE : les Vingt-Sept s’accordent sur une réforme de l’asile, après trois ans d’intenses débats
– Il Patto europeo sulla migrazione riduce la protezione per coloro che cercano asilo

►https://seenthis.net/messages/1005698

#accord #asile #migrations #réfugiés #UE #union_européenne #procédure_accélérée #Pacte_sur_l'asile_et_la_migration #relocalisation #mécanisme_de_solidarité #renvois #expulsions #2023 #8_juin_2023 #rétention #détention_administrative

Fil de discussion commencé en juin 2023 :

– Migration policy : Council reaches agreement on key asylum and migration laws
– UE : les Vingt-Sept s’accordent sur une réforme de l’asile, après trois ans d’intenses débats
– Paesi terzi “sicuri”, sicurezza delle persone migranti e propaganda di Stato
– Editorial : Migration Pact Agreement Point by Point
– Décryptage – Pacte UE migration et asile : une approche répressive et sécuritaire au mépris des droits humains
– L’Europe se ferme un peu plus aux réfugiés
– Pacte européen sur la migration et l’asile : repartir sur d’autres bases

►https://seenthis.net/messages/1005745

#conseil_de_l'Europe #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Dublin #règlement_Dublin #accord #8_juin_2023 #UE #Union_européenne #EU #asylum_procedure_regulation (#APR) #procédure_d'asile #frontières #procédure_accélérée #inadmissibilité #procédure_de_frontière #frontières_extérieures #capacité_adéquate #asylum_and_migration_management_regulation (#AMMR) #mécanisme_de_solidarité #solidarité #relocalisation #contribution_financière #compensation #responsibility_offsets #mouvements_secondaires #abus

Tracking the Pact: Derogations all round in Council’s latest crisis Regulation edit
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/1019445

#crise #force_majeure #dérogations #solidarité

EU-Tunisia like UK-Rwanda? Not quite. But would the New Pact asylum reforms change that?
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/1024544
#pays-tiers_sûrs

The pact kills: l’istituzionalizzazione della fine del diritto d’asilo nell’UE
–-> Un documento dell’Associazione #Open_Your_Borders di Padova sul nuovo patto europeo sulla migrazione e l’asilo.
►https://seenthis.net/messages/1050383

Combinaisons d’attachement dans le couple : les styles Anxieux/ambivalent & Évitant

C’est avec les enfants et le partenaire amoureux que se rejoue avec le plus d’intensité le style relationnel que l’on a développé au cours de son enfance, auprès de ses figures d’attachement principales.

Pour résumer :

– si vous aimez la proximité relationnelle et l’intimité et que ce n’est pas associé à un quelconque sentiment de menace, vous avez un attachement sécure
- si vous recherchez la proximité relationnelle et l’intimité mais que vous êtes doté-e d’une sorte de radar qui vous fait ressentir que vous allez être abandonné-e, vous avez un attachement anxieux
– si vous n’appréciez la proximité relationnelle et l’intimité qu’à petite dose et que vous avez rapidement besoin de prendre des distances, vous avez un attachement évitant

Il peut être difficile de se reconnaître dans l’une de ces trois descriptions. Dans ce cas, voir ce questionnaire : Quel est votre style d’attachement ?

Les styles Anxieux/ambivalent et Évitant sont tous deux dits “insécures”. En effet, les besoins relationnels et émotionnels n’ayant pas été satisfaits de façon constante et prévisible au début de leurs vies, les personnes portant ces types relationnels associent l’attachement à un sentiment de menace. Ces deux styles d’attachement se caractérisent par des besoins et des peurs diamétralement opposés et c’est ce qui va poser de nombreux problèmes lorsqu’ils vont se trouver combinés dans un couple. Voici un tableau qui présente ces tendances relationnelles :

https://pixelfed.zoo-logique.org/storage/m/_v2/578583396227231930/c51ea9690-856390/IEVOJ5K9kSdA/gaRkffzYywX0hVaNLNTppCl31Soz4ZgAjLTOihZf.png

Ces deux styles relationnels renforcent mutuellement leur insécurité

Lorsque la proximité devient insupportable pour le partenaire évitant, il désactive son système d’attachement et devient distant. Le partenaire anxieux ressent cette prise de distance, ce qui l’amène à suractiver son système d’attachement et il devient envahissant.

Voici une description de ces stratégies par Levine & Heller :

Quelques stratégies de désactivation de l’attachement du partenaire évitant :

- Dit ou pense “je ne suis pas prêt à m’engager dans une relation” – et peut cependant rester des années avec la même personne
– S’attarde sur les petites imperfections de son partenaire (sa façon de s’habiller, de parler, de manger…)
- Pense encore à son ex et idéalise cette relation passée
- Attend de rencontrer “LA bonne personne” idéalisée
- Flirte avec d’autres personnes
- Ne dit pas “je t’aime”
- S’éloigne de son partenaire quand tout va bien (suite à un moment agréable à deux, ne donne plus de nouvelles, ne répond pas aux messages…)
- Se met dans une relation dont le futur est impossible – par exemple avec une personne mariée, ou qui vit dans un autre pays…
- Pense à autre chose lorsque son partenaire lui parle
- Garde des secrets et maintient le flou à leur sujet

Ces stratégies sont inconscientes et sont mises en place de façon à étouffer les besoins d’attachement qui pourraient se manifester lorsque la proximité devient trop menaçante.

Si seulement elle pouvait me laisser souffler cinq minutes et arrêter de m’attaquer, je pourrais être présent avec elle.

Quelques stratégies d’activation de l’attachement du partenaire anxieux :

- Pense beaucoup à son partenaire, a du mal à penser à autre chose
- Ne se souvient que de ses qualités
- Met l’autre sur un piédestal
- L’anxiété se dissipe uniquement en présence de l’autre
– Croit que c’est sa seule chance d’être en couple, parce que :
– “Je ne suis compatible qu’avec très peu de personnes – mes chances sont infimes de rencontrer quelqu’un comme lui”
– “Ça prend des années de rencontrer une nouvelle personne, je vais finir seul”
- Croit que même malheureux, il ne faut pas laisser tomber parce que :
– “Si elle me quitte elle va être la partenaire parfaite – de quelqu’un d’autre”
– “Il peut changer”
– “Tous les couples ont des problèmes – on est comme tout le monde sur ce point”

Si seulement il pouvait me montrer qu’il est fiable et sincère, je me calmerais dans la seconde.

Voir une description plus complète de l’attachement anxieux/ambivalent sur cette page.

Cette dynamique relationnelle tourne en rond dans un boucle infinie de mutuelle insatisfaction. Chacun se plaindra et souffrira du comportement de l’autre, mais il s’agit bien d’un schéma relationnel qui se renforce de lui-même et dont les deux protagonistes sont parties prenantes. Il apparaît pourtant que l’attraction entre ces deux modèles extrêmes et opposés est souvent observée.

Pourquoi s’attirent-ils ?

Les menaces perçues par un type insécure sont intimement liées aux croyances qu’il a de lui-même et dont il recherche la confirmation dans ses interactions*.

Pour la personne à l’attachement anxieux (Hazan & Shaver) :

Les autres sont réticents à l’idée d’être proche de moi autant que je le voudrais. Je crains souvent que mon partenaire ne m’aime pas vraiment ou ne veuille pas rester avec moi. Je veux ne faire qu’un avec l’autre personne et cela le fait souvent fuir.

– elle pense qu’elle a besoin de plus de proximité que son conjoint n’est capable de lui donner, ce qui se confirme ici
- elle idéalise la capacité du conjoint évitant à être indépendant, c’est une attitude qui lui fait défaut mais qu’elle envie

Pour la personne à l’attachement évitant :

Je suis mal à l’aise avec la proximité relationnelle et l’intimité. Je trouve difficile de faire confiance, difficile de me reposer sur quelqu’un d’autre. Lorsque quelqu’un devient trop proche, cela me rend nerveux et souvent, mes partenaires amoureux attendent de moi plus d’intimité que je ne peux en donner.

- elle a besoin de se sentir sollicitée vers une reprise de contact ; ceci ne serait pas possible avec un sécure ou un évitant qui se lasseraient rapidement de ce comportement distant.

Mais avec le temps, lorsqu’un certain niveau d’intimité et de dépendance est atteint dans une relation, celle qui pensait qu’on allait prendre soin d’elle se sent abandonnée ; celui qui pensait échapper à l’oppression pour la connexion la retrouve avec force. Chacun s’est donc mis en couple avec une personne qui n’est pas vraiment à l’écoute et disponible pour satisfaire ses besoins, comme ce fut le cas dans les expériences relationnelles initiales.

Cette description de ces deux styles relationnels est axée sur leurs différences et se trouve très marquée à dessein. Dans la vie quotidienne, cela peut se manifester de façon plus subtile par des tendances, tempérées par la multiplicité des figures d’attachement qui marquent une vie : la famille élargie, les amis, un thérapeute, un enseignant, un collègue…

Des styles opposés peuvent cependant arriver à un certain équilibre, à la condition que chacun fasse l’effort de se décentrer de sa problématique pour comprendre l’autre et tenter de s’adapter à son style. Comprendre qu’aucun des deux ne “fait exprès” ni n’agit de telle façon pour nuire à l’autre : il s’agit d’un mode de fonctionnement ancien qui est activé au sein de la relation.

▻https://laetitiabluteau.fr/questions-psy/combinaisons-dattachement-dans-le-couple-les-styles-anxieux-ambivale

@jacotte

Quelques analyses sorties juste après l’annonce de cet accord trouvé :
UE : les Vingt-Sept s’accordent sur une réforme de l’asile, après trois ans d’intenses débats
►https://seenthis.net/messages/1005698

Analyse de #Fulvio_Vassallo_Paleologo:

Paesi terzi “sicuri”, sicurezza delle persone migranti e propaganda di Stato

1.Le conclusioni del Consiglio dei ministri dell’interno dell’Unione Europea riuniti a Lussembugo lo scorso 8 giugno sono state propagandate come una vittoria della linea tenuta dal governo Meloni fino alle ultime ore di una convulsa trattativa, che si è conclusa con una spaccatura che avrà certamente ripercussioni sulla prossima fase di codecisione sulle politiche migratorie e sulle procedure di asilo, nella quale analoghe divisioni si potrebbero riprodurre all’interno del Parlamento europeo.

La materia sulla quale i ministri del’interno dei diversi paesi europei hanno alla fine trovato una soluzione di compromesso, su cui il ministro Piantedosi ha espresso soddisfazione, riguarda buona parte della vigente legislazione europea in materia di imigrazione ed asilo, sia per quanto riguarda la cd. dimensione esterna, con riferimento ai paesi terzi di origine e transito, che per quanto concerne i cd. meccanismi di solidarietà, in materia di rimpatri forzati e al fine di contrastare i cd. movimenti secondari, con una sostanziale rivisitazione del vigente Regolamento Dublino III del 2013. A tale riguardo si prevede espressamente che “Gli Stati membri hanno piena discrezionalità quanto al tipo di solidarietà cui contribuiscono. Nessuno Stato membro sarà mai obbligato a effettuare ricollocazioni”. Una sconfitta che il governo italiano non può nascondere dietro i propositi di espellere o respingere i richiedenti asilo denegati nei paesi di transito.

I ministri dell’interno dei diversi paesi dell’Unione Europea hanno così trovato a maggioranza una intesa che però appare come una scatola vuota, se si pensa alla mole delle normative (dal Regolamento frontiere Schengen alla Direttiva 2008/115/ CE sui rimpatri) che dovrebbero essere modificate per approvare definitivamente quanto si è deciso a Lussemburgo, ed all’esiguo tempo che manca in vista delle prosime elezioni europee, dopo tre anni di stallo seguiti alla prima versione del Patto sull’immigrazione e l’asilo adottata dalla Commissione nel 2020. Inoltre la spaccatura tra i paesi di Visegrad Ungheria e Polonia, ed i conservatori del gruppo della Meloni, non lasciano presagire risultati definitivi nel breve periodo.

2. La proposta di regolamento sulla procedura di asilo (Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on asylum and migration management and amending Council Directive (EC) 2003/109 and the proposed Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Fund] tenta di stabilire una procedura comune in tutta l’UE che gli Stati membri devono seguire quando le persone fanno richiesta di protezione internazionale. Si snelliscono le disposizioni procedurali (ad esempio la durata della procedura) e si stabiliscono norme per i diritti del richiedente asilo (ad esempio, la fornitura del servizio di un interprete o il diritto all’assistenza e alla rappresentanza legali). La procedura di frontiera si applicherebbe quando un richiedente asilo presenta domanda a un valico di frontiera esterna, a seguito di arresto in relazione a un attraversamento illegale della frontiera e in seguito allo sbarco dopo un’operazione di ricerca e soccorso. Ma anche quando proviene da un paese terzo ritenuto sicuro. La procedura è obbligatoria per gli Stati membri se il richiedente rappresenta un pericolo per la sicurezza nazionale o l’ordine pubblico, ha ingannato le autorità con informazioni false o nascondendo informazioni e se il richiedente ha una nazionalità di un paese con un tasso di riconoscimento delle richieste di asilo inferiore al 20%.

Il punto sul quale in Italia il governo Meloni ed il ministro dell’interno Piantedosi hanno insistito di più, a livello di comunicazione, ma anche come base per una intensa attività diplomatica che conducono da mesi senza risultati effettivi, riguardava la possibilità di rinviare nei paesi di transito i richiedenti asilo denegati dopo la procedura in frontiera, già prevista in modo più rigoroso dalla legge 50 del 2023 (ex Decreto Cutro). Una legge approvata senza il parere delle competenti Comissioni Affari costituzionali, che sta già facendo vitime, con espulsioni comminate dai prefetti “in automatico” a persone già inserite in Italia, che chiedono il rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno per protezione speciale, ma che ad oggi appare in contrasto non solo con importanti principi fondamentali del nostro ordinamento (come gli articoli 10, 13,24,32,113 della Costituzione), ma anche con molti dei principi di garanzia ribaditi con grande nettezza dalle proposte legislative adottate a Lussemburgo dal Consiglio dei ministri dell’interno dell’Unione Europea.

Durante l’iter di conversione del decreto legge in Parlamento, l’Alto Commissariato delle Nazioni Unite per i rifugiati (ACNUR- UNHCR) aveva inviato una “Nota tecnica” al governo, nel tentativo di avviare un confronto su diversi punti “critici” che non rispettavano norme internazionali o Direttive dell’Unione Europea. Come ha dichiarato la rappresentante dell’UNHCR per l’Italia, “Avevamo rappresentato queste criticità, confidando che nel procedimento legislativo alcuni correttivi potessero essere apportati”.

Nella sua ultima nota tecnica, l’UNHCR evidenzia innanzitutto come la nuova legge 50/2023 “ estende la preesistente procedura accelerata di frontiera ai richiedenti provenienti da Paesi di origine designati come sicuri e dispone il trattenimento per quei richiedenti, tra coloro che siano stati avviati a tale procedura, i quali non abbiano consegnato il “passaporto o altro documento equipollente” o non prestino “idonea garanzia finanziaria”. Il trattenimento avverrà nei punti di crisi (hotspot) esistenti presso i maggiori luoghi di sbarco, nelle strutture analoghe ai punti di crisi che verranno individuate o nei Centri di Permanenza per i Rimpatri (CPR) che si trovino in prossimità della frontiera. I minori e tutte le altre persone con esigenze particolari, come da disposizioni vigenti, sono esonerati da ogni forma di procedura accelerata”.

L’ACNUR dopo una generale considerazione positiva delle procedure accelerate in frontiera, soprattuto nei casi in cui appare maggiormente probabile l’esito positivo della domanda di protezione, “Raccomanda, tuttavia, di incanalare in procedura di frontiera (con trattenimento) solo le domande di protezione internazionale che, in una fase iniziale di raccolta delle informazioni e registrazione, appaiano manifestamente infondate.
In particolare, la domanda proposta dal richiedente proveniente da un Paese di origine sicuro non deve essere incanalata in tale iter quando lo stesso abbia invocato gravi motivi per ritenere che, nelle sue specifiche circostanze, il Paese non sia sicuro. Si sottolinea, a tal fine, la centralità di una fase iniziale di screening, volta a far emergere elementi utili alla categorizzazione delle domande (triaging) e alla conseguente individuazione della procedura più appropriata per ciascun caso.

3. La nozione di Paese terzo sicuro è presente nella legislazione eurounitaria con la direttiva 2005/85/Ce del Consiglio del 1° dicembre 2005. L’art. 29 prevedeva che il Consiglio, deliberando a maggioranza qualificata su proposta della Commissione e previa consultazione del Parlamento europeo, potesse adottare un elenco comune minimo dei paesi terzi considerati dagli Stati membri paesi d’origine sicuri. Tale disposizione fu annullata dalla Corte di giustizia perché introduceva una riserva di competenza in favore del Consiglio, con semplice obbligo di consultazione del Parlamento europeo, che non poteva essere prevista da un atto derivato.

Con la cd. direttiva procedure (dir. 2013/32/UE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 26 giugno 2013) la traccia è stata ripresa e ampliata.
Gli articoli da 36 a 39 disciplinano infatti in termini molto dettagliati i contorni della nozione di Paese di origine sicuro e le conseguenze di tale nozione sulle procedure di valutazione delle domande.
L’art. 36 detta le condizioni soggettive alle quali è subordinato il riconoscimento della natura di Paese sicuro di un determinato richiedente: questi deve essere cittadino del Paese di provenienza definito sicuro o apolide che in quel Paese soggiornasse abitualmente; inoltre, non deve avere invocato gravi motivi a lui riferibili, tesi a escludere che il Paese di origine sia sicuro.
L’art. 37 fa rinvio all’allegato I della stessa direttiva, dove sono dettate le condizioni alle quali è possibile designare un Paese come sicuro. Il testo dell’Allegato I è il seguente: “Un paese è considerato paese di origine sicuro se, sulla base dello status giuridico, dell’applicazione della legge all’interno di un sistema democratico e della situazione politica generale, si può dimostrare che non ci sono generalmente e costantemente persecuzioni quali definite nell’articolo 9 della direttiva 2011/95/UE, né tortura o altre forme di pena o trattamento disumano o degradante, né pericolo a causa di violenza indiscriminata in situazioni di conflitto armato interno o internazionale.
Per effettuare tale valutazione si tiene conto, tra l’altro, della misura in cui viene offerta
protezione contro le persecuzioni ed i maltrattamenti mediante:
a) le pertinenti disposizioni legislative e regolamentari del paese ed il modo in cui sono applicate;
b) il rispetto dei diritti e delle libertà stabiliti nella Convenzione europea per la salvaguardia dei diritti dell’uomo e delle libertà fondamentali e/o nel Patto internazionale relativo ai diritti civili e sociali

L’art. 38 della Direttiva atualmente in vigore, fino a quando non verrà espressamente abrogata, fornisce il: “Concetto di paese terzo sicuro”.

1. Glic Stati membri possono applicare il oncetto di paese terzo sicuro solo se le autorità competenti hanno accertato che nel paese terzo in questione una persona richiedente protezione internazionale riceverà un trattamento conforme ai seguenti criteri:
a) non sussistono minacce alla sua vita ed alla sua libertà per ragioni di razza, religione,
nazionalità, opinioni politiche o appartenenza a un determinato gruppo sociale;
b) non sussiste il rischio di danno grave definito nella direttiva 2011/95/UE;
c) è rispettato il principio di «non-refoulement» conformemente alla convenzione di Ginevra;
d) è osservato il divieto di allontanamento in violazione del diritto a non subire torture né
trattamenti crudeli, disumani o degradanti, sancito dal diritto internazionale; e
e) esiste la possibilità di chiedere lo status di rifugiato e, per chi è riconosciuto come rifugiato,
ottenere protezione in conformità della convenzione di Ginevra.
2. L’applicazione del concetto di paese terzo sicuro è subordinata alle norme stabilite dal diritto nazionale, comprese:
a) norme che richiedono un legame tra il richiedente e il paese terzo in questione, secondo le quali sarebbe ragionevole per detta persona recarsi in tale paese;
b) norme sul metodo mediante il quale le autorità̀ competenti accertano che il concetto di paese terzo sicuro può̀ essere applicato a un determinato paese o a un determinato richiedente. Tale metodo comprende l’esame caso per caso della sicurezza del paese per un determinato richiedente e/o la designazione nazionale dei paesi che possono essere considerati generalmente sicuri;
c) norme conformi al diritto internazionale per accertare, con un esame individuale, se il paese terzo interessato sia sicuro per un determinato richiedente e che consentano almeno al richiedente di impugnare l’applicazione del concetto di paese terzo sicuro a motivo del fatto che quel paese terzo non è sicuro nel suo caso specifico. Al richiedente è altresì data la possibilità di contestare l’esistenza di un legame con il paese terzo ai sensi della lettera a)”

4. Secondo la nuova proposta legislativa sulle procedure di asilo, approvata dal Consiglio dei ministri del’interno dell’Unione Europea a Lussemburgo, gli Stati membri dovrebbero avere la possibilità di applicare il concetto di terzo sicuro paese […] come motivo di inammissibilità ove esista la possibilità per il richiedente[…] di chiedere e, se ne ricorrono i presupposti, di ricevere effettivo protezione in un paese terzo, dove la sua vita e la sua libertà non sono minacciate conto di razza, religione, nazionalità, appartenenza a un particolare gruppo sociale o opinione politica, dove lui o lei non è soggetto a persecuzione né affronta un rischio reale di danno grave come definito nel regolamento (UE) n. XXX/XXX [Nuovo Regolamento sulle Qualifiche ancora da approvare] ed è tutelato contro il respingimento e contro l’allontanamento, o contro le violazioni del diritto alla protezione dalla tortura e da trattamenti crudeli, inumani o degradanti prevista dal diritto internazionale.
Si aggiungono poi nuove condizioni per considerare inammissibile una domanda di asilo.
Si prevede in particolare che Il concetto di un paese terzo sicuro può essere applicato solo se esiste […] un collegamento tra il richiedente e […] il paese terzo in base al quale sarebbe […] ragionevole[…] che il richiedente […] si rechi in quel paese […], compreso il fatto che […] ha transitato […] in quel paese terzo. La connessione in particolare tra il richiedente e il paese terzo sicuro potrebbe essere considerata stabilita dove i membri della famiglia del richiedente siano presenti in quel paese o dove il richiedente si è stabilito o ha soggiornato in quel paese. Nella fase convulsa di ricerca del compromesso finale, nella notte dei ministri del’interno a Lussemburgo, è saltata la previsione sostenuta dall’Italia che anche un transito temporaneo avrebbe potuto comportare l’acertamento di questa “commessione” e dunque comportare l’inammissibilità della domanda di protezione già nella procedura in frontiera e la possibilità di respingimento o espulsione con immediato accompagnamento forzato. La posizione dei cittadini di paesi terzi “in transito” rimane comunque molto a rischio e sarà sicuramente oggetto di trattative in sede di rinegoziazione degli accordi bilaterali già esistenti.

Al Considerando 37b) si prevede comunque che, “Nel valutare se i criteri per una protezione effettiva come stabilito nel presente Regolamento sono soddisfatte da un paese terzo, l’accesso ai mezzi di sussistenza sufficienti a mantenere un tenore di vita adeguato dovrebbe essere inteso come comprensivo dell’accesso a vitto, vestiario, alloggio o alloggio e il diritto a svolgere un’attività lavorativa remunerata a condizioni non meno favorevoli di quelle previste per gli stranieri del Paese terzo generalmente nelle stesse circostanze”. Anche nella proposta di nuovo Regolamento oltre alla situazione dei transitanti nei paesi terzi ritenuti sicuri si deve aggiungere anche la considerazione della maggiore ampiezza operativa che si sta attribuento, anche a livello interno, alla categoria di paese di origine sicuro.

Al Considerando (46) si aggiunge che […] Dovrebbe essere possibile designare un paese terzo come paese di origine sicuro con eccezioni per parti specifiche del suo territorio o categorie chiaramente identificabili di persone. Inoltre, il fatto che un paese terzo sia incluso in una lista di paesi di origine sicuri non può stabilire una garanzia assoluta di sicurezza per i cittadini di tale paese paese, anche per coloro che non appartengono a una categoria di persone per le quali tale è fatta eccezione, e quindi non dispensa dalla necessità di condurre un’adeguata esame individuale della domanda di protezione internazionale. Per sua stessa natura, la valutazione sottesa alla designazione non può che tener conto del carattere generale, civile, circostanze legali e politiche in quel paese e se autori di persecuzioni, torture o trattamenti o punizioni inumani o degradanti sono soggetti a sanzione quando ritenuti responsabili in quel paese. Per questo motivo, dove il richiedente può dimostrare elementi che giustificano il motivo per cui il concetto di paese di origine sicuro non è applicabile a lui, la designazione del paese come sicuro non può più essere considerata rilevante per lui o lei.

5. Il governo italiano si vanta di avere costretto l’Unione europea a spostare l’attenzione dai problemi che interssano maggiormente agli Stati continentali, e dunque dai cd. “movimenti secondari” alla questione dei “movimenti primari”, con particolare riferimento alle frontiere esterne del Mediteraneo. La prospettiva che si persegue, magari in collaborazione con l’UNHCR, che però ha posizioni di garanzia molto precise sul punto, è di favorire la “deportazione” in questi paesi, ritenuti “sicuri”, di immigrati irregolari di diversa nazionalità, dopo il diniego sulla domanda di protezione, alla fine della “procedura in frontiera”. Sfugge evidentemente alla premier Meloni, o si preferisce nascondere, la situazione dei diritti umani nei paesi nordafricani di transito, come l’Egitto, la Libia, la Tunisia, l’Algeria, che pure ministri e sottosegretari italiani hanno intensamente frequentato in questi ultimi mesi. Con i risultati che sono sotto gli occhi di tutti. Adesso ci riproveranno a Tunisi, con la visita in programma per domenica 11 giugno in cui la Meloni sarà accompagnata adirittura da Ursula Von der Layen a nome della Commissione europea e dal premier olandese Rutte.

Nella propaganda governativa si omette di ricordare che nessun accordo di riammissione stipulato con paesi terzi, anche quello tuttora vigente con la Tunisia, prevede deportazioni di cittadini provenienti da altri Stati e giunti irregolarmente nel nostro territorio, o che hanno ricevuto un diniego sulla richiesta di protezione internazionale. A parte la considerazione che l’ingresso per ragioni di soccorso non può essere equiparato all’ingresso clandestino. E questo lo chiarisce bene la Corte di Cassazione con la sentenza sul caso Rackete n.6626/2020. Si vedrà se la prossima missione della Meloni a Tunisi, in compagnia della Presidente della Commissione europea convincerà l’autocrate Saied che sta espellendo sistematicamente dal suo paese tutti i migranti subsahariani, ad accettare di riprendersi cittadini non tunisini sbarcati in Italia. Ed è pure abbastanza improbabile che aumenti la quota di cittadini tunisini che, in base agli accordi vigenti, vengono espulsi o respinti (respingimento differito) verso Tunisi, sulla base degli accordi bilaterali già vigenti con l’Italia. Due voli alla settimana, o poco più per circa sessanta persone. Difficile immaginare una intensificazione dei rimpatri con accompagnamento di polizia. In questi casi, come osserva il Garante nazionale per le persone private della libertà personale in un recente rapporto, “L’aspetto di maggiore criticità è che “le regole dell’attività di rimpatrio forzato da parte della Polizia di Stato sono in larga parte definite da semplici circolari e disposizioni interne e non da fonti normative di rango primario. Manca cioè un quadro legislativo che specifichi le regole operative e ciò ha inevitabili ricadute”. Per esempio, “la disciplina compiuta del possibile ricorso all’impiego della forza, al di là di principi generali, che definisca i possibili strumenti contenitivi, le modalità e la durata del loro impiego. Così come mancano disposizioni operative sui controlli di sicurezza, la cui attuazione talvolta si avvicina a una perquisizione personale, pratica eccezionale anche in contesti ben più problematici”. Ma anche in Tunisia la discrezionalità di polizia sconfina sempre più spesso nell’arbitrio.

Come denuncia l’ASGI, “Alla luce dell’attuale trasformazione autoritaria dello Stato tunisino e dell’estrema violenza e persecuzione della popolazione nera, delle persone in movimento, degli oppositori politici e degli attori della società civile, noi, le organizzazioni firmatarie, rilasciamo questa dichiarazione per ricordare che la Tunisia non è né un paese di origine sicuro né un paese terzo sicuro e pertanto non può essere considerato un luogo sicuro di sbarco (Place of Safety, POS) per le persone soccorse in mare”.

Come riferisce il sito Meltingpot, a margine di un diniego dopo la richiesta di protezione internazionale alla competente Commissione territoriale, il Tribunale di Cagliari ha accolto la richiesta di sospensiva di un cittadino tunisino. La situazione è peculiare e occorrerà attendere il merito per approfondirla ma il decreto è significativo perché, il Tribunale “smentisce” il fatto che la Tunisia sia un Paese Sicuro“. Si tratta naturalmente di decisioni che valgono per casi individuali, e sarà fondamentale provare la situazione di ciascuna persona che in frontiera, ma anche nei CPR, possa risultare destinataria di un provedimento di allontanbamento forzato verso la Tunisia.

6. La seconda proposta legislativa su nuovi criteri di gestione in materia di immigrazione ed asilo di portata più ampia approvata a Lussemburgo lo scorso 8 giugno (Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on asylum and migration management and amending Council Directive (EC) 2003/109 and the proposed Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Fund] non prevede particolari impegni dell’Unione Europea per sostenere le politiche di rimpatrio forzato di citt che adini di paesi terzi verso gli Stati da cui sono transitati prima di entrare in territorio europeo. Materia che richiederebbe una modifica radicale della Direttiva rimpatri 2008/115/CE.

Il nuovo regolamento sulla gestione della migrazione e dell’asilo dovrebbe sostituire, una volta concordato, l’attuale regolamento Dublino che stabilisce norme che determinano quale Stato membro è competente per l’esame di una domanda di protezione internazionale. Il nuovo Regolamento dovrebbe semplificare queste regole e ridurre i termini. Ad esempio, l’attuale complessa procedura di ripresa in carico finalizzata al trasferimento di un richiedente nello Stato membro responsabile della sua domanda sarà sostituita da una semplice notifica di ripresa in carico. Rimane comunque confermata la responsabilità primaria dei paesi di primo ingresso, quello che Salvini voleva evitare ricattando i paesi membri con la chiusura dei porti. Lo Stato membro di primo ingresso sarà competente per la domanda di asilo per una durata di due anni. Quando un paese vuole trasferire una persona nello stato membro che è effettivamente responsabile del migrante e questa persona fugge (ad esempio quando il migrante si nasconde per eludere un trasferimento) la responsabilità passerà allo stato membro di trasferimento solo dopo tre anni.

La nuova proposta legislativa su immigrazione ed asilo, faticosamente elaborata a Lussemburgo, si limita, con l’art. 7 (Cooperazione con i paesi terzi per facilitare il rimpatrio e la riammissione), a prevedere che dove la Commissione e il Consiglio ritengano che un terzo paese non collabora sufficientemente alla riammissione di cittadini di paesi terzi il cui soggiorno è irregolare, la Commissione e il Consiglio, nell’ambito delle rispettive competenze, prendono in considerazione le azioni appropriate tenendo conto delle competenze dell’Unione e delle relazioni generali degli Stati membri con il paese terzo.
In particolare, in questi casi, 1. […] La Commissione può, sulla base dell’analisi effettuata a norma dell’articolo 25 bis, paragrafi 2 o 4, del regolamento (UE) n. 810/2009 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio e di qualsiasi altra informazione disponibile dagli Stati membri, nonché dall’Unione istituzioni, organi e organismi, […] presentare al Consiglio una relazione comprendente, se del caso, l’identificazione di eventuali misure che potrebbero essere adottate per migliorare la cooperazione di tale paese terzo in materia di riammissione, tenendo conto dell’Unione e delle relazioni generali degli Stati membri con il paese terzo.

7. Al di là delle perplessità sui tempi di attuazione delle proposte varate dal Consiglio dei ministri dell’interno dell’Unione europea e della loro dubbia compatibilità con il vigente diritto eurounitario e con il diritto internazionale umanitario e dei rifugiati, si deve rimarcare come il governo italiano, con un decreto interministeriale approvato lo scorso marzo, abbia ulteriormente ampliato la lista di paesi terzi sicuri che preclude di fatto sia l’esame approfondito delle domande di protezione nelle procedure in frontiera, che il rinnovo della maggior parte dei permessi di soggiorno finora concessi per protezione speciale. Con questo ultimo aggiornamento di marzo 2023 vengono ritenuti paesi terzi sicuri: Albania, Algeria, Bosnia-Erzegovina, Capo Verde, Costa d’Avorio, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Kosovo, Macedonia del Nord, Marocco, Montenegro, Nigeria, Senegal, Serbia e Tunisia.

La categoria di “paese terzo sicuro” esisteva da anni nella legislazione italiana e nella normativa europea, ma è stato con il Decreto sicurezza Salvini n.113 del 2018 che se ne è estesa la portata e assieme ad altre modifiche legislative, ha ridotto di molto la portata effettiva del diritto di asilo riconosciuto dall’art. 10 della Costituzione italiana.

L’art. 7-bis del dl 4 ottobre 2018, n. 113 (cd. decreto sicurezza), introdotto in sede di conversione dall’art. 1 della l. 1°dicembre 2018, n. 132, ha inserito nel d.lgs 28 gennaio 2008, n. 25 l’art. 2-bis, intitolato «Paesi di origine sicuri». E’ dunque chiaro che nell’ordinamenro italiano non esiste al momento alcuna categoria di paese di transito “sicuro” e dunque questo criterio, ancora allo stato di proposta legislativa da parte del Conisglio dei ministri dell’interno dell’Unione Europea NON potrà avere nell’immediato alcuna portata normativa, almeno fino a quando, al termine della procedura di codecisione, un nuovo Regolamento che lo preveda non venga pubblicato nella Gazzetta Ufficiale europea.

L’art. 2-bis del d. lgs n. 25 del 2008, modificato dal decreto sicurezza del 2018, era articolato in cinque commi:

«Art. 2-bis (Paesi di origine sicuri). – 1. Con decreto del Ministro degli affari esteri e della cooperazione internazionale, di concerto con i Ministri dell’interno e della giustizia, è adottato l’elenco dei Paesi di origine sicuri sulla base dei criteri di cui al comma 2. L’elenco dei Paesi di origine sicuri è aggiornato periodicamente ed è notificato alla Commissione europea.

2. Uno Stato non appartenente all’Unione europea può essere considerato Paese di origine sicuro se, sulla base del suo ordinamento giuridico, dell’applicazione della legge all’interno di un sistema democratico e della situazione politica generale, si può dimostrare che, in via generale e costante, non sussistono atti di persecuzione quali definiti dall’articolo 7 del decreto legislativo 19 novembre 2007, n. 251, né tortura o altre forme di pena o trattamento inumano o degradante, né pericolo a causa di violenza indiscriminata in situazioni di conflitto armato interno o internazionale. La designazione di un Paese di origine sicuro può essere fatta con l’eccezione di parti del territorio o di categorie di persone.

3. Ai fini della valutazione di cui al comma 2 si tiene conto, tra l’altro, della misura in cui è offerta protezione contro le persecuzioni ed i maltrattamenti mediante: a) le pertinenti disposizioni legislative e regolamentari del Paese ed il modo in cui sono applicate; b) il rispetto dei diritti e delle libertà stabiliti nella Convenzione europea per la salvaguardia dei diritti dell’uomo e delle libertà fondamentali del 4 novembre 1950, ratificata ai sensi della legge 4 agosto 1955, n. 848, nel Patto internazionale relativo ai diritti civili e politici, aperto alla firma il 19 dicembre 1966, ratificato ai sensi della legge 25 ottobre 1977, n. 881, e nella Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite contro la tortura del 10 dicembre 1984, in particolare dei diritti ai quali non si può derogare a norma dell’articolo 15, paragrafo 2, della predetta Convenzione europea; c) il rispetto del principio di cui all’articolo 33 della Convenzione di Ginevra; d) un sistema di ricorsi effettivi contro le violazioni di tali diritti e libertà.

4. La valutazione volta ad accertare che uno Stato non appartenente all’Unione europea è un Paese di origine sicuro si basa sulle informazioni fornite dalla Commissione nazionale per il diritto di asilo, che si avvale anche delle notizie elaborate dal centro di documentazione di cui all’articolo 5, comma 1, nonché su altre fonti di informazione, comprese in particolare quelle fornite da altri Stati membri dell’Unione europea, dall’EASO, dall’UNHCR, dal Consiglio d’Europa e da altre organizzazioni internazionali competenti.

5. Un Paese designato di origine sicuro ai sensi del presente articolo può essere considerato Paese di origine sicuro per il richiedente solo se questi ha la cittadinanza di quel Paese o è un apolide che in precedenza soggiornava abitualmente in quel Paese e non ha invocato gravi motivi per ritenere che quel Paese non è sicuro per la situazione particolare in cui lo stesso richiedente si trova».

8. Adesso si sta tentando di estendere la nozione di paese terzo sicuro non solo ai cittadini di quel paese, ma anche a coloro che provengono da altri paesi e sono transitati nel paese terzo “sicuro”. Anche per queste persone, con la sola eccezione di MSNA (minori non accompagnati) e di altri soggetti vulnerabili, si prevedono procedure accelerate in frontiera e un numero più ampio di casi di trattenimento amministrativo, per facilitare respingimenti ed espulsioni al termine delle procedure in frontiera, in modo forse da dissuadere le partenze verso l’Italia e l’Europa, aspirazione di vari governi, che comunque, nel corso degli anni, è stata sistematicamente smentita dai fatti. Non si vede peraltro con quali mezzi, risorse umane e luoghi di detenzione amministrativa, si potrà attuare il trattenimento dei richiedenti asilo nelle procedure in frontiera, subito dopo gli sbarchi. Le norme al riguardo, tra l’altro, non saranno operative per 90 giorni dall’entrata in vigore della legge n.50/2023, in assenza del decreto interministeriale che dovrebbe fissare l’entità delle risorse economiche che il richiedente asilo dovrebbe dimostrare per evitare il trattenimento nella prima fase di esame della sua richiesta di protezione. Per tutta l’estate, dunque, la situazione nei punti di sbarco, ma anche nei centri di prima accoglienza, resterà caotica, e sarà affidata esclusivamente ai provvedimenti delle autorità amministrative, prefetti e questori, senza una chiara cornice legislativa.

Su questo sarà battaglia legale, e solidarietà verso chi chiede comunque protezione, soprattutto nei territori più vicini alle frontiere esterne, sempre che sia possibile esercitare i diritti di difesa, e che le misure di accompagnamento forzato non vengano eseguite prima del riesame da parte della giurisdizione, dato l’abbattimento dei casi di effetto sospensivo del ricorso, ed i precedenti purtroppo non sono molti. La sentenza della Cassazione (Sez. 1, 18 novembre 2019, n. 29914) ha cassato una precedente decisione di merito che aveva rigettato la domanda di protezione internazionale, facendo leva sul principio, già più volte enunciato, secondo cui “nei giudizi di protezione internazionale, a fronte del dovere del richiedente di allegare, produrre o dedurre tutti gli elementi e la documentazione necessari a motivare la domanda, la valutazione delle condizioni socio-politiche del Paese d’origine del richiedente deve avvenire, mediante integrazione istruttoria officiosa, tramite l’apprezzamento di tutte le informazioni, generali e specifiche di cui si dispone pertinenti al caso, aggiornate al momento dell’adozione della decisione, sicché il giudice del merito non può limitarsi a valutazioni solo generiche ovvero omettere di individuare le specifiche fonti informative da cui vengono tratte le conclusioni assunte, potendo incorrere in tale ipotesi, la pronuncia, ove impugnata, nel vizio di motivazione apparente”. Rimane quindi alto il rischio che la categoria dei paesi terzi sicuri, o dei paesi di transito sicuri, considerate anche le nuove procedure in frontiera introdotte dalla legge n.50 del 2023, riducano fortemente la portata effettiva del diritto di asilo costituzionale.

Il Diritto di asilo previsto nelle sue diverse forme dall’art. 10 della Costituzione italiana, e ribadito nelle Direttive europee e nei Regolamenti fin qui vigenti, ha natura individuale e costituisce un dirito fondamentale della persona. La ratio fondante di tutta la disciplina in materia di protezione internazionale consiste proprio nella protezione dei singoli da condotte gravemente lesive dei loro diritti umani. Ciò è confermato con grande apertura e
chiarezza dalla nostra Costituzione, all’art. 10, co. 3 che ha una portata molto più ampia della formulazione dello stesso diritto nella Convenzione di Ginevra del 1951 e nelle Direttive europee. Al contrario, la nozione di «Paesi di origine sicuri» si fonda su una valutazione di «safety for the majority» che difficilmente si concilia con la dimensione individuale del diritto di asilo, fortemente sminuendo «the role of individual case by case assessment»”previsto dalle Convenzioni internazionali. In Italia la legge vigente prevede soltanto una presunzione relativa di sicurezza rispetto al Paese di origine, ma senza alcun riferimento automatico alla situazione in questo paese o al transito in un altro paese terzo ritenuto sicuro. Il richiedente e la Commissione teritoriale, e poi il giudice in caso di ricorso giurisdizionale, sono tenuti a cooperare per fare emergere i necesari elementi probatori per affermare o escludere un diritto alla protezione. Ma non ci può essere alcun automatismo nel diniego di uno status di protezione nei confronti di chi provenga o sia transitato da un paese terzo sicuro.

Si deve ricordare a tale proposito la sentenza della Corte Europea dei diritti dell’Uomo del 21 novembre 2019, Ilias and Ahmed c. Ungheria, che ha accertato la violazione dell’art. 3 della CEDU da parte dell’Ungheria, le cui autorità avevano rigettato la domanda di protezione di due cittadini bengalesi espulsi verso la Serbia, sul semplice presupposto che tale Stato era stato incluso in un elenco governativo sui Paesi sicuri, senza compiere una
valutazione seria e approfondita del caso specifico e senza preoccuparsi degli effetti di
un respingimento a catena verso altri Stati.

9. La pressione dei governi europei, e del governo italiano in particolare, sulle procedure in frontiera e sulla possibilità di ricorrere alle categorie di paese terzo di origine o di transito “sicuro” apre scenari inquietanti, soprattutto dopo che con la legge n.50/2023 si sono introdotte norme procedurali che intaccano i diritti di difesa dei richiedenti asilo giunti in frontiera, sia pure a seguito di operazioni di soccorso in mare. Toccherà operare un attento monotoraggio sul riconoscimento effettivo dei diritti fondamentali, a partire dai diritti all’informazione ed alla comprensione linguistica, e dal diritto di accesso effettivo ad una procedura di asilo, in tutti i luoghi di frontiera soprattutto in quelli che sono definiti “punti di fontiera esterna”. Ocorrerà vigilare sulla attuazione degli accordi con i paesi di transito e origine che possano essere ritenuti “sicuri”, ma solo sulla carta, dalle autorità amministrative. Bisogna impedire che attraverso l’esecuzione immediata di misure di allontanamento forzato, adottate magari con modalità sostanzialmente uniformi e collettive, senza riguardo alla situazione individuale delle singole persone, o delle loro condizioni psico-fisiche, possano ripetersi quelle violazioni dei diritti umani che hanno già portato a pesanti condanne dell’Italia da parte dei Tribunali internazionali, come nei tre fondamentali casi Hirsi, Sharifi e Khlaifia.

▻https://www.a-dif.org/2023/06/09/paesi-terzi-sicuri-sicurezza-delle-persone-migranti-e-propaganda-di-stato

Editorial : Migration Pact Agreement Point by Point

What was agreed? What are the consequences? Where are we now?

ECRE will analyse the detailed texts of the General Approach, when they are available. In the meantime, 48 points can already be made on the agreement reached yesterday among the EU Member States on the Pact on Migration and Asylum to reform EU asylum law.

- The EU Member States have reached an agreement on key pillars of the EU asylum system, responsibility, solidarity and procedural rules. The agreement has been under discussion throughout the Swedish Presidency.
- This is not the final word – the Council will negotiate with the Parliament on the basis of this agreement and the Parliament’s respective agreement in order to reach a common position which will become law. However, it is to be expected that Parliament will concede – and these are more or less the positions likely to be adopted.
- The agreement reduces protection standards in Europe, which is kind of the point. Whether it will meet its other objectives of deterring arrivals, rapid returns or reducing so-called secondary movement remains to be seen.
– Two countries opposed the agreement: Hungary and Poland, primarily on the basis that they don’t believe that Europe should have an asylum system. Four countries abstained: Bulgaria, Malta, Lithuania and Slovakia, for different reasons in each case.

The headlines

- Overall, states have agreed on labyrinth of procedural rules, byzantine in their complexity and based on trying to limit the number of people who are granted international protection in Europe.
- They fail to address the major the dysfunction of the system, the Dublin rules, which escape largely intact.
- An underlying objective is to transfer responsibility to countries outside Europe, even though 85% of the world’s refugees are hosted outside Europe, mainly in desperately poor countries. The targets are the countries of the Western Balkans and North Africa, through the use of legal tools such as the “safe third country” concept. Nonetheless, the reforms do nothing to increase the likelihood that these countries agree to host people returned from the EU.
- Within Europe, the reforms increase the focus at the borders.
- As such, the reforms go in the opposite direction to the successful response to displacement from Ukraine, which demonstrated the value of light procedures, rapid access to a protection status, allowing people to work as soon as possible so they can contribute, and freedom of movement which allows family unity and a fairer distribution of responsibility across Europe.

Procedural changes

– Instead, new elements include expanded use of border procedures, inadmissibility procedures, and accelerated procedures, and the Pact deploys legal concepts to deflect responsibility to other countries, such as the safe third country concept. More people will be stuck at the borders in situations akin to the Greek island model.
- There will be an expanded use of the border procedure with it becoming mandatory for people from countries where the protection rate is 20% or below.
- Countries in the centre and north insisted on this change before agreeing to solidarity because their primary concern is ending so-called “secondary movement”. Safeguards such as access to legal assistance or to an appeal are reduced. There will be almost no exemptions for vulnerable people, families or children, and more procedures will be managed in detention.

No new responsibility rules

- The rules on responsibility remain the same as now under Dublin, with the principle of first entry still in place.
- The period of responsibility of the country of arrival for an applicant is extended. It will be two years for people who enter at the external border, but reduced to 15 months after a rejection in the border procedure (to give states an incentive to use the border procedure), and reduced to 12 months for those rescued at sea (to give states an incentive to stop watching people drown).
– The improvements to the rules on responsibility (compared to Dublin) proposed by the Commission have been rejected, including a wider family definition to allow family unification with siblings.

A new solidarity mechanism

- To compensate for the effects of the rules, a solidarity mechanism is introduced to compensate the countries at the borders in situations of “migratory pressure”. A separate mechanism for situations of search and rescue has been rejected.
– Solidarity is mandatory but flexible, meaning that all countries have to contribute but that they can chose what to offer: relocation and assuming responsibility for people; capacity-building and other support; or a financial contribution.

The numbers

– The states have agreed on a minimum of 30,000 people to have their applications processed in a border procedure every year. There will also be a “cap”, a maximum set several times this number which increases over the first three years.
– Member States’ individual adequate capacity (minimum number or target for border procedures) will be set using a formula based on the overall adequate capacity and the number of a “irregular” entries (i.e. people arriving to seek protection).
– Member States can cease to use the border procedure when they approach their target with a notification to the Commission.
– At the same time, the target for relocations is also set at 30,000.
– There is an incentive to provide relocations (rather than other solidarity) in the form of “offsets” (reductions of solidarity contributions for those offering relocation).
- The financial equivalent of a relocation is set at EUR 20,000. Money will also be provided from EU funding for reception capacity to manage the border procedure.

The good news

- This is the beginning of the end of the reforms.
- There is a solidarity mechanism, to be codified in EU law.

The bad news

– Expanded use of the border procedure equals more people in detention centres at the external border, subject to sub-standard asylum procedures.
– With the increase in responsibility for countries at the border, and given how controversial centres are for local communities, there is a risk that they chose pushbacks instead. If Italy’s share of the 30,000 annual border procedure cases is 5000, for example, are they likely to go ahead with detention centres or to deny entry?
– Setting a numerical target for the use of the border procedure – which will almost always take place in detention – creates the risk of arbitrariness in its application.
- The rules on responsibility remain as per Dublin. The Commission’s improvements have been removed so the incentives to avoid compliance, for instance on reception conditions, remain.
– There is strong encouragement of the use of “safe third concept” as a basis for denying people access to an in-merits asylum procedure or to protection in Europe.
- The definition of a safe third country has been eroded as Member States will decide which countries meet the definition. A country needs to meet certain protection criteria and there needs to be a connection between the person and the country, as per international law. However, what constitutes a connection is determined by national law. Examples in the text are family links and previous residence, but a MS could decide that pure transit is a sufficient connection.
- Solidarity is flexible. If Member States can choose, how many will choose relocation? Relocation of people across the EU would lead to a fairer division of responsibility instead of too much being required of the countries at the external border.
- The procedural rules appear complex to the point of unworkability.

Uncertain as yet

– What has been agreed on offsets – solidarity obligation offsets (reductions in a country’s solidarity obligations to others) in the case of offering relocation places and solidarity benefit offsets (reductions in solidarity entitlements of a country under pressure) in the case of failure to accept Dublin transfers.
- Definition of migratory pressure and whether and how it incorporates “instrumentalisation” and SAR.

What will change in practice?

– More of the people arriving to seek protection in Europe will be subject to a border procedure, rather than having their case heard in a regular asylum procedure.
– People will still arrive seeking protection in Europe but they will face a harsher system.
- Responsibilities of the countries at the external borders are increased, which continues to provide an incentive to deny access to territory and to keep standards – on reception or inclusion, for example – low.
- There could now be greater focus on implementation and management of asylum systems. However, the only concrete references to compliance are in relation to achieving the set number of border procedures and in ensuring Dublin transfers happen.
– Onward (“secondary”) movement is still likely, and smugglers will continue to adapt, offering more to take people to countries away from the external borders.

The winners

– The Commission, which has invested everything on getting the Pact passed. “Trust and cooperation is back in the Council,” according to the Commissioner.
– France, the Netherlands and the other hardliners, who have largely got what they wanted.
- The Swedish Presidency, which has brokered a deal and one that suits them – as a less than honest broker. The Minister’s presentation at the press conference underlined secondary movement and enforcement of Dublin.
– Smugglers, who will be able to charge more for the more complex and longer journeys that people will have to take.

The losers

- Refugees, for whom access to a fair asylum procedure will be harder. Risk of detention is higher. Risk of pushbacks is increased. Length and complexity of procedures is increased.
- Non-EU countries at the borders who will deal with more pushed back people and who will be under pressure to build asylum systems to be safe enough to be “safe” third countries.
- The Med5+ who have conceded on every major point and gained very little. They will have to manage the border procedures and, while solidarity is mandatory, it is flexible, meaning that relocation is not prioritised. It all begs the question: what have they really been offered in return?
- Germany, which refused to stand firm and defend the even minor improvements that the government coalition agreement required, and on which it had the support of a small progressive alliance, and potential alliances with the south. For example, on exemptions to the border procedure. Given the desperation to reach a deal more could and should have been demanded.

▻https://ecre.org/editorial-migration-pact-agreement-point-by-point

Décryptage – Pacte UE migration et asile : une approche répressive et sécuritaire au mépris des droits humains

Le #8_juin_2023, les Etats membres de l’UE réunis en #Conseil_Justice_et_Affaires_Intérieures sont parvenus à un #accord sur deux des #règlements du #pacte_européen_sur_la_migration_et_l’asile. Alors que les négociations entre le Parlement et le Conseil se poursuivent, La Cimade décrypte les principaux enjeux des réformes européennes en cours d’adoption en matière de migration et d’asile et rend publique ses analyses et propositions.

Le 23 septembre 2020, la Commission européenne dévoilait sa proposition de « pacte euro­péen sur la migration et l’asile » comme une « une nouvelle approche en matière de migration » visant à « instaurer un climat de confiance et un nouvel équilibre entre responsabi­lité et solidarité ».

Sur la forme, ce pacte se traduit par un éventail de mesures législatives et opérationnelles pour la mise en œuvre de cette « nouvelle » politique migra­toire. À ce jour, la plupart de ces propositions n’ont pas encore été adoptées et font encore l’objet d’intenses négociations entre le Conseil et le Parlement européen.

Sur le fond, les mesures proposées s’inscrivent dans la continuité des logiques déjà largement éprouvées. Elles sont fondées sur une approche répressive et sécuritaire au service de l’endiguement des migrations et de l’encouragement des expulsions, solutions qui ont prouvé leur inefficacité, et surtout qui coutent des vies humaines.

La Cimade appelle l’UE et ses Etats membres à engager un véritable changement de paradigme, pour une Europe qui se fonde sur le respect des droits humains et les solidarités internationales, afin d’assurer la protection des personnes et non leur exclusion. La Cimade continuera à se mobiliser avec d’autres pour défendre les droits des personnes en exil tout au long des parcours migratoires.

A travers ce document de décryptage, La Cimade souhaite contribuer à la compréhension des principaux enjeux des réformes européennes en cours d’adoption en matière de migration et d’asile et rendre publique ses analyses ainsi que ses propositions.

▻https://www.lacimade.org/decryptage-pacte-ue-migration-et-asile-une-approche-repressive-et-securita
#pacte #pacte_migration_et_asile #pacte_migration_asile

L’Europe se ferme un peu plus aux réfugiés

Au moment où le Haut-Commissariat aux réfugiés des Nations unies (UNHCR) annonce, dans son rapport annuel, que le nombre de réfugiés et de déplacés dans le monde n’a jamais été aussi élevé qu’en 2022, le Conseil de l’Union européenne (UE) se félicite qu’après trois ans de négociation, les Etats membres se sont mis enfin mis d’accord sur un projet de réforme du droit d’asile.

Ce pourrait être une bonne nouvelle. Car le rapport de l’ONU indique que les pays riches, dont font partie la plupart des Etats européens, sont loin de prendre leur part de cet exode. Ils n’accueillent que 24 % de l’ensemble des réfugiés, la grande majorité de ceux-ci se trouvant dans des Etats à revenu faible ou intermédiaire.

En témoigne la liste des cinq pays qui accueillent le plus de réfugiés : si l’on excepte l’Allemagne, qui occupe la quatrième place, il s’agit de la Turquie (3,6 millions), de l’Iran (3,4 millions), du Pakistan (1,7 million) et de l’Ouganda (1,5 million).

Et si l’on rapporte le nombre de personnes accueillies à la population, c’est l’île caribéenne d’Aruba (un réfugié pour six habitants) et le Liban (un réfugié pour sept habitants) qui viennent en tête du classement. A titre de comparaison, on compte en France un réfugié pour 110 habitants.
Un partage plus équitable

L’Europe aurait-elle décidé de corriger ce déséquilibre, pour répondre à l’appel de Filippo Gandi, le Haut-Commissaire pour les réfugiés, qui réclame « un partage plus équitable des responsabilités, en particulier avec les pays qui accueillent la majorité des personnes déracinées dans le monde » ?

S’il s’agissait de cela, quelques moyens simples pourraient être mis en œuvre. En premier lieu, on pourrait ouvrir des voies légales permettant aux personnes en besoin de protection de gagner l’Europe sans être confrontées aux refus de visas qui leur sont quasi systématiquement opposés.

On pourrait ensuite mettre en place une politique d’accueil adaptée, à l’instar de celle que les pays européens ont su mettre en place pour faire face à l’arrivée de plusieurs millions d’Ukrainiens en 2022.

A la lecture du communiqué du Conseil de l’UE du 8 juin, on comprend que la réforme ne vise ni à faciliter les arrivées, ni à offrir de bonnes conditions d’accueil. Il y est certes question d’un « besoin de solidarité », mais l’objectif n’est pas de soulager ces pays qui accueillent la majorité des déracinés : il s’agit d’aider les Etats membres « en première ligne » à faire face aux « défis posés par la migration ».

Autrement dit, de faire baisser la pression qui pèse sur les pays qui forment la frontière méditerranéenne de l’UE (principalement l’Italie, la Grèce et Malte) du fait des arrivées d’exilés par la voie maritime.

Non que leur nombre soit démesuré – il était de l’ordre de 160 000 personnes en 2022 –, mais parce que la loi européenne prévoit que le pays responsable d’une demande d’asile est celui par lequel le demandeur a pénétré en premier dans l’espace européen.

En vertu de ce règlement dit « Dublin », ce sont donc les pays où débarquent les boat people qui doivent les prendre en charge, et ces derniers sont censés y demeurer, même si leur projet était de se rendre ailleurs en Europe.

L’accord conclu le 8 juin, qui doit encore être approuvé par le Parlement européen, ne remet pas en cause ce principe profondément inéquitable, qui n’est réaménagé qu’à la marge. Il porte sur deux propositions de règlements.

La première réforme la procédure d’asile applicable à la frontière, avec notamment une phase de « screening » impliquant l’obligation de placer en détention la plupart des personnes qui demandent l’asile à la suite d’un débarquement, le temps de procéder au tri entre celles dont les demandes seront jugées irrecevables – pour pouvoir procéder à leur éloignement rapide – et celles dont les demandes seront examinées.

Un dispositif contraire aux recommandations du Haut-Commissariat aux réfugiés qui rappelle, dans ses lignes directrices sur la détention, que « déposer une demande d’asile n’est pas un acte criminel ».

La seconde met en place un « mécanisme de solidarité », particulièrement complexe, destiné à organiser la « relocalisation » des exilés admis à déposer une demande d’asile dans un autre Etat membre que celui dans lequel ils ont débarqué.
Un goût de réchauffé

Ces deux « innovations », dont le Conseil de l’UE prétend qu’elles marquent « une étape décisive sur la voie d’une modernisation du processus en matière d’asile et d’immigration », ont pourtant un goût de réchauffé.

En 2015, en réaction aux arrivées en grand nombre de boat people sur les côtes grecques et italiennes, essentiellement dues à l’exil massif de Syriens fuyant la guerre civile – épisode qui fut alors qualifié de « crise migratoire majeure » – , le Conseil de l’UE avait mis en place l’« approche hotspot », destinée à assister les pays dont les frontières extérieures sont soumises à une « pression migratoire démesurée ».

Ce dispositif, incluant déjà une procédure de filtrage pour distinguer les potentiels réfugiés des migrants présumés « irréguliers », visait à organiser l’expulsion de ces derniers dans des délais rapides et à répartir les autres ailleurs en Europe.

A cette fin, le Conseil avait adopté un programme de « relocalisation », en vue de transférer 160 000 personnes reconnues éligibles à demander l’asile depuis l’Italie et la Grèce vers d’autres Etats membres de l’UE.

On le voit, les innovations de 2023 présentent de grandes similitudes avec le plan d’action de 2015. Qu’est-il advenu de celui-ci ? Loin de permettre la prise en charge rapide des exilés ayant surmonté la traversée de la Méditerranée, l’approche hotspot a entraîné la création, dans cinq îles grecques de la mer Egée, de gigantesques prisons à ciel ouvert où des milliers de personnes ont été entassées sans possibilité de rejoindre le continent, parfois pendant plusieurs années, dans un déni généralisé des droits humains (surpopulation, insécurité, manque d’hygiène, violences sexuelles, atteintes aux droits de l’enfant et au droit d’asile). Un désastre régulièrement documenté, à partir de 2016, tant par les ONG que par les agences onusiennes et européennes, et qui perdure.

La principale raison de cet échec tient à l’absence de solidarité des autres Etats de l’UE à l’égard de la Grèce et, dans une moindre mesure, de l’Italie. Car les promesses de « relocalisation » n’ont pas été tenues : sur les 160 000 demandeurs d’asile qui auraient dû être transférés en 2015, 30 000 seulement ont bénéficié de ce programme.

La France, qui s’était engagée pour 30 000, en a accueilli moins du tiers. Un signe, s’il en était besoin, que les pays européens répugnent à remplir leurs obligations internationales à l’égard des réfugiés, malgré le nombre dérisoire de ceux qui frappent à leur porte, au regard des désordres du monde.

On se souvient de l’affaire d’Etat qu’a suscitée l’arrivée à Toulon, au mois de novembre 2022, de l’Ocean Viking, ce bateau humanitaire qui a débarqué quelque 230 boat people sauvés du naufrage, immédiatement placés en détention.

Emboîtant le pas d’une partie de la classe politique qui s’est empressée de crier à l’invasion, le ministre de l’Intérieur avait annoncé que la plupart seraient expulsés – avant que la justice ordonne leur mise en liberté.
Quelle efficacité ?

On peine à croire, dans ce contexte, que les promesses de 2023 seront mieux tenues que celles de 2015. Si le nouveau « mécanisme de solidarité » est présenté comme « obligatoire », le communiqué du Conseil de l’UE ajoute qu’il sera « flexible », et qu’« aucun Etat membre ne sera obligé de procéder à des relocalisations » !

Une façon de prévenir l’opposition frontale de quelques pays, comme la Pologne ou la Hongrie, dont le Premier ministre a déjà fait savoir que le programme de relocalisation imposé par Bruxelles était « inacceptable ». Sur cette base, le système de compensation financière imaginé pour mettre au pas les récalcitrants n’a guère plus de chances de fonctionner.

De nombreux commentateurs ont salué l’accord conclu le 8 juin comme l’étape inespérée d’un processus qui paraissait enlisé depuis plusieurs années. Ils voient surtout dans ce texte de compromis un espoir de voir la réforme de l’asile adoptée avant le renouvellement, en 2024, du Parlement européen, pour éviter que ces questions ne phagocytent la campagne électorale.

C’est une analyse à courte vue. Car il y a tout lieu de craindre que cette réforme, qui s’inscrit dans la continuité d’une politique européenne de rejet des exilés, ne fera qu’intensifier le déséquilibre constaté par les Nations unies dans la répartition mondiale des réfugiés. Et poussera toujours davantage ceux-ci vers les routes migratoires qui font de l’Europe la destination la plus dangereuse du monde.

▻https://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/claire-rodier/leurope-se-ferme-un-plus-aux-refugies/00107291

#Claire_Rodier

Pacte européen sur la migration et l’asile : repartir sur d’autres bases

La présidence belge de l’UE qui aura lieu en 2024 ambitionne de faire adopter le nouveau pacte européen sur la migration et l’asile. L’approche qui domine est essentiellement répressive et contraire aux droits fondamentaux. Elle ne répond pas aux enjeux des migrations internationales. A ce stade, le pacte ne semble plus pouvoir apporter une amélioration à la situation des personnes exilées. Il faut donc y mettre fin et redémarrer les discussions sur base d’une approche radicalement différente.
Le nouveau pacte UE : le phénix de Moria ?

En septembre 2020, à la suite de l’incendie meurtrier du hotspot grec surpeuplé et insalubre de Moria (centre d’enregistrement et de tri mis en place lors de la crise de l’accueil de 2015), la Commission européenne a présenté son projet de pacte sur la migration et l’asile. Celui-ci est censé répondre au « plus jamais ça » et offrir « un modèle de gestion prévisible et stable des migrations internationales ». Il est décrit par Margarítis Schinás, vice-président de la Commission, chargé des Migrations et de la promotion du mode de vie européen, comme une maison commune dont les fondations sont l’externalisation, les étages sont les contrôles aux frontières, et le grenier est l’accueil.

Mais le nouvel « air frais » annoncé n’est en réalité qu’un air vicié. Ce pacte présente en effet les mêmes solutions inefficaces, couteuses et violatrices des droits qui dès lors continueront de produire inévitablement les mêmes crises structurelles de l’accueil et l’aggravation des situations humanitaires et meurtrières le long des routes de l’exil. De nombreuses études documentées, depuis plus d’une vingtaine d’années, analysent l’impact d’une politique migratoire basée sur l’externalisation des frontières ainsi qu’une vision restrictive de l’accueil, et montrent ses dérives et son inefficacité

.
Un pacte contre les migrations : détenir, trier, expulser

Le projet de Pacte repose sur cinq règlements législatifs et quelques recommandations et lignes directrices. Ceux-ci concernent respectivement : les procédures et contrôles aux frontières (APR et Filtrage), le Règlement de Dublin (AMMR), la gestion des crises aux frontières, l’enregistrement, ainsi que le partage des données numériques des personnes exilées (EURODAC)

.

A ce jour, les négociations autour du nouveau pacte européen sur la migration et l’asile sont au stade ultime du trilogue

. La Présidence belge de l’Union européenne, qui aura lieu au premier semestre 2024, ambitionne d’aboutir à son adoption. Les positions de la Commission (septembre 2020), du Parlement (mars 2023) et du Conseil (juin 2023) sont, malgré des nuances, globalement similaires.

L’orientation répressive et sélective des personnes exilées tout comme l’externalisation des questions migratoires dominent le contenu du pacte. Il est donc inéluctable, qu’une fois le trilogue terminé et le pacte en voie d’être adopté, la mise en œuvre par les Etats membres de ces cinq règlements occasionnera pour les personnes exilées :

– une pérennisation des entraves, contrôles et criminalisation de leurs départs avec des risques de refoulements en chaîne, y compris vers des pays aussi dangereux que la Lybie et la Syrie ;
- une procédure de filtrage ou tri avec une fiction de non entrée, à savoir que les droits et devoirs garantis sur le territoire européen ne leur sont pas applicables, malgré leur présence sur ce territoire ;
- une mise en détention quasi systématique aux frontières y compris pour les enfants dès douze ans avec la possibilité de prolongation en cas de situation dite de crise ;
– une procédure express d’analyse des demandes de protection qui est incompatible avec une réelle prise en compte des vulnérabilités notamment chez les mineurs, les femmes et les personnes LGBTQI+ ;
– des décisions rapides d’expulsions sur base du concept de pays tiers « sûrs » avec un recours non suspensif ;
– la récolte obligatoire, l’enregistrement et le partage des données personnelles entre agences européennes (Frontex, Europol, EASO etc.) et ce, dès l’âge de 6 ans ;
- un système d’accueil à la carte est envisagé par le Conseil où les 27 auront le choix entre la relocalisation ou la participation financière à un pot commun européen en vue de financer notamment la dimension externe du pacte. Il s’agit du seul progrès par rapport à la situation actuelle, mais la Hongrie et la Pologne, malgré la position prise à la majorité qualifiée au Conseil de juin 2023, ont déjà annoncé leur refus d’y participer.

Il est clair qu’avec ce type de mesures, le droit d’asile est en danger, les violences et le nombre de décès sur les routes de l’exil (faute de voies légales accessibles et de refoulements systématiques) vont augmenter et que les crises structurelles de l’accueil ne pourront être résolues.
Le respect des droits des personnes exilées est résiduel

La situation actuelle des migrations internationales exige des solutions immédiates et durables vu l’étendue du non-respect des droits fondamentaux des personnes exilées et du droit international.
Selon l’ONU, près de 300 enfants sont morts depuis le début de l’année 2023

en essayant de traverser la Méditerranée pour atteindre l’Europe. « Ce chiffre est deux fois plus important que celui des six premiers mois de l’année 2022. Nous estimons qu’au cours des six premiers mois de 2023, 11 600 enfants ont effectué la traversée, soit également le double par rapport à la même période de 2022. Ces décès sont absolument évitables », a souligné la responsable aux migrations et aux déplacés à l’Unicef, Verena Knaus. Les chiffres réels sont probablement plus élevés car de nombreux naufrages ne sont pas enregistrés.

Le racisme et la répression contre les personnes exilées augmentent en Europe et dans les pays du Maghreb, entrainant à leur tour des refoulements systématiques impunis parfois même sous la surveillance de Frontex. Le récent naufrage de Pylos
au large des côtes grecques et les refoulements effectués depuis la Tunisie dans le désert aux frontières algériennes et libyennes en sont les dramatiques illustrations.
Quant au volet de l’accueil, il fait l’objet de profonds désaccords. Premièrement, les pays du « MED5 » (Italie, Espagne, Grèce, Malte et Chypre) se disent toujours seuls à assumer la responsabilité de l’accueil sur le sol européen. D’autres pays comme la Belgique se disent également victimes des mouvements secondaires. Face à eux, les pays du groupe de Visegrad (Pologne, Hongrie, Tchéquie, Slovaquie) bloquent tout mécanisme de répartition solidaire. Au niveau européen, la Commission promeut, comme elle l’a fait en juillet 2023 avec la Tunisie, l’adoption de protocoles d’entente avec des Etats peu respectueux des droits humains comme le Maroc et l’Egypte. Cela en vue de limiter la mobilité vers et en Europe. Ces partenariats ont un objectif essentiellement sécuritaire (matériel et formations des garde-côtes aux services du contrôle des frontières et des retours) et n’abordent pas les questions de protection et intégration des personnes migrantes dans les pays du Sud et du Nord

.
La solution : suspendre les négociations en repartant sur d’autres bases

Ni la vision générale du Pacte, ni le contenu de ses cinq règlements législatifs ne répondent aux nombreux défis et opportunités que représentent les migrations internationales. Comme l’a démontré Alice Chatté dans son analyse Regard juridique sur les cinq volets législatifs du pacte européen sur la migration et l’asile

, « les cinq instruments législatifs proposés dans le pacte, qu’ils soient nouveaux ou réformés, ne sont en réalité que la transcription en instruments légaux des pratiques actuelles des Etats membres, qui ont hélas montré leurs faiblesses et dysfonctionnements. Cela se traduit par des procédures, dorénavant légales, qui autorisent le tri et le recours à la détention systématique à l’ensemble des frontières européennes ainsi que l’examen accéléré des demandes de protection internationale sur base du concept de pays « sûrs » favorisant de facto les pratiques de refoulement et le non-accueil au bénéfice du retour forcé ». Elle ajoute que « le projet du pacte, ainsi que les cinq règlements qui le traduisent juridiquement, ne respectent pas les droits fondamentaux des personnes exilées. Il est en l’état incompatible avec le respect du droit international et européen, ainsi qu’avec le Pacte mondial sur les migrations des Nations Unies ».

A ce stade final du trilogue, les positions des trois Institutions (Commission, Parlement, et Conseil) ne divergent pas fondamentalement entre elles. Les quelques améliorations défendues par le Parlement (dont un monitoring des droits fondamentaux aux frontières et une réforme des critères du Règlement Dublin), sont insuffisantes pour constituer une base de négociation et risquent de ne pas survivre aux négociations ardues du trilogue

. Puisque le Pacte ne peut plus suffisamment être réformé pour apporter une amélioration immédiate et durable à la situation des personnes exilées, il faut donc se résoudre à mettre fin aux négociations en cours pour repartir sur de nouvelles bases, respectueuses des droits humains et des principes des Pactes mondiaux sur les migrations et sur les réfugiés.
La Présidence belge de l’UE doit promouvoir la justice migratoire

Face aux dérives constatées dans de nombreux Etats membres, y compris la Belgique, condamnée à de nombreuses reprises par la justice pour son manque de respect des droits fondamentaux des personnes en demande d’asile, une approche européenne s’impose. Celle-ci doit être basée sur une approche multilatérale, cohérente et positive des migrations internationales, guidée par le respect des droits fondamentaux des personnes exilées et par la solidarité. Le Pacte mondial des migrations des Nations unies adopté en 2018 et la gestion de l’accueil en 2022 d’une partie de la population ukrainienne sont des sources d’inspiration pour refonder les politiques migratoires de l’Union européenne. Plutôt que de chercher à faire aboutir un pacte qui institutionnalise des pratiques de violation des droits humains, la future Présidence belge de l’UE devrait promouvoir une telle vision, afin de promouvoir le respect du droit d’asile et, plus largement, la #justice_migratoire.

▻https://www.cncd.be/Pacte-europeen-sur-la-migration-et

Août 2023 :
A #Briançon, l’accueil des migrants de plus en plus compliqué : « Ce n’est plus gérable »
►https://seenthis.net/messages/1012315

Pesticides et santé – Nouvelles données (2021)

Ce document présente la synthèse issue des travaux du groupe d’experts réunis par l’Inserm dans le cadre de la procédure d’expertise collective pour répondre à la demande de cinq directions de l’État, la Direction générale de la prévention des risques, la Direction générale de la santé, la Direction générale du travail, la Direction générale de la recherche et de l’innovation, ainsi que le secrétariat général du ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation. Ce travail s’inscrit dans le cadre de l’actualisation du rapport d’expertise collective Inserm intitulé Pesticides : Effets sur la santé, publié en 2013.

Ce travail s’appuie essentiellement sur les données issues de la littérature scientifique disponible en date du premier trimestre 2020. Plus de 5 300 documents ont été rassemblés à partir de l’interrogation de différentes bases de données (PubMed/ Medline, Scopus, Cairn...) et des recherches complémentaires ont été effectuées par les experts ou en collaboration avec le Pôle expertise collective. Le Pôle expertise collective de l’Inserm, rattaché à l’Institut thématique Santé publique, a assuré la coordination de cette expertise.

Les pesticides regroupent l’ensemble des produits utilisés pour lutter contre les espèces végétales indésirables et les organismes jugés nuisibles. Qu’il s’agisse de pesticides autorisés aujourd’hui ou utilisés par le passé (dont certains sont rémanents), ils suscitent des inquiétudes concernant leurs effets possibles sur la santé humaine et plus largement sur l’environnement. Afin de mieux apprécier leurs effets sanitaires, l’Inserm a été saisi en 2018 par cinq directions générales ministérielles en vue d’actualiser l’expertise collective intitulée « Pesticides : Effets sur la santé » publiée en 2013.

L’expertise collective de 2021 dresse un bilan des connaissances dans le domaine au travers d’une analyse critique de la littérature scientifique internationale publiée depuis 2013. Plus de 5 300 documents ont été rassemblés et analysés par un groupe d’experts multidisciplinaire. L’expertise commence par une analyse sociologique de la montée des préoccupations concernant les pesticides et une présentation des connaissances sur l’exposition aux pesticides de la population française, puis elle aborde une vingtaine de #pathologies dont les #troubles_du_développement_neuropsychologique_et_moteur de l’enfant, les #troubles_cognitifs et anxio-dépressifs de l’adulte, les #maladies_neurodégénératives, les cancers de l’#enfant et de l’adulte, l’#endométriose et les #pathologies_respiratoires ainsi que thyroïdiennes. Une dernière partie est consacrée à des pesticides ou familles de pesticides particuliers : le #chlordécone, le #glyphosate et les #fongicides_inhibiteurs_de_la_succinate_déshydrogénase (#SDHi). La présomption d’un lien entre l’exposition aux pesticides et la survenue d’une pathologie est appréciée à partir des résultats des #études_épidémiologiques évaluées et est qualifiée de forte, moyenne ou faible. Ces résultats sont mis en perspective avec ceux des #études_toxicologiques pour évaluer la plausibilité biologique des liens observés.

Exposition en milieu professionnel

En considérant les études sur des populations qui manipulent ou sont en contact avec des pesticides régulièrement, et qui sont a priori les plus exposées, l’expertise confirme la présomption forte d’un lien entre l’exposition aux pesticides et six pathologies : #lymphomeslymphomes_non_hodgkiniens (#LNH), #myélome multiple, cancer de la #prostate, #maladie_de_Parkinson, troubles cognitifs, #bronchopneumopathie chronique obstructive et #bronchite chronique. Pour les LNH, il a été possible de préciser des liens (présomption forte) avec des substances actives (#malathion, #diazinon, #lindane, #DDT) et avec une famille chimique de pesticides (#organophosphorés), et pour la maladie de Parkinson et les troubles cognitifs avec les #insecticides organochlorés et les organophosphorés, respectivement. Il s’agit essentiellement de pesticides pour lesquels les études se sont appuyées sur des biomarqueurs permettant de quantifier l’exposition. Les études toxicologiques confirment que les mécanismes d’action de ces substances actives et familles de pesticides sont susceptibles de conduire aux effets sanitaires mis en évidence par les études épidémiologiques.

Des liens ont été identifiés pour d’autres pathologies ou événements de santé avec une présomption moyenne. C’est le cas notamment pour la maladie d’#Alzheimer, les troubles anxio-dépressifs, certains cancers (#leucémies, système nerveux central, vessie, rein, sarcomes des tissus mous), l’#asthme et les #sifflements_respiratoires, et les pathologies thyroïdiennes.

Exposition pendant la #grossesse ou l’#enfance

Les études épidémiologiques sur les cancers de l’enfant permettent de conclure à une présomption forte de lien entre l’exposition aux pesticides de la mère pendant la grossesse (exposition professionnelle ou par utilisation domestique) ou chez l’enfant et le risque de certains cancers, en particulier les leucémies et les tumeurs du système nerveux central.

Les études de cohortes mères-enfants ont permis de caractériser les liens entre l’exposition professionnelle ou environnementale (c’est-à-dire en population générale) des mères pendant la grossesse et les troubles du développement neuropsychologique et moteur de l’enfant. Il est difficile de pointer des substances actives en particulier, mais certaines familles chimiques de pesticides sont impliquées, avec un niveau de présomption fort, notamment les #insecticides organophosphorés et les #pyréthrinoïdes dont l’usage a augmenté en substitution aux insecticides organophosphorés. Le lien entre les #organophosphorés et l’altération des #capacités_motrices, cognitives et des fonctions sensorielles de l’enfant est confirmé et les nouvelles études sur les #pyréthrinoïdes mettent en évidence un lien entre l’exposition pendant la grossesse et l’augmentation des #troubles_du_comportement de type internalisé tels que l’#anxiété chez les enfants. Les données expérimentales sur des rongeurs suggèrent une #hyperperméabilité de la barrière hémato-encéphalique aux #pyréthrinoïdes aux stades les plus précoces du développement, confortant la plausibilité biologique de ce lien. De plus, comme le montrent les études récentes d’expologie, ces insecticides, qui ont été à la fois utilisés en #agriculture mais également dans les sphères domestiques, induisent une contamination fréquente des environnements intérieurs.

Exposition des #riverains des #zones_agricoles

Les populations riveraines des zones agricoles peuvent être concernées par la dérive des produits épandus sur les cultures. En effet, des études suggèrent une influence de la #proximité aux zones agricoles sur la #contamination par les pesticides du lieu de vie, variable selon les substances, leur mode d’application et la manière d’estimer l’exposition. Des études écologiques ou cas-témoins avec géolocalisation reposant sur la caractérisation de l’activité agricole au voisinage des adresses de résidences suggèrent un lien entre l’exposition des riverains des terres agricoles et la maladie de #Parkinson, et également entre la #proximité_résidentielle à des zones d’#épandages de pesticides (rayon <1,5 km) et le comportement évocateur des troubles du spectre autistique chez l’enfant. Cependant, ces études présentent des limites importantes liées à l’évaluation fine de l’exposition ou à l’absence de données individuelles, ce qui rend le niveau de présomption faible.

Focus sur le chlordécone, le glyphosate et les inhibiteurs de la succinate déshydrogénase

Le chlordécone, #insecticide utilisé aux #Antilles_françaises dans le passé, persiste de nos jours dans les milieux naturels insulaires. La consommation des denrées alimentaires contaminées a entraîné une contamination de l’ensemble de la population. La présomption forte d’un lien entre l’exposition au chlordécone de la population générale et le risque de survenue de #cancer_de_la_prostate a été confirmée. En considérant l’ensemble des données épidémiologiques et toxicologiques disponibles, la causalité de la relation est jugée vraisemblable.

Concernant l’herbicide glyphosate, l’expertise a conclu à l’existence d’un risque accru de LNH avec une présomption moyenne de lien. D’autres sur-risques sont évoqués pour le #myélome multiple et les #leucémies, mais les résultats sont moins solides (présomption faible). Une analyse des études toxicologiques montre que les essais de #mutagénicité sur le glyphosate sont plutôt négatifs, alors que les essais de #génotoxicité sont plutôt positifs, ce qui est cohérent avec l’induction d’un stress oxydantstress oxydant. Les études de cancérogenèse expérimentale chez les rongeurs montrent des excès de cas, mais ne sont pas convergentes. Elles observent des #tumeurs différentes, pour les mâles ou les femelles, qui ne se produisent qu’à des doses très élevées et uniquement sur certaines lignées. D’autres mécanismes de #toxicité (effets intergénérationnels, perturbation du microbiote...) sont évoqués qu’il serait intéressant de considérer dans les procédures d’évaluation réglementaire.

Pour les fongicides SDHi, qui perturbent le fonctionnement mitochondrial par l’inhibition de l’activité SDH, un complexe enzymatique impliqué dans la respiration cellulaire et le #cycle_de_Krebs, il n’existe à ce jour pratiquement aucune donnée épidémiologique portant sur les effets possibles de ces substances sur la santé des agriculteurs ou de la population générale. Les études toxicologiques ou mécanistiques montrent que certains SDHi pourraient être considérés comme des #perturbateurs_endocriniens au moins chez les modèles animaux utilisés (poissons). Alors que les SDHi ne présentent aucune génotoxicité, certains montrent des effets cancérogènes chez les rongeurs mais ce résultat est discuté sur la base d’un mécanisme de cancérogenèse non extrapolable aux humains. Des recherches sont nécessaires pour améliorer l’évaluation du potentiel cancérogène des SDHi, et plus généralement des composés non génotoxiques, et pour combler les lacunes dans les données humaines par le renforcement de la biosurveillance et l’exploitation des cohortes existantes.

En conclusion

L’expertise souligne l’importance de réévaluer périodiquement les connaissances dans ce domaine. La confirmation et la mise en évidence de présomptions fortes de liens entre certaines pathologies et l’exposition aux pesticides doivent orienter les actions publiques vers une meilleure protection des populations. Ces questions relatives aux liens entre une exposition aux pesticides et la survenue de certaines pathologies s’inscrivent dans une complexité croissante, la littérature faisant apparaître une préoccupation concernant les effets indirects de certains pesticides sur la santé humaine par le biais des effets sur les #écosystèmes. L’#interdépendance en jeu mériterait d’être davantage étudiée et intégrée, au même titre que les aspects sociaux et économiques afin d’éclairer les prises de décisions lors de l’élaboration des politiques publiques.

https://www.inserm.fr/information-en-sante/expertises-collectives/pesticides-effets-sur-sante

Pour télécharger l’étude :

https://i.imgur.com/fPBSFKL.png

#toxicologie #thyroïde #autisme

depuis ce printemps c’est quasiment 100 personnes en moyenne pour un refuge prévu au départ pour offrir 15 places... les bénévoles s’épuisent, les problèmes de promiscuité et d’hygiène sont récurrents mais ni la mairie ni l’état ne font le moindre geste à part augmenter encore le nombre de gendarmes, CRS et militaires pour « jouer » à la chasse à l’homme sur la frontière !
Le but « inavoué » serait il de décourager les bonnes volontés et de tarir la légendaire hospitalité des Briançonnais ?

Face à la haine et aux amalgames : « Redonner ses lettres de noblesse à la solidarité et à l’#hospitalité française »
►https://seenthis.net/messages/890230

#Carnets_de_solidarité : la web-série qui change le regard sur l’hospitalité
►https://seenthis.net/messages/839600

En fait, ça a baissé…

Tribune de #Aldo_Brina publiée dans Le Courrier, le 18.09.2020 :

https://i.imgur.com/IaxQVqI.png

Immigration : le règlement de Dublin, l’impossible #réforme ?

En voulant abroger le règlement de Dublin, qui impose la responsabilité des demandeurs d’asile au premier pays d’entrée dans l’Union européenne, Bruxelles reconnaît des dysfonctionnements dans l’accueil des migrants. Mais les Vingt-Sept, plus que jamais divisés sur cette question, sont-ils prêts à une refonte du texte ? Éléments de réponses.

Ursula Von der Leyen en a fait une des priorités de son mandat : réformer le règlement de Dublin, qui impose au premier pays de l’UE dans lequel le migrant est arrivé de traiter sa demande d’asile. « Je peux annoncer que nous allons [l’]abolir et le remplacer par un nouveau système européen de gouvernance de la migration », a déclaré la présidente de la Commission européenne mercredi 16 septembre, devant le Parlement.

Les États dotés de frontières extérieures comme la Grèce, l’Italie ou Malte se sont réjouis de cette annonce. Ils s’estiment lésés par ce règlement en raison de leur situation géographique qui les place en première ligne.

La présidente de la Commission européenne doit présenter, le 23 septembre, une nouvelle version de la politique migratoire, jusqu’ici maintes fois repoussée. « Il y aura des structures communes pour l’asile et le retour. Et il y aura un nouveau mécanisme fort de solidarité », a-t-elle poursuivi. Un terme fort à l’heure où l’incendie du camp de Moria sur l’île grecque de Lesbos, plus de 8 000 adultes et 4 000 enfants à la rue, a révélé le manque d’entraide entre pays européens.

Pour mieux comprendre l’enjeu de cette nouvelle réforme européenne de la politique migratoire, France 24 décrypte le règlement de Dublin qui divise tant les Vingt-Sept, en particulier depuis la crise migratoire de 2015.

Pourquoi le règlement de Dublin dysfonctionne ?

Les failles ont toujours existé mais ont été révélées par la crise migratoire de 2015, estiment les experts de politique migratoire. Ce texte signé en 2013 et qu’on appelle « Dublin III » repose sur un accord entre les membres de l’Union européenne ainsi que la Suisse, l’Islande, la Norvège et le Liechtenstein. Il prévoit que l’examen de la demande d’asile d’un exilé incombe au premier pays d’entrée en Europe. Si un migrant passé par l’Italie arrive par exemple en France, les autorités françaises ne sont, en théorie, pas tenu d’enregistrer la demande du Dubliné.
© Union européenne | Les pays signataires du règlement de Dublin.

http://s.france24.com/media/display/880e57ba-f8f4-11ea-bbf6-005056a98db9/Union%20europeenne%20reglement%20de%20dublin.png

Face à l’afflux de réfugiés ces dernières années, les pays dotés de frontières extérieures, comme la Grèce et l’Italie, se sont estimés abandonnés par le reste de l’Europe. « La charge est trop importante pour ce bloc méditerranéen », estime Matthieu Tardis, chercheur au Centre migrations et citoyennetés de l’Ifri (Institut français des relations internationales). Le texte est pensé « comme un mécanisme de responsabilité des États et non de solidarité », estime-t-il.

Sa mise en application est aussi difficile à mettre en place. La France et l’Allemagne, qui concentrent la majorité des demandes d’asile depuis le début des années 2000, peinent à renvoyer les Dublinés. Dans l’Hexagone, seulement 11,5 % ont été transférés dans le pays d’entrée. Outre-Rhin, le taux ne dépasse pas les 15 %. Conséquence : nombre d’entre eux restent « bloqués » dans les camps de migrants à Calais ou dans le nord de Paris.

Le délai d’attente pour les demandeurs d’asile est aussi jugé trop long. Un réfugié passé par l’Italie, qui vient déposer une demande d’asile en France, peut attendre jusqu’à 18 mois avant d’avoir un retour. « Durant cette période, il se retrouve dans une situation d’incertitude très dommageable pour lui mais aussi pour l’Union européenne. C’est un système perdant-perdant », commente Matthieu Tardis.

Ce règlement n’est pas adapté aux demandeurs d’asile, surenchérit-on à la Cimade (Comité inter-mouvements auprès des évacués). Dans un rapport, l’organisation qualifie ce système de « machine infernale de l’asile européen ». « Il ne tient pas compte des liens familiaux ni des langues parlées par les réfugiés », précise le responsable asile de l’association, Gérard Sadik.

Sept ans après avoir vu le jour, le règlement s’est vu porter le coup de grâce par le confinement lié aux conditions sanitaires pour lutter contre le Covid-19. « Durant cette période, aucun transfert n’a eu lieu », assure-t-on à la Cimade.

Le mécanisme de solidarité peut-il le remplacer ?

« Il y aura un nouveau mécanisme fort de solidarité », a promis Ursula von der Leyen, sans donné plus de précision. Sur ce point, on sait déjà que les positions divergent, voire s’opposent, entre les Vingt-Sept.

Le bloc du nord-ouest (Allemagne, France, Autriche, Benelux) reste ancré sur le principe actuel de responsabilité, mais accepte de l’accompagner d’un mécanisme de solidarité. Sur quels critères se base la répartition du nombre de demandeurs d’asile ? Comment les sélectionner ? Aucune décision n’est encore actée. « Ils sont prêts à des compromis car ils veulent montrer que l’Union européenne peut avancer et agir sur la question migratoire », assure Matthieu Tardis.

En revanche, le groupe dit de Visegrad (Hongrie, Pologne, République tchèque, Slovaquie), peu enclin à l’accueil, rejette catégoriquement tout principe de solidarité. « Ils se disent prêts à envoyer des moyens financiers, du personnel pour le contrôle aux frontières mais refusent de recevoir les demandeurs d’asile », détaille le chercheur de l’Ifri.

Quant au bloc Méditerranée (Grèce, Italie, Malte , Chypre, Espagne), des questions subsistent sur la proposition du bloc nord-ouest : le mécanisme de solidarité sera-t-il activé de façon permanente ou exceptionnelle ? Quelles populations sont éligibles au droit d’asile ? Et qui est responsable du retour ? « Depuis le retrait de la Ligue du Nord de la coalition dans le gouvernement italien, le dialogue est à nouveau possible », avance Matthieu Tardis.

Un accord semble toutefois indispensable pour montrer que l’Union européenne n’est pas totalement en faillite sur ce dossier. « Mais le bloc de Visegrad n’a pas forcément en tête cet enjeu », nuance-t-il. Seule la situation sanitaire liée au Covid-19, qui place les pays de l’Est dans une situation économique fragile, pourrait faire évoluer leur position, note le chercheur.

Et le mécanisme par répartition ?

Le mécanisme par répartition, dans les tuyaux depuis 2016, revient régulièrement sur la table des négociations. Son principe : la capacité d’accueil du pays dépend de ses poids démographique et économique. Elle serait de 30 % pour l’Allemagne, contre un tiers des demandes aujourd’hui, et 20 % pour la France, qui en recense 18 %. « Ce serait une option gagnante pour ces deux pays, mais pas pour le bloc du Visegrad qui s’y oppose », décrypte Gérard Sadik, le responsable asile de la Cimade.

Cette doctrine reposerait sur un système informatisé, qui recenserait dans une seule base toutes les données des demandeurs d’asile. Mais l’usage de l’intelligence artificielle au profit de la procédure administrative ne présente pas que des avantages, aux yeux de la Cimade : « L’algorithme ne sera pas en mesure de tenir compte des liens familiaux des demandeurs d’asile », juge Gérard Sadik.

Quelles chances pour une refonte ?

L’Union européenne a déjà tenté plusieurs fois de réformer ce serpent de mer. Un texte dit « Dublin IV » était déjà dans les tuyaux depuis 2016, en proposant par exemple que la responsabilité du premier État d’accueil soit définitive, mais il a été enterré face aux dissensions internes.

Reste à savoir quel est le contenu exact de la nouvelle version qui sera présentée le 23 septembre par Ursula Van der Leyen. À la Cimade, on craint un durcissement de la politique migratoire, et notamment un renforcement du contrôle aux frontières.

Quoi qu’il en soit, les négociations s’annoncent « compliquées et difficiles » car « les intérêts des pays membres ne sont pas les mêmes », a rappelé le ministre grec adjoint des Migrations, Giorgos Koumoutsakos, jeudi 17 septembre. Et surtout, la nouvelle mouture devra obtenir l’accord du Parlement, mais aussi celui des États. La refonte est encore loin.

▻https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/27376/immigration-le-reglement-de-dublin-l-impossible-reforme

#gouvernance #Ursula_Von_der_Leyen #mécanisme_de_solidarité #responsabilité #groupe_de_Visegrad #solidarité #répartition #mécanisme_par_répartition #capacité_d'accueil #intelligence_artificielle #algorithme #Dublin_IV

Germany’s #Seehofer cautiously optimistic on EU asylum reform

For the first time during the German Presidency, EU interior ministers exchanged views on reforms of the EU asylum system. German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer (CSU) expressed “justified confidence” that a deal can be found. EURACTIV Germany reports.

The focus of Tuesday’s (7 July) informal video conference of interior ministers was on the expansion of police cooperation and sea rescue, which, according to Seehofer, is one of the “Big Four” topics of the German Council Presidency, integrated into a reform of the #Common_European_Asylum_System (#CEAS).

Following the meeting, the EU Commissioner for Home Affairs, Ylva Johansson, spoke of an “excellent start to the Presidency,” and Seehofer also praised the “constructive discussions.” In the field of asylum policy, she said that it had become clear that all member states were “highly interested in positive solutions.”

The interior ministers were unanimous in their desire to further strengthen police cooperation and expand both the mandates and the financial resources of Europol and Frontex.

Regarding the question of the distribution of refugees, Seehofer said that he had “heard statements that [he] had not heard in years prior.” He said that almost all member states were “prepared to show solidarity in different ways.”

While about a dozen member states would like to participate in the distribution of those rescued from distress at the EU’s external borders in the event of a “disproportionate burden” on the states, other states signalled that they wanted to make control vessels, financial means or personnel available to prevent smuggling activities and stem migration across the Mediterranean.

Seehofer’s final act

It will probably be Seehofer’s last attempt to initiate CEAS reform. He announced in May that he would withdraw completely from politics after the end of the legislative period in autumn 2021.

Now it seems that he considers CEAS reform as his last great mission, Seehofer said that he intends to address the migration issue from late summer onwards “with all I have at my disposal.” adding that Tuesday’s (7 July) talks had “once again kindled a real fire” in him. To this end, he plans to leave the official business of the Interior Ministry “in day-to-day matters” largely to the State Secretaries.

Seehofer’s shift of priorities to the European stage comes at a time when he is being sharply criticised in Germany.

While his initial handling of a controversial newspaper column about the police published in Berlin’s tageszeitung prompted criticism, Seehofer now faces accusations of concealing structural racism in the police. Seehofer had announced over the weekend that, contrary to the recommendation of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), he would not commission a study on racial profiling in the police force after all.

Seehofer: “One step is not enough”

In recent months, Seehofer has made several attempts to set up a distribution mechanism for rescued persons in distress. On several occasions he accused the Commission of letting member states down by not solving the asylum question.

“I have the ambition to make a great leap. One step would be too little in our presidency,” said Seehofer during Tuesday’s press conference. However, much depends on when the Commission will present its long-awaited migration pact, as its proposals are intended to serve as a basis for negotiations on CEAS reform.

As Johansson said on Tuesday, this is planned for September. Seehofer thus only has just under four months to get the first Council conclusions through. “There will not be enough time for legislation,” he said.

Until a permanent solution is found, ad hoc solutions will continue. A “sustainable solution” should include better cooperation with the countries of origin and transit, as the member states agreed on Tuesday.

To this end, “agreements on the repatriation of refugees” are now to be reached with North African countries. A first step towards this will be taken next Monday (13 July), at a joint conference with North African leaders.

▻https://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/germany-eyes-breakthrough-in-eu-migration-dispute-this-year

#Europol #Frontex

Relocation, solidarity mandatory for EU migration policy: #Johansson

In an interview with ANSA and other European media outlets, EU Commissioner for Home Affairs #Ylva_Johansson explained the new migration and asylum pact due to be unveiled on September 23, stressing that nobody will find ideal solutions but rather a well-balanced compromise that will ’’improve the situation’’.

European Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson has explained in an interview with a group of European journalists, including ANSA, a new pact on asylum and migration to be presented on September 23. She touched on rules for countries of first entry, a new mechanism of mandatory solidarity, fast repatriations and refugee relocation.

The Swedish commissioner said that no one will find ideal solutions in the European Commission’s new asylum and migration proposal but rather a good compromise that “will improve the situation”.

She said the debate to change the asylum regulation known as Dublin needs to be played down in order to find an agreement. Johansson said an earlier 2016 reform plan would be withdrawn as it ’’caused the majority’’ of conflicts among countries.

A new proposal that will replace the current one and amend the existing Dublin regulation will be presented, she explained.

The current regulation will not be completely abolished but rules regarding frontline countries will change. Under the new proposal, migrants can still be sent back to the country responsible for their asylum request, explained the commissioner, adding that amendments will be made but the country of first entry will ’’remain important’’.

’’Voluntary solidarity is not enough," there has to be a “mandatory solidarity mechanism,” Johansson noted.

Countries will need to help according to their size and possibilities. A member state needs to show solidarity ’’in accordance with the capacity and size’’ of its economy. There will be no easy way out with the possibility of ’’just sending some blankets’’ - efforts must be proportional to the size and capabilities of member states, she said.
Relocations are a divisive theme

Relocations will be made in a way that ’’can be possible to accept for all member states’’, the commissioner explained. The issue of mandatory quotas is extremely divisive, she went on to say. ’’The sentence of the European Court of Justice has established that they can be made’’.

However, the theme is extremely divisive. Many of those who arrive in Europe are not eligible for international protection and must be repatriated, she said, wondering if it is a good idea to relocate those who need to be repatriated.

“We are looking for a way to bring the necessary aid to countries under pressure.”

“Relocation is an important part, but also” it must be done “in a way that can be possible to accept for all member states,” she noted.

Moreover, Johansson said the system will not be too rigid as the union should prepare for different scenarios.
Faster repatriations

Repatriations will be a key part of the plan, with faster bureaucratic procedures, she said. The 2016 reform proposal was made following the 2015 migration crisis, when two million people, 90% of whom were refugees, reached the EU irregularly. For this reason, the plan focused on relocations, she explained.

Now the situation is completely different: last year 2.4 million stay permits were issued, the majority for reasons connected to family, work or education. Just 140,000 people migrated irregularly and only one-third were refugees while two-thirds will need to be repatriated.

For this reason, stressed the commissioner, the new plan will focus on repatriation. Faster procedures are necessary, she noted. When people stay in a country for years it is very hard to organize repatriations, especially voluntary ones. So the objective is for a negative asylum decision “to come together with a return decision.”

Also, the permanence in hosting centers should be of short duration. Speaking about a fire at the Moria camp on the Greek island of Lesbos where more than 12,000 asylum seekers have been stranded for years, the commissioner said the situation was the ’’result of lack of European policy on asylum and migration."

“We shall have no more Morias’’, she noted, calling for well-managed hosting centers along with limits to permanence.

A win-win collaboration will instead be planned with third countries, she said. ’’The external aspect is very important. We have to work on good partnerships with third countries, supporting them and finding win-win solutions for readmissions and for the fight against traffickers. We have to develop legal pathways to come to the EU, in particular with resettlements, a policy that needs to be strengthened.”

The commissioner then rejected the idea of opening hosting centers in third countries, an idea for example proposed by Denmark.

“It is not the direction I intend to take. We will not export the right to asylum.”

The commissioner said she was very concerned by reports of refoulements. Her objective, she concluded, is to “include in the pact a monitoring mechanism. The right to asylum must be defended.”

▻https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/27447/relocation-solidarity-mandatory-for-eu-migration-policy-johansson

#relocalisation #solidarité_obligatoire #solidarité_volontaire #pays_de_première_entrée #renvois #expulsions #réinstallations #voies_légales

Droit d’asile : Bruxelles rate son « #pacte »

La Commission européenne, assurant vouloir « abolir » le règlement de Dublin et son principe du premier pays d’entrée, doit présenter ce mercredi un « pacte sur l’immigration et l’asile ». Qui ne bouleverserait rien.

C’est une belle victoire pour Viktor Orbán, le Premier ministre hongrois, et ses partenaires d’Europe centrale et orientale aussi peu enclins que lui à accueillir des étrangers sur leur sol. La Commission européenne renonce définitivement à leur imposer d’accueillir des demandeurs d’asile en cas d’afflux dans un pays de la « ligne de front » (Grèce, Italie, Malte, Espagne). Certes, le volumineux paquet de textes qu’elle propose ce mercredi (10 projets de règlements et trois recommandations, soit plusieurs centaines de pages), pompeusement baptisé « pacte sur l’immigration et l’asile », prévoit qu’ils devront, par « solidarité », assurer les refoulements vers les pays d’origine des déboutés du droit d’asile, mais cela ne devrait pas les gêner outre mesure. Car, sur le fond, la Commission prend acte de la volonté des Vingt-Sept de transformer l’Europe en forteresse.
Sale boulot

La crise de 2015 les a durablement traumatisés. A l’époque, la Turquie, par lassitude d’accueillir sur son sol plusieurs millions de réfugiés syriens et des centaines de milliers de migrants économiques dans l’indifférence de la communauté internationale, ouvre ses frontières. La Grèce est vite submergée et plusieurs centaines de milliers de personnes traversent les Balkans afin de trouver refuge, notamment en Allemagne et en Suède, parmi les pays les plus généreux en matière d’asile.

Passé les premiers moments de panique, les Européens réagissent de plusieurs manières. La Hongrie fait le sale boulot en fermant brutalement sa frontière. L’Allemagne, elle, accepte d’accueillir un million de demandeurs d’asile, mais négocie avec Ankara un accord pour qu’il referme ses frontières, accord ensuite endossé par l’UE qui lui verse en échange 6 milliards d’euros destinés aux camps de réfugiés. Enfin, l’Union adopte un règlement destiné à relocaliser sur une base obligatoire une partie des migrants dans les autres pays européens afin qu’ils instruisent les demandes d’asile, dans le but de soulager la Grèce et l’Italie, pays de premier accueil. Ce dernier volet est un échec, les pays d’Europe de l’Est, qui ont voté contre, refusent d’accueillir le moindre migrant, et leurs partenaires de l’Ouest ne font guère mieux : sur 160 000 personnes qui auraient dû être relocalisées, un objectif rapidement revu à 98 000, moins de 35 000 l’ont été à la fin 2017, date de la fin de ce dispositif.

Depuis, l’Union a considérablement durci les contrôles, notamment en créant un corps de 10 000 gardes-frontières européens et en renforçant les moyens de Frontex, l’agence chargée de gérer ses frontières extérieures. En février-mars, la tentative d’Ankara de faire pression sur les Européens dans le conflit syrien en rouvrant partiellement ses frontières a fait long feu : la Grèce a employé les grands moyens, y compris violents, pour stopper ce flux sous les applaudissements de ses partenaires… Autant dire que l’ambiance n’est pas à l’ouverture des frontières et à l’accueil des persécutés.
« Usine à gaz »

Mais la crise migratoire de 2015 a laissé des « divisions nombreuses et profondes entre les Etats membres - certaines des cicatrices qu’elle a laissées sont toujours visibles aujourd’hui », comme l’a reconnu Ursula von der Leyen, la présidente de la Commission, dans son discours sur l’état de l’Union du 16 septembre. Afin de tourner la page, la Commission propose donc de laisser tomber la réforme de 2016 (dite de Dublin IV) prévoyant de pérenniser la relocalisation autoritaire des migrants, désormais jugée par une haute fonctionnaire de l’exécutif « totalement irréaliste ».

Mais la réforme qu’elle propose, une véritable « usine à gaz », n’est qu’un « rapiéçage » de l’existant, comme l’explique Yves Pascouau, spécialiste de l’immigration et responsable des programmes européens de l’association Res Publica. Ainsi, alors que Von der Leyen a annoncé sa volonté « d’abolir » le règlement de Dublin III, il n’en est rien : le pays responsable du traitement d’une demande d’asile reste, par principe, comme c’est le cas depuis 1990, le pays de première entrée.

S’il y a une crise, la Commission pourra déclencher un « mécanisme de solidarité » afin de soulager un pays de la ligne de front : dans ce cas, les Vingt-Sept devront accueillir un certain nombre de migrants (en fonction de leur richesse et de leur population), sauf s’ils préfèrent « parrainer un retour ». En clair, prendre en charge le refoulement des déboutés de l’asile (avec l’aide financière et logistique de l’Union) en sachant que ces personnes resteront à leur charge jusqu’à ce qu’ils y parviennent. Ça, c’est pour faire simple, car il y a plusieurs niveaux de crise, des exceptions, des sanctions, des délais et l’on en passe…

Autre nouveauté : les demandes d’asile devront être traitées par principe à la frontière, dans des camps de rétention, pour les nationalités dont le taux de reconnaissance du statut de réfugié est inférieur à 20% dans l’Union, et ce, en moins de trois mois, avec refoulement à la clé en cas de refus. « Cette réforme pose un principe clair, explique un eurocrate. Personne ne sera obligé d’accueillir un étranger dont il ne veut pas. »

Dans cet ensemble très sévère, une bonne nouvelle : les sauvetages en mer ne devraient plus être criminalisés. On peut craindre qu’une fois passés à la moulinette des Etats, qui doivent adopter ce paquet à la majorité qualifiée (55% des Etats représentant 65% de la population), il ne reste que les aspects les plus répressifs. On ne se refait pas.

https://i.imgur.com/ZCKkW18.png

–—

Graphique ajouté au fil de discussion sur les statistiques de la #relocalisation :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/605713

Le pacte européen sur l’asile et les migrations ne tire aucune leçon de la « crise migratoire »

https://www.cncd.be/IMG/arton6953.jpg

Ce 23 septembre 2020, la nouvelle Commission européenne a présenté les grandes lignes d’orientation de sa politique migratoire à venir. Alors que cinq ans plutôt, en 2015, se déroulait la mal nommée « crise migratoire » aux frontières européennes, le nouveau Pacte Asile et Migration de l’UE ne tire aucune leçon du passé. Le nouveau pacte de l’Union Européenne nous propose inlassablement les mêmes recettes alors que les preuves de leur inefficacité, leur coût et des violences qu’elles procurent sont nombreuses et irréfutables. Le CNCD-11.11.11, son homologue néerlandophone et les membres du groupe de travail pour la justice migratoire appellent le parlement européen et le gouvernement belge à un changement de cap.

Le nouveau Pacte repose sur des propositions législatives et des recommandations non contraignantes. Ses priorités sont claires mais pas neuves. Freiner les arrivées, limiter l’accueil par le « tri » des personnes et augmenter les retours. Cette stratégie pourtant maintes fois décriée par les ONG et le milieu académique a certes réussi à diminuer les arrivées en Europe, mais n’a offert aucune solution durable pour les personnes migrantes. Depuis les années 2000, l’externalisation de la gestion des questions migratoires a montré son inefficacité (situation humanitaires dans les hotspots, plus de 20.000 décès en Méditerranée depuis 2014 et processus d’encampement aux frontières de l’UE) et son coût exponentiel (coût élevé du contrôle, de la détention-expulsion et de l’aide au développement détournée). Elle a augmenté le taux de violences sur les routes de l’exil et a enfreint le droit international en toute impunité (non accès au droit d’asile notamment via les refoulements).

"ll est important que tous les États membres développent des systèmes d’accueil de qualité et que l’UE s’oriente vers une protection plus unifiée"

La proposition de mettre en place un mécanisme solidaire européen contraignant est à saluer, mais celui-ci doit être au service de l’accueil et non couplé au retour. La possibilité pour les États européens de choisir à la carte soit la relocalisation, le « parrainage » du retour des déboutés ou autre contribution financière n’est pas équitable. La répartition solidaire de l’accueil doit être permanente et ne pas être actionnée uniquement en cas « d’afflux massif » aux frontières d’un État membre comme le recommande la Commission. Il est important que tous les États membres développent des systèmes d’accueil de qualité et que l’UE s’oriente vers une protection plus unifiée. Le changement annoncé du Règlement de Dublin l’est juste de nom, car les premiers pays d’entrée resteront responsables des nouveaux arrivés.

Le focus doit être mis sur les alternatives à la détention et non sur l’usage systématique de l’enfermement aux frontières, comme le veut la Commission. Le droit de demander l’asile et d’avoir accès à une procédure de qualité doit être accessible à tous et toutes et rester un droit individuel. Or, la proposition de la Commission de détenir (12 semaines maximum) en vue de screener (5 jours de tests divers et de recoupement de données via EURODAC) puis trier les personnes migrantes à la frontière en fonction du taux de reconnaissance de protection accordé en moyenne à leur pays d’origine (en dessous de 20%) ou de leur niveau de vulnérabilité est contraire à la Convention de Genève.

"La priorité pour les personnes migrantes en situation irrégulière doit être la recherche de solutions durables (comme l’est la régularisation) plutôt que le retour forcé, à tous prix."

La priorité pour les personnes migrantes en situation irrégulière doit être la recherche de solutions durables (comme l’est la régularisation) plutôt que le retour forcé, à tous prix, comme le préconise la Commission.

La meilleure façon de lutter contre les violences sur les routes de l’exil reste la mise en place de plus de voies légales et sûres de migration (réinstallation, visas de travail, d’études, le regroupement familial…). Les ONG regrettent que la Commission reporte à 2021 les propositions sur la migration légale. Le pacte s’intéresse à juste titre à la criminalisation des ONG de sauvetage et des citoyens qui fournissent une aide humanitaire aux migrants. Toutefois, les propositions visant à y mettre fin sont insuffisantes. Les ONG se réjouissent de l’annonce par la Commission d’un mécanisme de surveillance des droits humains aux frontières extérieures. Au cours de l’année écoulée, on a signalé de plus en plus souvent des retours violents par la Croatie, la Grèce, Malte et Chypre. Toutefois, il n’est pas encore suffisamment clair si les propositions de la Commission peuvent effectivement traiter et sanctionner les refoulements.

Au lendemain de l’incendie du hotspot à Moria, symbole par excellence de l’échec des politiques migratoires européennes, l’UE s’enfonce dans un déni total, meurtrier, en vue de concilier les divergences entre ses États membres. Les futures discussions autour du Pacte au sein du parlement UE et du Conseil UE seront cruciales. Les ONG membres du groupe de travail pour la justice migratoire appellent le Parlement européen et le gouvernement belge à promouvoir des ajustements fermes allant vers plus de justice migratoire.

▻https://www.cncd.be/Le-pacte-europeen-sur-l-asile-et

The New Pact on Migration and Asylum. A Critical ‘First Look’ Analysis

Where does it come from?

The New Migration Pact was built on the ashes of the mandatory relocation scheme that the Commission tried to push in 2016. And the least that one can say, is that it shows! The whole migration plan has been decisively shaped by this initial failure. Though the Pact has some merits, the very fact that it takes as its starting point the radical demands made by the most nationalist governments in Europe leads to sacrificing migrants’ rights on the altar of a cohesive and integrated European migration policy.

Back in 2016, the vigorous manoeuvring of the Commission to find a way out of the European asylum dead-end resulted in a bittersweet victory for the European institution. Though the Commission was able to find a qualified majority of member states willing to support a fair distribution of the asylum seekers among member states through a relocation scheme, this new regulation remained dead letter. Several eastern European states flatly refused to implement the plan, other member states seized this opportunity to defect on their obligations and the whole migration policy quickly unravelled. Since then, Europe is left with a dysfunctional Dublin agreement exacerbating the tensions between member states and 27 loosely connected national asylum regimes. On the latter point, at least, there is a consensus. Everyone agrees that the EU’s migration regime is broken and urgently needs to be fixed.

Obviously, the Commission was not keen to go through a new round of political humiliation. Having been accused of “bureaucratic hubris” the first time around, the commissioners Schinas and Johansson decided not to repeat the same mistake. They toured the European capitals and listened to every side of the entrenched migration debate before drafting their Migration Pact. The intention is in the right place and it reflects the complexity of having to accommodate 27 distinct democratic debates in one single political space. Nevertheless, if one peers a bit more extensively through the content of the New Plan, it is complicated not to get the feelings that the Visegrad countries are currently the key players shaping the European migration and asylum policies. After all, their staunch opposition to a collective reception scheme sparked the political process and provided the starting point to the general discussion. As a result, it is no surprise that the New Pact tilts firmly towards an ever more restrictive approach to migration, beefs up the coercive powers of both member states and European agencies and raises many concerns with regards to the respect of the migrants’ fundamental rights.
What is in this New Pact on Migration and Asylum?

Does the Pact concede too much ground to the demands of the most xenophobic European governments? To answer that question, let us go back to the bizarre metaphor used by the commissioner Schinas. During his press conference, he insisted on comparing the New Pact on Migration and Asylum to a house built on solid foundations (i.e. the lengthy and inclusive consultation process) and made of 3 floors: first, some renewed partnerships with the sending and transit states, second, some more effective border procedures, and third, a revamped mandatory – but flexible ! – solidarity scheme. It is tempting to carry on with the metaphor and to say that this house may appear comfortable from the inside but that it remains tightly shut to anyone knocking on its door from the outside. For, a careful examination reveals that each of the three “floors” (policy packages, actually) lays the emphasis on a repressive approach to migration aimed at deterring would-be asylum seekers from attempting to reach the European shores.
The “new partnerships” with sending and transit countries, a “change in paradigm”?

Let us add that there is little that is actually “new” in this New Migration Pact. For instance, the first policy package, that is, the suggestion that the EU should renew its partnerships with sending and transit countries is, as a matter of fact, an old tune in the Brussels bubble. The Commission may boast that it marks a “change of paradigm”, one fails to see how this would be any different from the previous European diplomatic efforts. Since migration and asylum are increasingly considered as toxic topics (for, they would be the main factors behind the rise of nationalism and its corollary, Euroscepticism), the European Union is willing to externalize this issue, seemingly at all costs. The results, however, have been mixed in the past. To the Commission’s own admission, only a third of the migrants whose asylum claims have been rejected are effectively returned. Besides the facts that returns are costly, extremely coercive, and administratively complicated to organize, the main reason for this low rate of successful returns is that sending countries refuse to cooperate in the readmission procedures. Neighbouring countries have excellent reasons not to respond positively to the Union’s demands. For some, remittances sent by their diaspora are an economic lifeline. Others just do not want to appear complicit of repressive European practices on their domestic political scene. Furthermore, many African countries are growing discontent with the forceful way the European Union uses its asymmetrical relation of power in bilateral negotiations to dictate to those sovereign states the migration policies they should adopt, making for instance its development aid conditional on the implementation of stricter border controls. The Commission may rhetorically claim to foster “mutually beneficial” international relation with its neighbouring countries, the emphasis on the externalization of migration control in the EU’s diplomatic agenda nevertheless bears some of the hallmarks of neo-colonialism. As such, it is a source of deep resentment in sending and transit states. It would therefore be a grave mistake for the EU to overlook the fact that some short-term gains in terms of migration management may result in long-term losses with regards to Europe’s image across the world.

Furthermore, considering the current political situation, one should not primarily be worried about the failed partnerships with neighbouring countries, it is rather the successful ones that ought to give us pause and raise concerns. For, based on the existing evidence, the EU will sign a deal with any state as long as it effectively restrains and contains migration flows towards the European shores. Being an authoritarian state with a documented history of human right violations (Turkey) or an embattled government fighting a civil war (Lybia) does not disqualify you as a partner of the European Union in its effort to manage migration flows. It is not only morally debatable for the EU to delegate its asylum responsibilities to unreliable third countries, it is also doubtful that an increase in diplomatic pressure on neighbouring countries will bring major political results. It will further damage the perception of the EU in neighbouring countries without bringing significant restriction to migration flows.
Streamlining border procedures? Or eroding migrants’ rights?

The second policy package is no more inviting. It tackles the issue of the migrants who, in spite of those partnerships and the hurdles thrown their way by sending and transit countries, would nevertheless reach Europe irregularly. On this issue, the Commission faced the daunting task of having to square a political circle, since it had to find some common ground in a debate bitterly divided between conflicting worldviews (roughly, between liberal and nationalist perspectives on the individual freedom of movement) and competing interests (between overburdened Mediterranean member states and Eastern member states adamant that asylum seekers would endanger their national cohesion). The Commission thus looked for the lowest common denominator in terms of migration management preferences amongst the distinct member states. The result is a two-tier border procedure aiming to fast-track and streamline the processing of asylum claims, allowing for more expeditious returns of irregular migrants. The goal is to prevent any bottleneck in the processing of the claims and to avoid the (currently near constant) overcrowding of reception facilities in the frontline states. Once again, there is little that is actually new in this proposal. It amounts to a generalization of the process currently in place in the infamous hotspots scattered on the Greek isles. According to the Pact, screening procedures would be carried out in reception centres created across Europe. A far cry from the slogan “no more Moria” since one may legitimately suspect that those reception centres will, at the first hiccup in the procedure, turn into tomorrow’s asylum camps.

According to this procedure, newly arrived migrants would be submitted within 5 days to a pre-screening procedure and subsequently triaged into two categories. Migrants with a low chance of seeing their asylum claim recognized (because they would come from a country with a low recognition rate or a country belonging to the list of the safe third countries, for instance) would be redirected towards an accelerated procedure. The end goal would be to return them, if applicable, within twelve weeks. The other migrants would be subjected to the standard assessment of their asylum claim. It goes without saying that this proposal has been swiftly and unanimously condemned by all human rights organizations. It does not take a specialized lawyer to see that this two-tiered procedure could have devastating consequences for the “fast-tracked” asylum seekers left with no legal recourse against the initial decision to submit them to this sped up procedure (rather than the standard one) as well as reduced opportunities to defend their asylum claim or, if need be, to contest their return. No matter how often the Commission repeats that it will preserve all the legal safeguards required to protect migrants’ rights, it remains wildly unconvincing. Furthermore, the Pact may confuse speed and haste. The schedule is tight on paper (five days for the pre-screening, twelve weeks for the assessment of the asylum claim), it may well prove unrealistic to meet those deadlines in real-life conditions. The Commission also overlooks the fact that accelerated procedures tend to be sloppy, thus leading to juridical appeals and further legal wrangling and eventually amounting to processes far longer than expected.
Integrating the returns, not the reception

The Commission talked up the new Pact as being “balanced” and “humane”. Since the two first policy packages focus, first, on preventing would-be migrants from leaving their countries and, second, on facilitating and accelerating their returns, one would expect the third policy package to move away from the restriction of movement and to complement those measures with a reception plan tailored to the needs of refugees. And here comes the major disappointment with the New Pact and, perhaps, the clearest indication that the Pact is first and foremost designed to please the migration hardliners. It does include a solidarity scheme meant to alleviate the burden of frontline countries, to distribute more fairly the responsibilities amongst member states and to ensure that refugees are properly hosted. But this solidarity scheme is far from being robust enough to deliver on those promises. Let us unpack it briefly to understand why it is likely to fail. The solidarity scheme is mandatory. All member states will be under the obligation to take part. But there is a catch! Member states’ contribution to this collective effort can take many shapes and forms and it will be up to the member states to decide how they want to participate. They get to choose whether they want to relocate some refugees on their national soil, to provide some financial and/or logistical assistance, or to “sponsor” (it is the actual term used by the Commission) some returns.

No one expected the Commission to reintroduce a compulsory relocation scheme in its Pact. Eastern European countries had drawn an obvious red line and it would have been either naïve or foolish to taunt them with that kind of policy proposal. But this so-called “flexible mandatory solidarity” relies on such a watered-down understanding of the solidarity principle that it results in a weak and misguided political instrument unsuited to solve the problem at hand. First, the flexible solidarity mechanism is too indeterminate to prove efficient. According to the current proposal, member states would have to shoulder a fair share of the reception burden (calculated on their respective population and GDP) but would be left to decide for themselves which form this contribution would take. The obvious flaw with the policy proposal is that, if all member states decline to relocate some refugees (which is a plausible scenario), Mediterranean states would still be left alone when it comes to dealing with the most immediate consequences of migration flows. They would receive much more financial, operational, and logistical support than it currently is the case – but they would be managing on their own the overcrowded reception centres. The Commission suggests that it would oversee the national pledges in terms of relocation and that it would impose some corrections if the collective pledges fall short of a predefined target. But it remains to be seen whether the Commission will have the political clout to impose some relocations to member states refusing them. One could not be blamed for being highly sceptical.

Second, it is noteworthy that the Commission fails to integrate the reception of refugees since member states are de facto granted an opt-out on hosting refugees. What is integrated is rather the return policy, once more a repressive instrument. And it is the member states with the worst record in terms of migrants’ rights violations that are the most likely to be tasked with the delicate mission of returning them home. As a commentator was quipping on Twitter, it would be like asking a bully to walk his victim home (what could possibly go wrong?). The attempt to build an intra-European consensus is obviously pursued at the expense of the refugees. The incentive structure built into the flexible solidarity scheme offers an excellent illustration of this. If a member state declines to relocate any refugee and offers instead to ‘sponsor’ some returns, it has to honour that pledge within a limited period of time (the Pact suggests a six month timeframe). If it fails to do so, it becomes responsible for the relocation and the return of those migrants, leading to a situation in which some migrants may end up in a country where they do not want to be and that does not want them to be there. Hardly an optimal outcome…
Conclusion

The Pact represents a genuine attempt to design a multi-faceted and comprehensive migration policy, covering most aspects of a complex issue. The dysfunctions of the Schengen area and the question of the legal pathways to Europe have been relegated to a later discussion and one may wonder whether they should not have been included in the Pact to balance out its restrictive inclination. And, in all fairness, the Pact does throw a few bones to the more cosmopolitan-minded European citizens. For instance, it reminds the member states that maritime search and rescue operations are legal and should not be impeded, or it shortens (from five to three years) the waiting period for refugees to benefit from the freedom of movement. But those few welcome additions are vastly outweighed by the fact that migration hardliners dominated the agenda-setting in the early stage of the policy-making exercise and have thus been able to frame decisively the political discussion. The end result is a policy package leaning heavily towards some repressive instruments and particularly careless when it comes to safeguarding migrants’ rights.

The New Pact was first drafted on the ashes of the mandatory relocation scheme. Back then, the Commission publicly made amends and revised its approach to the issue. Sadly, the New Pact was presented to the European public when the ashes of the Moria camp were still lukewarm. One can only hope that the member states will learn from that mistake too.

▻https://blog.novamigra.eu/2020/09/24/the-new-pact-on-migration-and-asylum-a-critical-first-look-analysis

#Pacte_européen_sur_la_migration : un “nouveau départ” pour violer les droits humains

La Commission européenne a publié aujourd’hui son « Nouveau Pacte sur l’Asile et la Migration » qui propose un nouveau cadre règlementaire et législatif. Avec ce plan, l’UE devient de facto un « leader du voyage retour » pour les migrant.e.s et les réfugié.e.s en Méditerranée. EuroMed Droits craint que ce pacte ne détériore encore davantage la situation actuelle pour au moins trois raisons.

Le pacte se concentre de manière obsessionnelle sur la politique de retours à travers un système de « sponsoring » : des pays européens tels que l’Autriche, la Pologne, la Hongrie ou la République tchèque – qui refusent d’accueillir des réfugié.e.s – pourront « sponsoriser » et organiser la déportation vers les pays de départ de ces réfugié.e.s. Au lieu de favoriser l’intégration, le pacte adopte une politique de retour à tout prix, même lorsque les demandeurs.ses d’asile peuvent être victimes de discrimination, persécution ou torture dans leur pays de retour. A ce jour, il n’existe aucun mécanisme permettant de surveiller ce qui arrive aux migrant.e.s et réfugié.e.s une fois déporté.e.s.

Le pacte proposé renforce la sous-traitance de la gestion des frontières. En termes concrets, l’UE renforce la coopération avec les pays non-européens afin qu’ils ferment leurs frontières et empêchent les personnes de partir. Cette coopération est sujette à l’imposition de conditions par l’UE. Une telle décision européenne se traduit par une hausse du nombre de refoulements dans la région méditerranéenne et une coopération renforcée avec des pays qui ont un piètre bilan en matière de droits humains et qui ne possèdent pas de cadre efficace pour la protection des droits des personnes migrantes et réfugiées.

Le pacte vise enfin à étendre les mécanismes de tri des demandeurs.ses d’asile et des migrant.e.s dans les pays d’arrivée. Ce modèle de tri – similaire à celui utilisé dans les zones de transit aéroportuaires – accentue les difficultés de pays tels que l’Espagne, l’Italie, Malte, la Grèce ou Chypre qui accueillent déjà la majorité des migrant.e.s et réfugié.e.s. Placer ces personnes dans des camps revient à mettre en place un système illégal d’incarcération automatique dès l’arrivée. Cela accroîtra la violence psychologique à laquelle les migrant.e.s et réfugié.e.s sont déjà soumis. Selon ce nouveau système, ces personnes seront identifié.e.s sous cinq jours et toute demande d’asile devra être traitée en douze semaines. Cette accélération de la procédure risque d’intensifier la détention et de diviser les arrivant.e.s entre demandeurs.ses d’asile et migrant.e.s économiques. Cela s’effectuerait de manière discriminatoire, sans analyse détaillée de chaque demande d’asile ni possibilité réelle de faire appel. Celles et ceux qui seront éligibles à la protection internationale seront relocalisé.e.s au sein des États membres qui acceptent de les recevoir. Les autres risqueront d’être déportés immédiatement.

« En choisissant de sous-traiter davantage encore la gestion des frontières et d’accentuer la politique de retours, ce nouveau pacte conclut la transformation de la politique européenne en une approche pleinement sécuritaire. Pire encore, le pacte assimile la politique de “retour sponsorisé” à une forme de solidarité. Au-delà des déclarations officielles, cela démontre la volonté de l’Union européenne de criminaliser et de déshumaniser les migrant.e.s et les réfugié.e.s », a déclaré Wadih Al-Asmar, Président d’EuroMed Droits.

▻https://euromedrights.org/fr/publication/pacte-europeen-sur-la-migration-nouveau-depart-pour-violer-les-droits

Whose Pact? The Cognitive Dimensions of the New EU Pact on Migration and Asylum

This Policy Insight examines the new Pact on Migration and Asylum in light of the principles and commitments enshrined in the United Nations Global Compact on Refugees (UN GCR) and the EU Treaties. It finds that from a legal viewpoint the ‘Pact’ is not really a Pact at all, if understood as an agreement concluded between relevant EU institutional parties. Rather, it is the European Commission’s policy guide for the duration of the current 9th legislature.

The analysis shows that the Pact has intergovernmental aspects, in both name and fundamentals. It does not pursue a genuine Migration and Asylum Union. The Pact encourages an artificial need for consensus building or de facto unanimity among all EU member states’ governments in fields where the EU Treaties call for qualified majority voting (QMV) with the European Parliament as co-legislator. The Pact does not abolish the first irregular entry rule characterising the EU Dublin Regulation. It adopts a notion of interstate solidarity that leads to asymmetric responsibilities, where member states are given the flexibility to evade participating in the relocation of asylum seekers. The Pact also runs the risk of catapulting some contested member states practices’ and priorities about localisation, speed and de-territorialisation into EU policy.

This Policy Insight argues that the Pact’s priority of setting up an independent monitoring mechanism of border procedures’ compliance with fundamental rights is a welcome step towards the better safeguarding of the rule of law. The EU inter-institutional negotiations on the Pact’s initiatives should be timely and robust in enforcing member states’ obligations under the current EU legal standards relating to asylum and borders, namely the prevention of detention and expedited expulsions, and the effective access by all individuals to dignified treatment and effective remedies. Trust and legitimacy of EU asylum and migration policy can only follow if international (human rights and refugee protection) commitments and EU Treaty principles are put first.

▻https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/whose-pact

First analysis of the EU’s new asylum proposals

This week the EU Commission published its new package of proposals on asylum and (non-EU) migration – consisting of proposals for legislation, some ‘soft law’, attempts to relaunch talks on stalled proposals and plans for future measures. The following is an explanation of the new proposals (not attempting to cover every detail) with some first thoughts. Overall, while it is possible that the new package will lead to agreement on revised asylum laws, this will come at the cost of risking reduced human rights standards.

Background

Since 1999, the EU has aimed to create a ‘Common European Asylum System’. A first phase of legislation was passed between 2003 and 2005, followed by a second phase between 2010 and 2013. Currently the legislation consists of: a) the Qualification Directive, which defines when people are entitled to refugee status (based on the UN Refugee Convention) or subsidiary protection status, and what rights they have; b) the Dublin III Regulation, which allocates responsibility for an asylum seeker between Member States; c) the Eurodac Regulation, which facilitates the Dublin system by setting up a database of fingerprints of asylum seekers and people who cross the external border without authorisation; d) the Asylum Procedures Directive, which sets out the procedural rules governing asylum applications, such as personal interviews and appeals; e) the Reception Conditions Directive, which sets out standards on the living conditions of asylum-seekers, such as rules on housing and welfare; and f) the Asylum Agency Regulation, which set up an EU agency (EASO) to support Member States’ processing of asylum applications.

The EU also has legislation on other aspects of migration: (short-term) visas, border controls, irregular migration, and legal migration – much of which has connections with the asylum legislation, and all of which is covered by this week’s package. For visas, the main legislation is the visa list Regulation (setting out which non-EU countries’ citizens are subject to a short-term visa requirement, or exempt from it) and the visa code (defining the criteria to obtain a short-term Schengen visa, allowing travel between all Schengen states). The visa code was amended last year, as discussed here.

For border controls, the main legislation is the Schengen Borders Code, setting out the rules on crossing external borders and the circumstances in which Schengen states can reinstate controls on internal borders, along with the Frontex Regulation, setting up an EU border agency to assist Member States. On the most recent version of the Frontex Regulation, see discussion here and here.

For irregular migration, the main legislation is the Return Directive. The Commission proposed to amend it in 2018 – on which, see analysis here and here.

For legal migration, the main legislation on admission of non-EU workers is the single permit Directive (setting out a common process and rights for workers, but not regulating admission); the Blue Card Directive (on highly paid migrants, discussed here); the seasonal workers’ Directive (discussed here); and the Directive on intra-corporate transferees (discussed here). The EU also has legislation on: non-EU students, researchers and trainees (overview here); non-EU family reunion (see summary of the legislation and case law here) and on long-term resident non-EU citizens (overview – in the context of UK citizens after Brexit – here). In 2016, the Commission proposed to revise the Blue Card Directive (see discussion here).

The UK, Ireland and Denmark have opted out of most of these laws, except some asylum law applies to the UK and Ireland, and Denmark is covered by the Schengen and Dublin rules. So are the non-EU countries associated with Schengen and Dublin (Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein). There are also a number of further databases of non-EU citizens as well as Eurodac: the EU has never met a non-EU migrant who personal data it didn’t want to store and process.

The Refugee ‘Crisis’

The EU’s response to the perceived refugee ‘crisis’ was both short-term and long-term. In the short term, in 2015 the EU adopted temporary laws (discussed here) relocating some asylum seekers in principle from Italy and Greece to other Member States. A legal challenge to one of these laws failed (as discussed here), but in practice Member States accepted few relocations anyway. Earlier this year, the CJEU ruled that several Member States had breached their obligations under the laws (discussed here), but by then it was a moot point.

Longer term, the Commission proposed overhauls of the law in 2016: a) a Qualification Regulation further harmonising the law on refugee and subsidiary protection status; b) a revised Dublin Regulation, which would have set up a system of relocation of asylum seekers for future crises; c) a revised Eurodac Regulation, to take much more data from asylum seekers and other migrants; d) an Asylum Procedures Regulation, further harmonising the procedural law on asylum applications; e) a revised Reception Conditions Directive; f) a revised Asylum Agency Regulation, giving the agency more powers; and g) a new Resettlement Regulation, setting out a framework of admitting refugees directly from non-EU countries. (See my comments on some of these proposals, from back in 2016)

However, these proposals proved unsuccessful – which is the main reason for this week’s attempt to relaunch the process. In particular, an EU Council note from February 2019 summarises the diverse problems that befell each proposal. While the EU Council Presidency and the European Parliament reached agreement on the proposals on qualification, reception conditions and resettlement in June 2018, Member States refused to support the Presidency’s deal and the European Parliament refused to renegotiate (see, for instance, the Council documents on the proposals on qualification and resettlement; see also my comments on an earlier stage of the talks, when the Council had agreed its negotiation position on the qualification regulation).

On the asylum agency, the EP and Council agreed on the revised law in 2017, but the Commission proposed an amendment in 2018 to give the agency more powers; the Council could not agree on this. On Eurodac, the EP and Council only partly agreed on a text. On the procedures Regulation, the Council largely agreed its position, except on border procedures; on Dublin there was never much prospect of agreement because of the controversy over relocating asylum seekers. (For either proposal, a difficult negotiation with the European Parliament lay ahead).

In other areas too, the legislative process was difficult: the Council and EP gave up negotiating amendments to the Blue Card Directive (see the last attempt at a compromise here, and the Council negotiation mandate here), and the EP has not yet agreed a position on the Returns Directive (the Council has a negotiating position, but again it leaves out the difficult issue of border procedures; there is a draft EP position from February). Having said that, the EU has been able to agree legislation giving more powers to Frontex, as well as new laws on EU migration databases, in the last few years.

The attempted relaunch

The Commission’s new Pact on asylum and immigration (see also the roadmap on its implementation, the Q and As, and the staff working paper) does not restart the whole process from scratch. On qualification, reception conditions, resettlement, the asylum agency, the returns Directive and the Blue Card Directive, it invites the Council and Parliament to resume negotiations. But it tries to unblock the talks as a whole by tabling two amended legislative proposals and three new legislative proposals, focussing on the issues of border procedures and relocation of asylum seekers.

Screening at the border

This revised proposals start with a new proposal for screening asylum seekers at the border, which would apply to all non-EU citizens who cross an external border without authorisation, who apply for asylum while being checked at the border (without meeting the conditions for legal entry), or who are disembarked after a search and rescue operation. During the screening, these non-EU citizens are not allowed to enter the territory of a Member State, unless it becomes clear that they meet the criteria for entry. The screening at the border should take no longer than 5 days, with an extra 5 days in the event of a huge influx. (It would also be possible to apply the proposed law to those on the territory who evaded border checks; for them the deadline to complete the screening is 3 days).

Screening has six elements, as further detailed in the proposal: a health check, an identity check, registration in a database, a security check, filling out a debriefing form, and deciding on what happens next. At the end of the screening, the migrant is channelled either into the expulsion process (if no asylum claim has been made, and if the migrant does not meet the conditions for entry) or, if an asylum claim is made, into the asylum process – with an indication of whether the claim should be fast-tracked or not. It’s also possible that an asylum seeker would be relocated to another Member State. The screening is carried out by national officials, possibly with support from EU agencies.

To ensure human rights protection, there must be independent monitoring to address allegations of non-compliance with human rights. These allegations might concern breaches of EU or international law, national law on detention, access to the asylum procedure, or non-refoulement (the ban on sending people to an unsafe country). Migrants must be informed about the process and relevant EU immigration and data protection law. There is no provision for judicial review of the outcome of the screening process, although there would be review as part of the next step (asylum or return).

Asylum procedures

The revised proposal for an asylum procedures Regulation would leave in place most of the Commission’s 2016 proposal to amend the law, adding some specific further proposed amendments, which either link back to the screening proposal or aim to fast-track decisions and expulsions more generally.

On the first point, the usual rules on informing asylum applicants and registering their application would not apply until after the end of the screening. A border procedure may apply following the screening process, but Member States must apply the border procedure in cases where an asylum seeker used false documents, is a perceived national security threat, or falls within the new ground for fast-tracking cases (on which, see below). The latter obligation is subject to exceptions where a Member State has reported that a non-EU country is not cooperating on readmission; the process for dealing with that issue set out under the 2019 amendments to the visa code will then apply. Also, the border process cannot apply to unaccompanied minors or children under 12, unless they are a supposed national security risk. Further exceptions apply where the asylum seeker is vulnerable or has medical needs, the application is not inadmissible or cannot be fast-tracked, or detention conditions cannot be guaranteed. A Member State might apply the Dublin process to determine which Member State is responsible for the asylum claim during the border process. The whole border process (including any appeal) must last no more than 12 weeks, and can only be used to declare applications inadmissible or apply the new ground for fast-tracking them.

There would also be a new border expulsion procedure, where an asylum application covered by the border procedure was rejected. This is subject to its own 12-week deadline, starting from the point when the migrant is no longer allowed to remain. Much of the Return Directive would apply – but not the provisions on the time period for voluntary departure, remedies and the grounds for detention. Instead, the border expulsion procedure would have its own stricter rules on these issues.

As regards general fast-tracking, in order to speed up the expulsion process for unsuccessful applications, a rejection of an asylum application would have to either incorporate an expulsion decision or entail a simultaneous separate expulsion decision. Appeals against expulsion decisions would then be subject to the same rules as appeals against asylum decisions. If the asylum seeker comes from a country with a refugee recognition rate below 20%, his or her application must be fast-tracked (this would even apply to unaccompanied minors) – unless circumstances in that country have changed, or the asylum seeker comes from a group for whom the low recognition rate is not representative (for instance, the recognition rate might be higher for LGBT asylum-seekers from that country). Many more appeals would be subject to a one-week time limit for the rejected asylum seeker to appeal, and there could be only one level of appeal against decisions taken within a border procedure.

Eurodac

The revised proposal for Eurodac would build upon the 2016 proposal, which was already far-reaching: extending Eurodac to include not only fingerprints, but also photos and other personal data; reducing the age of those covered by Eurodac from 14 to 6; removing the time limits and the limits on use of the fingerprints taken from persons who had crossed the border irregularly; and creating a new obligation to collect data of all irregular migrants over age 6 (currently fingerprint data for this group cannot be stored, but can simply be checked, as an option, against the data on asylum seekers and irregular border crossers). The 2020 proposal additionally provides for interoperability with other EU migration databases, taking of personal data during the screening process, including more data on the migration status of each person, and expressly applying the law to those disembarked after a search and rescue operation.

Dublin rules on asylum responsibility

A new proposal for asylum management would replace the Dublin regulation (meaning that the Commission has withdrawn its 2016 proposal to replace that Regulation). The 2016 proposal would have created a ‘bottleneck’ in the Member State of entry, requiring that State to examine first whether many of the grounds for removing an asylum-seeker to a non-EU country apply before considering whether another Member State might be responsible for the application (because the asylum seeker’s family live there, for instance). It would also have imposed obligations directly on asylum-seekers to cooperate with the process, rather than only regulate relations between Member States. These obligations would have been enforced by punishing asylum seekers who disobeyed: removing their reception conditions (apart from emergency health care); fast-tracking their substantive asylum applications; refusing to consider new evidence from them; and continuing the asylum application process in their absence.

It would no longer be possible for asylum seekers to provide additional evidence of family links, with a view to being in the same country as a family member. Overturning a CJEU judgment (see further discussion here), unaccompanied minors would no longer have been able to make applications in multiple Member States (in the absence of a family member in any of them). However, the definition of family members would have been widened, to include siblings and families formed in a transit country. Responsibility for an asylum seeker based on the first Member State of irregular entry (a commonly applied criterion) would have applied indefinitely, rather than expire one year after entry as it does under the current rules. The ‘Sangatte clause’ (responsibility after five months of living in a second Member State, if the ‘irregular entry’ criterion no longer applies) would be dropped. The ‘sovereignty clause’, which played a key part in the 2015-16 refugee ‘crisis’ (it lets a Member State take responsibility for any application even if the Dublin rules do not require it, cf Germany accepting responsibility for Syrian asylum seekers) would have been sharply curtailed. Time limits for detention during the transfer process would be reduced. Remedies for asylum seekers would have been curtailed: they would only have seven days to appeal against a transfer; courts would have fifteen days to decide (although they could have stayed on the territory throughout); and the grounds of review would have been curtailed.

Finally, the 2016 proposal would have tackled the vexed issue of disproportionate allocation of responsibility for asylum seekers by setting up an automated system determining how many asylum seekers each Member State ‘should’ have based on their size and GDP. If a Member State were responsible for excessive numbers of applicants, Member States which were receiving fewer numbers would have to take more to help out. If they refused, they would have to pay €250,000 per applicant.

The 2020 proposal drops some of the controversial proposals from 2016, including the ‘bottleneck’ in the Member State of entry (the current rule, giving Member States an option to decide if a non-EU country is responsible for the application on narrower grounds than in the 2016 proposal, would still apply). Also, the sovereignty clause would now remain unchanged.

However, the 2020 proposal also retains parts of the 2016 proposal: the redefinition of ‘family member’ (which could be more significant now that the bottleneck is removed, unless Member States choose to apply the relevant rules on non-EU countries’ responsibility during the border procedure already); obligations for asylum seekers (redrafted slightly); some of the punishments for non-compliant asylum-seekers (the cut-off for considering evidence would stay, as would the loss of benefits except for those necessary to ensure a basic standard of living: see the CJEU case law in CIMADE and Haqbin); dropping the provision on evidence of family links; changing the rules on responsibility for unaccompanied minors; retaining part of the changes to the irregular entry criterion (it would now cease to apply after three years; the Sangatte clause would still be dropped; it would apply after search and rescue but not apply in the event of relocation); curtailing judicial review (the grounds would still be limited; the time limit to appeal would be 14 days; courts would not have a strict deadline to decide; suspensive effect would not apply in all cases); and the reduced time limits for detention.

The wholly new features of the 2020 proposal are: some vague provisions about crisis management; responsibility for an asylum application for the Member State which issued a visa or residence document which expired in the last three years (the current rule is responsibility if the visa expired less than six months ago, and the residence permit expired less than a year ago); responsibility for an asylum application for a Member State in which a non-EU citizen obtained a diploma; and the possibility for refugees or persons with subsidiary protection status to obtain EU long-term resident status after three years, rather than five.

However, the most significant feature of the new proposal is likely to be its attempt to solve the underlying issue of disproportionate allocation of asylum seekers. Rather than a mechanical approach to reallocating responsibility, the 2020 proposal now provides for a menu of ‘solidarity contributions’: relocation of asylum seekers; relocation of refugees; ‘return sponsorship’; or support for ‘capacity building’ in the Member State (or a non-EU country) facing migratory pressure. There are separate rules for search and rescue disembarkations, on the one hand, and more general migratory pressures on the other. Once the Commission determines that the latter situation exists, other Member States have to choose from the menu to offer some assistance. Ultimately the Commission will adopt a decision deciding what the contributions will be. Note that ‘return sponsorship’ comes with a ticking clock: if the persons concerned are not expelled within eight months, the sponsoring Member State must accept them on its territory.

Crisis management

The issue of managing asylum issues in a crisis has been carved out of the Dublin proposal into a separate proposal, which would repeal an EU law from 2001 that set up a framework for offering ‘temporary protection’ in a crisis. Note that Member States have never used the 2001 law in practice.

Compared to the 2001 law, the new proposal is integrated into the EU asylum legislation that has been adopted or proposed in the meantime. It similarly applies in the event of a ‘mass influx’ that prevents the effective functioning of the asylum system. It would apply the ‘solidarity’ process set out in the proposal to replace the Dublin rules (ie relocation of asylum seekers and other measures), with certain exceptions and shorter time limits to apply that process.

The proposal focusses on providing for possible exceptions to the usual asylum rules. In particular, during a crisis, the Commission could authorise a Member State to apply temporary derogations from the rules on border asylum procedures (extending the time limit, using the procedure to fast-track more cases), border return procedures (again extending the time limit, more easily justifying detention), or the time limit to register asylum applicants. Member States could also determine that due to force majeure, it was not possible to observe the normal time limits for registering asylum applications, applying the Dublin process for responsibility for asylum applications, or offering ‘solidarity’ to other Member States.

Finally, the new proposal, like the 2001 law, would create a potential for a form of separate ‘temporary protection’ status for the persons concerned. A Member State could suspend the consideration of asylum applications from people coming from the country facing a crisis for up to a year, in the meantime giving them status equivalent to ‘subsidiary protection’ status in the EU qualification law. After that point it would have to resume consideration of the applications. It would need the Commission’s approval, whereas the 2001 law left it to the Council to determine a situation of ‘mass influx’ and provided for the possible extension of the special rules for up to three years.

Other measures

The Commission has also adopted four soft law measures. These comprise: a Recommendation on asylum crisis management; a Recommendation on resettlement and humanitarian admission; a Recommendation on cooperation between Member States on private search and rescue operations; and guidance on the applicability of EU law on smuggling of migrants – notably concluding that it cannot apply where (as in the case of law of the sea) there is an obligation to rescue.

On other issues, the Commission plan is to use current legislation – in particular the recent amendment to the visa code, which provides for sticks to make visas more difficult to get for citizens of countries which don’t cooperate on readmission of people, and carrots to make visas easier to get for citizens of countries which do cooperate on readmission. In some areas, such as the Schengen system, there will be further strategies and plans in the near future; it is not clear if this will lead to more proposed legislation.

However, on legal migration, the plan is to go further than relaunching the amendment of the Blue Card Directive, as the Commission is also planning to propose amendments to the single permit and long-term residence laws referred to above – leading respectively to more harmonisation of the law on admission of non-EU workers and enhanced possibilities for long-term resident non-EU citizens to move between Member States (nb the latter plan is separate from this week’s proposal to amend this law as regards refugees and people with subsidiary protection already). Both these plans are relevant to British citizens moving to the EU after the post-Brexit transition period – and the latter is also relevant to British citizens covered by the withdrawal agreement.

Comments

This week’s plan is less a complete restart of EU law in this area than an attempt to relaunch discussions on a blocked set of amendments to that law, which moreover focusses on a limited set of issues. Will it ‘work’? There are two different ways to answer that question.

First, will it unlock the institutional blockage? Here it should be kept in mind that the European Parliament and the Council had largely agreed on several of the 2016 proposals already; they would have been adopted in 2018 already had not the Council treated all the proposals as a package, and not gone back on agreements which the Council Presidency reached with the European Parliament. It is always open to the Council to get at least some of these proposals adopted quickly by reversing these approaches.

On the blocked proposals, the Commission has targeted the key issues of border procedures and allocation of asylum-seekers. If the former leads to more quick removals of unsuccessful applicants, the latter issue is no longer so pressing. But it is not clear if the Member States will agree to anything on border procedures, or whether such an agreement will result in more expulsions anyway – because the latter depends on the willingness of non-EU countries, which the EU cannot legislate for (and does not even address in this most recent package). And because it is uncertain whether they will result in more expulsions, Member States will be wary of agreeing to anything which either results in more obligations to accept asylum-seekers on their territory, or leaves them with the same number as before.

The idea of ‘return sponsorship’ – which reads like a grotesque parody of individuals sponsoring children in developing countries via charities – may not be appealing except to those countries like France, which have the capacity to twist arms in developing countries to accept returns. Member States might be able to agree on a replacement for the temporary protection Directive on the basis that they will never use that replacement either. And Commission threats to use infringement proceedings to enforce the law might not worry Member States who recall that the CJEU ruled on their failure to relocate asylum-seekers after the relocation law had already expired, and that the Court will soon rule on Hungary’s expulsion of the Central European University after it has already left.

As to whether the proposals will ‘work’ in terms of managing asylum flows fairly and compatibly with human rights, it is striking how much they depend upon curtailing appeal rights, even though appeals are often successful. The proposed limitation of appeal rights will also be maintained in the Dublin system; and while the proposed ‘bottleneck’ of deciding on removals to non-EU countries before applying the Dublin system has been removed, a variation on this process may well apply in the border procedures process instead. There is no new review of the assessment of the safety of non-EU countries – which is questionable in light of the many reports of abuse in Libya. While the EU is not proposing, as the wildest headbangers would want, to turn people back or refuse applications without consideration, the question is whether the fast-track consideration of applications and then appeals will constitute merely a Potemkin village of procedural rights that mean nothing in practice.

Increased detention is already a feature of the amendments proposed earlier: the reception conditions proposal would add a new ground for detention; the return Directive proposal would inevitably increase detention due to curtailing voluntary departure (as discussed here). Unfortunately the Commission’s claim in its new communication that its 2018 proposal is ‘promoting’ voluntary return is therefore simply false. Trump-style falsehoods have no place in the discussion of EU immigration or asylum law.

The latest Eurodac proposal would not do much compared to the 2016 proposal – but then, the 2016 proposal would already constitute an enormous increase in the amount of data collected and shared by that system.

Some elements of the package are more positive. The possibility for refugees and people with subsidiary protection to get EU long-term residence status earlier would be an important step toward making asylum ‘valid throughout the Union’, as referred to in the Treaties. The wider definition of family members, and the retention of the full sovereignty clause, may lead to some fairer results under the Dublin system. Future plans to improve the long-term residents’ Directive are long overdue. The Commission’s sound legal assessment that no one should be prosecuted for acting on their obligations to rescue people in distress at sea is welcome. The quasi-agreed text of the reception conditions Directive explicitly rules out Trump-style separate detention of children.

No proposals from the EU can solve the underlying political issue: a chunk of public opinion is hostile to more migration, whether in frontline Member States, other Member States, or transit countries outside the EU. The politics is bound to affect what Member States and non-EU countries alike are willing to agree to. And for the same reason, even if a set of amendments to the system is ultimately agreed, there will likely be continuing issues of implementation, especially illegal pushbacks and refusals to accept relocation.

▻https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2020/09/first-analysis-of-eus-new-asylum.html?spref=fb

Pacte européen sur les migrations et l’asile : Le rendez-vous manqué de l’UE

Le nouveau pacte européen migrations et asile présenté par la Commission ce 23 septembre, loin de tirer les leçons de l’échec et du coût humain intolérable des politiques menées depuis 30 ans, s’inscrit dans la continuité des logiques déjà largement éprouvées, fondées sur une approche répressive et sécuritaire au service de l’endiguement et des expulsions et au détriment d’une politique d’accueil qui s’attache à garantir et à protéger la dignité et les droits fondamentaux.

Des « nouveaux » camps européens aux frontières pour filtrer les personnes arrivées sur le territoire européen et expulser le plus grand nombre

En réaction au drame des incendies qui ont ravagé le camp de Moria sur l’île grecque de Lesbos, la commissaire européenne aux affaires intérieures, Ylva Johansson, affirmait le 17 septembre devant les députés européens qu’« il n’y aurait pas d’autres Moria » mais de « véritables centres d’accueil » aux frontières européennes.

Si le nouveau pacte prévoie effectivement la création de « nouveaux » camps conjuguée à une « nouvelle » procédure accélérée aux frontières, ces derniers s’apparentent largement à l’approche hotspot mise en œuvre par l’Union européenne (UE) depuis 2015 afin d’organiser la sélection des personnes qu’elle souhaite accueillir et l’expulsion, depuis la frontière, de tous celles qu’elle considère « indésirables ».

Le pacte prévoie ainsi la mise en place « d’un contrôle préalable à l’entrée sur le territoire pour toutes les personnes qui se présentent aux frontières extérieures ou après un débarquement, à la suite d’une opération de recherche et de sauvetage ». Il s’agira, pour les pays situés à la frontière extérieure de l’UE, de procéder – dans un délai de 5 jours et avec l’appui des agences européennes (l’agence européenne de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes – Frontex et le Bureau européen d’appui en matière d’asile – EASO) – à des contrôles d’identité (prise d’empreintes et enregistrement dans les bases de données européennes) doublés de contrôles sécuritaires et sanitaires afin de procéder à un tri préalable à l’entrée sur le territoire, permettant d’orienter ensuite les personne vers :

Une procédure d’asile accélérée à la frontière pour celles possédant une nationalité pour laquelle le taux de reconnaissance d’une protection internationale, à l’échelle de l’UE, est inférieure à 20%
Une procédure d’asile normale pour celles considérées comme éligibles à une protection.
Une procédure d’expulsion immédiate, depuis la frontière, pour toute celles qui auront été rejetées par ce dispositif de tri, dans un délai de 12 semaines.

Pendant cette procédure de filtrage à la frontière, les personnes seraient considérées comme n’étant pas encore entrées sur le territoire européen ce qui permettrait aux Etats de déroger aux conventions de droit international qui s’y appliquent.

Un premier projet pilote est notamment prévu à Lesbos, conjointement avec les autorités grecques, pour installer un nouveau camp sur l’île avec l’appui d’une Task Force européenne, directement placée sous le contrôle de la direction générale des affaires intérieure de la Commission européenne (DG HOME).

Difficile de voir où se trouve l’innovation dans la proposition présentée par la Commission. Si ce n’est que les États européens souhaitent pousser encore plus loin à la fois la logique de filtrage à ces frontières ainsi que la sous-traitance de leur contrôle. Depuis l’été 2018, l’Union européenne défend la création de « centres contrôlés au sein de l’UE » d’une part et de « plateformes de débarquement dans les pays tiers » d’autre part. L’UE, à travers ce nouveau mécanisme, vise à organiser l’expulsion rapide des migrants qui sont parvenus, souvent au péril de leur vie, à pénétrer sur son territoire. Pour ce faire, la coopération accrue avec les gardes-frontières des États non européens et l’appui opérationnel de l’agence Frontex sont encore et toujours privilégiés.
Un « nouvel écosystème en matière de retour »

L’obsession européenne pour l’amélioration du « taux de retour » se retrouve au cœur de ce nouveau pacte, en repoussant toujours plus les limites en matière de coopération extérieure et d’enfermement des personnes étrangères jugées indésirables et en augmentant de façon inédite ses moyens opérationnels.

Selon l’expression de Margaritis Schinas, commissaire grec en charge de la « promotion du mode de vie européen », la nouvelle procédure accélérée aux frontières s’accompagnera d’« un nouvel écosystème européen en matière de retour ». Il sera piloté par un « nouveau coordinateur de l’UE chargé des retours » ainsi qu’un « réseau de haut niveau coordonnant les actions nationales » avec le soutien de l’agence Frontex, qui devrait devenir « le bras opérationnel de la politique de retour européenne ».

Rappelons que Frontex a vu ses moyens décuplés ces dernières années, notamment en vue d’expulser plus de personnes migrantes. Celle-ci a encore vu ses moyens renforcés depuis l’entrée en vigueur de son nouveau règlement le 4 décembre 2019 dont la Commission souhaite accélérer la mise en œuvre effective. Au-delà d’une augmentation de ses effectifs et de la possibilité d’acquérir son propre matériel, l’agence bénéficie désormais de pouvoirs étendus pour identifier les personnes « expulsables » du territoire européen, obtenir les documents de voyage nécessaires à la mise en œuvre de leurs expulsions ainsi que pour coordonner des opérations d’expulsion au service des Etats membres.

La Commission souhaite également faire aboutir, d’ici le second trimestre 2021, le projet de révision de la directive européenne « Retour », qui constitue un recul sans précédent du cadre de protection des droits fondamentaux des personnes migrantes. Voir notre précédente actualité sur le sujet : L’expulsion au cœur des politiques migratoires européennes, 22 mai 2019
Des « partenariats sur-mesure » avec les pays d’origine et de transit

La Commission étend encore redoubler d’efforts afin d’inciter les Etats non européens à participer activement à empêcher les départs vers l’Europe ainsi qu’à collaborer davantage en matière de retour et de réadmission en utilisant l’ensemble des instruments politiques à sa disposition. Ces dernières années ont vu se multiplier les instruments européens de coopération formelle (à travers la signature, entre autres, d’accords de réadmission bilatéraux ou multilatéraux) et informelle (à l’instar de la tristement célèbre déclaration entre l’UE et la Turquie de mars 2016) à tel point qu’il est devenu impossible, pour les États ciblés, de coopérer avec l’UE dans un domaine spécifique sans que les objectifs européens en matière migratoire ne soient aussi imposés.

L’exécutif européen a enfin souligné sa volonté de d’exploiter les possibilités offertes par le nouveau règlement sur les visas Schengen, entré en vigueur en février 2020. Celui-ci prévoie d’évaluer, chaque année, le degré de coopération des Etats non européens en matière de réadmission. Le résultat de cette évaluation permettra d’adopter une décision de facilitation de visa pour les « bon élèves » ou à l’inverse, d’imposer des mesures de restrictions de visas aux « mauvais élèves ». Voir notre précédente actualité sur le sujet : Expulsions contre visas : le droit à la mobilité marchandé, 2 février 2020.

Conduite au seul prisme des intérêts européens, cette politique renforce le caractère historiquement déséquilibré des relations de « coopération » et entraîne en outre des conséquences désastreuses sur les droits des personnes migrantes, notamment celui de quitter tout pays, y compris le leur. Sous couvert d’aider ces pays à « se développer », les mesures « incitatives » européennes ne restent qu’un moyen de poursuivre ses objectifs et d’imposer sa vision des migrations. En coopérant davantage avec les pays d’origine et de transit, parmi lesquelles des dictatures et autres régimes autoritaires, l’UE renforce l’externalisation de ses politiques migratoires, sous-traitant la gestion des exilées aux Etats extérieurs à l’UE, tout en se déresponsabilisant des violations des droits perpétrées hors de ses frontières.
Solidarité à la carte, entre relocalisation et expulsion

Le constat d’échec du système Dublin – machine infernale de l’asile européen – conjugué à la volonté de parvenir à trouver un consensus suite aux profonds désaccords qui avaient mené les négociations sur Dublin IV dans l’impasse, la Commission souhaite remplacer l’actuel règlement de Dublin par un nouveau règlement sur la gestion de l’asile et de l’immigration, liant étroitement les procédures d’asile aux procédures d’expulsion.

Les quotas de relocalisation contraignants utilisés par le passé, à l’instar du mécanisme de relocalisation mis en place entre 2015 et 2017 qui fut un échec tant du point de vue du nombre de relocalisations (seulement 25 000 relocalisations sur les 160 000 prévues) que du refus de plusieurs Etats d’y participer, semblent être abandonnés.

Le nouveau pacte propose donc un nouveau mécanisme de solidarité, certes obligatoire mais flexible dans ses modalités. Ainsi les Etats membres devront choisir, selon une clé de répartition définie :

Soit de participer à l’effort de relocalisation des personnes identifiées comme éligibles à la protection internationale depuis les frontières extérieures pour prendre en charge l’examen de leur demande d’asile.
Soit de participer au nouveau concept de « parrainage des retours » inventé par la Commission européenne. Concrètement, il s’agit d’être « solidaire autrement », en s’engageant activement dans la politique de retour européenne par la mise en œuvre des expulsions des personnes que l’UE et ses Etats membres souhaitent éloigner du territoire, avec la possibilité de concentrer leurs efforts sur les nationalités pour lesquelles leurs perspectives de faire aboutir l’expulsion est la plus élevée.

De nouvelles règles pour les « situations de crise et de force majeure »

Le pacte prévoie d’abroger la directive européenne relative à des normes minimales pour l’octroi d’une protection temporaire en cas d’afflux massif de personnes déplacées, au profit d’un nouveau règlement européen relatif aux « situations de crise et de force majeure ». L’UE et ses Etats membres ont régulièrement essuyé les critiques des acteurs de la société civile pour n’avoir jamais activé la procédure prévue par la directive de 2001, notamment dans le cadre de situation exceptionnelle telle que la crise de l’accueil des personnes arrivées aux frontières sud de l’UE en 2015.

Le nouveau règlement prévoie notamment qu’en cas de « situation de crise ou de force majeure » les Etats membres pourraient déroger aux règles qui s’appliquent en matière d’asile, en suspendant notamment l’enregistrement des demandes d’asile pendant un durée d’un mois maximum. Cette mesure entérine des pratiques contraires au droit international et européen, à l’instar de ce qu’a fait la Grèce début mars 2020 afin de refouler toutes les personnes qui tenteraient de pénétrer le territoire européen depuis la Turquie voisine. Voir notre précédente actualité sur le sujet : Frontière Grèce-Turquie : de l’approche hotspot au scandale de la guerre aux migrant·e ·s, 3 mars 2020

Cette proposition représente un recul sans précédent du droit d’asile aux frontières et fait craindre de multiples violations du principe de non refoulement consacré par la Convention de Genève.

Bien loin d’engager un changement de cap des politiques migratoires européennes, le nouveau pacte européen migrations et asile ne semble n’être qu’un nouveau cadre de plus pour poursuivre une approche des mouvements migratoires qui, de longue date, s’est construite autour de la volonté d’empêcher les arrivées aux frontières et d’organiser un tri parmi les personnes qui auraient réussi à braver les obstacles pour atteindre le territoire européen, entre celles considérées éligibles à la demande d’asile et toutes les autres qui devraient être expulsées.

De notre point de vue, cela signifie surtout que des milliers de personnes continueront à être privées de liberté et à subir les dispositifs répressifs des Etats membres de l’Union européenne. Les conséquences néfastes sur la dignité humaine et les droits fondamentaux de cette approche sont flagrantes, les personnes exilées et leurs soutiens y sont confrontées tous les jours.

Encore une fois, des moyens très importants sont consacrés à financer l’érection de barrières physiques, juridiques et technologiques ainsi que la construction de camps sur les routes migratoires tandis qu’ils pourraient utilement être redéployés pour accueillir dignement et permettre un accès inconditionnel au territoire européen pour les personnes bloquées à ses frontières extérieures afin d’examiner avec attention et impartialité leurs situations et assurer le respect effectif des droits de tou∙te∙s.

Nous appelons à un changement radical des politiques migratoires, pour une Europe qui encourage les solidarités, fondée sur la protection des droits humains et la dignité humaine afin d’assurer la protection des personnes et non pas leur exclusion.

▻https://www.lacimade.org/pacte-europeen-sur-les-migrations-et-lasile-le-rendez-vous-manque-de-lue

EU’s new migrant ‘pact’ is as squalid as its refugee camps

Governments need to share responsibility for asylum seekers, beyond merely ejecting the unwanted

One month after fires swept through Europe’s largest, most squalid refugee camp, the EU’s migration policies present a picture as desolate as the blackened ruins of Moria on the Greek island of Lesbos. The latest effort at overhauling these policies is a European Commission “pact on asylum and migration”, which is not a pact at all. Its proposals sharply divide the EU’s 27 governments.

In an attempt to appease central and eastern European countries hostile to admitting asylum-seekers, the commission suggests, in an Orwellian turn of phrase, that they should operate “relocation and return sponsorships”, dispatching people refused entry to their places of origin. This sort of task is normally reserved for nightclub bouncers.

The grim irony is that Hungary and Poland, two countries that would presumably be asked to take charge of such expulsions, are the subject of EU disciplinary proceedings due to alleged violations of the rule of law. It remains a mystery how, if the commission proposal moves forward, the EU will succeed in binding Hungary and Poland into a common asylum policy and bend them into accepting EU definitions of the rule of law.

Perhaps the best thing to be said of the commission’s plan is that, unlike the UK government, EU policymakers are not toying with hare-brained schemes of sending asylum-seekers to Ascension Island in the south Atlantic. Such options are the imagined privilege of a former imperial power not divested of all its far-flung possessions.

Yet the commission’s initiative still reeks of wishful thinking. It foresees a process in which authorities swiftly check the identities, security status and health of irregular migrants, before returning them home, placing them in the asylum system or putting them in temporary facilities. This will supposedly decongest EU border zones, as governments will agree how to relocate new arrivals. But it is precisely the lack of such agreement since 2015 that led to Moria’s disgraceful conditions.

The commission should not be held responsible for governments failing to shoulder their responsibilities. It is also justified in emphasising the need for a strong EU frontier. This is a precondition for free movement inside the bloc, vital for a flourishing single market.

True, the Schengen system of border-free internal travel is curtailed at present because of the pandemic, not to mention restrictions introduced in some countries after the 2015 refugee and migrant crisis. But no government wants to abandon Schengen. Where they fall out with each other is over the housing of refugees and migrants.

Europe’s overcrowded, unhygienic refugee camps, and the paralysis that grips EU policies, are all the more shameful in that governments no longer face a border emergency. Some 60,800 irregular migrants crossed into the EU between January and August, 14 per cent less than the same period in 2019, according to the EU border agency.

By contrast, there were 1.8m illegal border crossings in 2015, a different order of magnitude. Refugees from conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria made desperate voyages across the Mediterranean, with thousands drowning in ramshackle boats. Some countries, led by Germany and Sweden, were extremely generous in opening their doors to refugees. Others were not.

The roots of today’s problems lie in the measures devised to address that crisis, above all a 2016 accord with Turkey. Irregular migrants were kept on Moria and other Greek islands, designated “hotspots”, in the expectation that failed asylum applicants would be smoothly returned to Turkey, its coffers replenished by billions of euros in EU assistance. In practice, few went back to Turkey and the understaffed, underfunded “hotspots” became places of tension between refugees and locals.

Unable to agree on a relocation scheme among themselves, EU governments lapsed into a de facto policy of deterrence of irregular migrants. The pandemic provided an excuse for Italy and Malta to close their ports to people rescued at sea. Visiting the Greek-Turkish border in March, Ursula von der Leyen, the commission president, declared: “I thank Greece for being our European aspida [shield].”

The legitimacy of EU refugee policies depends on adherence to international law, as well the bloc’s own rules. Its practical success requires all governments to share a responsibility for asylum-seekers that goes beyond ejecting unwanted individuals. Otherwise the EU will fall into the familiar trap of cobbling together unsatisfactory half-measures that guarantee more trouble in the future.

▻https://www.ft.com/content/c50c6b9c-75a8-40b1-900d-a228faa382dc?segmentid=acee4131-99c2-09d3-a635-873e61754

The EU’s pact against migration, Part One

The EU Commission’s proposal for a ‘New Pact for Migration and Asylum’ offers no prospect of ending the enduring mobility conflict, opposing the movements of illegalised migrants to the EU’s restrictive migration policies.

The ’New Pact for Migration and Asylum’, announced by the European Commission in July 2019, was finally presented on September 23, 2020. The Pact was eagerly anticipated as it was described as a “fresh start on migration in Europe”, acknowledging not only that Dublin had failed, but also that the negotiations between European member states as to what system might replace it had reached a standstill.

The fire in Moria that left more than 13.000 people stranded in the streets of Lesvos island offered a glaring symbol of the failure of the current EU policy. The public outcry it caused and expressions of solidarity it crystallised across Europe pressured the Commission to respond through the publication of its Pact.

Considering the trajectory of EU migration policies over the last decades, the particular position of the Commission within the European power structure and the current political conjuncture of strong anti-migration positions in Europe, we did not expect the Commission’s proposal to address the mobility conflict underlying its migration policy crisis in a constructive way. And indeed, the Pact’s main promise is to manage the diverging positions of member states through a new mechanism of “flexible solidarity” between member states in sharing the “burden” of migrants who have arrived on European territory. Perpetuating the trajectory of the last decades, it however remains premised on keeping most migrants from the global South out at all cost. The “New Pact” then is effectively a pact between European states against migrants. The Pact, which will be examined and possibly adopted by the European Parliament and Council in the coming months, confirms the impasse to which three decades of European migration and asylum policy have led, and an absence of any political imagination worthy of the name.
The EU’s migration regime’s failed architecture

The current architecture of the European border regime is based on two main and intertwined pillars: the Schengen Implementing Convention (SIC, or Schengen II) and the Dublin Convention, both signed in 1990, and gradually enforced in the following years.[1]

Created outside the EC/EU context, they became the central rationalities of the emerging European border and migration regime after their incorporation into EU law through the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997/99). Schengen instituted the EU’s territory as an area of free movement for its citizens and, as a direct consequence, reinforced the exclusion of citizens of the global South and pushed control towards its external borders.

However this profound transformation of European borders left unchanged the unbalanced systemic relations between Europe and the Global South, within which migrants’ movements are embedded. As a result, this policy shift did not stop migrants from reaching the EU but rather illegalised their mobility, forcing them to resort to precarious migration strategies and generating an easily exploitable labour force that has become a large-scale and permanent feature of EU economies.

The more than 40,000 migrant deaths recorded at the EU’s borders by NGOs since the end of the 1980s are the lethal outcomes of this enduring mobility conflict opposing the movements of illegalised migrants to the EU’s restrictive migration policies.

The second pillar of the EU’s migration architecture, the Dublin Convention, addressed asylum seekers and their allocation between member-states. To prevent them from filing applications in several EU countries – derogatively referred to as “asylum shopping” – the 2003 Dublin regulation states that the asylum seekers’ first country of entry into the EU is responsible for processing their claims. Dublin thus created an uneven European geography of (ir)responsibility that allowed the member states not directly situated at the intersection of European borders and routes of migration to abnegate their responsibility to provide shelter and protection, and placed a heavier “burden” on the shoulders of states located at the EU’s external borders.

This unbalanced architecture, around which the entire Common European Asylum System (CEAS) was constructed, would begin to wobble as soon as the number of people arriving on the EU’s shores rose, leading to crisis-driven policy responses to prevent the migration regime from collapsing under the pressure of migrants’ refusal to be assigned to a country that was not of their choosing, and conflicts between member states.

As a result, the development of a European border, migration and asylum policy has been driven by crisis and is inherently reactive. This pattern particularly holds for the last decade, when the large-scale movements of migrants to Europe in the wake of the Arab Uprisings in 2011 put the EU migration regime into permanent crisis mode and prompted hasty reforms. As of 2011, Italy allowed Tunisians to move on, leading to the re-introduction of border controls by states such as France, while the same year the 2011 European Court of Human Rights’ judgement brought Dublin deportations to Greece to a halt because of the appalling reception and living conditions there. The increasing refusal by asylum seekers to surrender their fingerprints – the core means of implementing Dublin – as of 2013 further destabilized the migration regime.

The instability only grew when in April 2015, more then 1,200 people died in two consecutive shipwrecks, forcing the Commission to publish its ‘European Agenda for Migration’ in May 2015. The 2015 agenda announced the creation of the hotspot system in the hope of re-stabilising the European migration regime through a targeted intervention of European agencies at Europe’s borders. Essentially, the hotspot approach offered a deal to EU member states: comprehensive registration in Europeanised structures (the hotspots) by so-called “front-line states” – thus re-imposing Dublin – in exchange for relocation of part of the registered migrants to other EU countries – thereby alleviating front-line states of part of their “burden”.

This plan however collapsed before it could ever work, as it was immediately followed by the large-scale summer arrivals of 2015 as migrants trekked across Europe’s borders. It was simultaneously boycotted by several member states who refused relocations and continue to lead the charge in fomenting an explicit anti-migration agenda in the EU. While border controls were soon reintroduced, relocations never materialised in a meaningful manner in the years that followed.

With the Dublin regime effectively paralysed and the EU unable to agree on a new mechanism for the distribution of asylum seekers within Europe, the EU resorted to the decades-old policies that had shaped the European border and migration regime since its inception: keeping migrants out at all cost through border control implemented by member states, European agencies or outsourced to third countries.

Considering the profound crisis the turbulent movements of migrants had plunged the EU into in the summer of 2015, no measure was deemed excessive in achieving this exclusionary end: neither the tacit acceptance of violent expulsions and push-backs by Spain and Greece, nor the outsourcing of border control to Libyan torturers, nor the shameless collaboration with dictatorial regimes such as Turkey.

Under the guise of “tackling the root causes of migration”, development aid was diverted and used to impose border externalisation and deportation agreements. But the external dimension of the EU’s migration regime has proven just as unstable as its internal one – as the re-opening of borders by Turkey in March 2020 demonstrates. The movements of illegalised migrants towards the EU could never be entirely contained and those who reached the shores of Europe were increasingly relegated to infrastructures of detention. Even if keeping thousands of migrants stranded in the hell of Moria may not have been part of the initial hotspot plan, it certainly has been the outcome of the EU’s internal blockages and ultimately effective in shoring up the EU’s strategy of deterrence.

The “New Pact” perpetuating the EU’s failed policy of closure

Today the “New Pact”, promised for Spring 2020 and apparently forgotten at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, has been revived in a hurry to address the destruction of Moria hotspot. While detailed analysis of the regulations that it proposes are beyond the scope of this article,[2] the broad intentions of the Pact’s rationale are clear.

Despite all its humane and humanitarian rhetoric and some language critically addressing the manifest absence of the rule of law at the border of Europe, the Commission’s pact is a pact against migration. Taking stock of the continued impasse in terms of internal distribution of migrants, it re-affirms the EU’s central objective of reducing, massively the number of asylum seekers to be admitted to Europe. It promises to do so by continuing to erect chains of externalised border control along migrants’ entire trajectories (what it refers to as the “whole-of-route approach”).

Those who do arrive should be swiftly screened and sorted in an infrastructure of detention along the borders of Europe. The lucky few who will succeed in fitting their lives into the shrinking boxes of asylum law are to be relocated to other EU countries in function of a mechanism of distribution based on population size and wealth of member states.

Whether this will indeed undo the imbalances of the Dublin regime remains an open question[3], nevertheless, this relocation key is one of the few positive steps offered by the Pact since it comes closer to migrants’ own “relocation key” but still falls short of granting asylum seekers the freedom to choose their country of protection and residence.[4] The majority of rejected asylum seekers – which may be determined on the basis of an extended understanding of the “safe third country” notion – is to be funnelled towards deportations operated by the EU states refusing relocation. The Commission hopes deportations will be made smoother after a newly appointed “EU Return Coordinator” will have bullied countries of origin into accepting their nationals using the carrot of development aid and the stick of visa sanctions. The Commission seems to believe that with fewer expected arrivals and fewer migrants ending up staying in Europe, and with its mechanism of “flexible solidarity” allowing for a selective participation in relocations or returns depending on the taste of its member states, it can both bridge the gap between member states’ interests and push for a deeper Europeanisation of the policy field in which its own role will become more central.

Thus, the EU Commission’s attempt to square the circle of member states’ conflicting interests has resulted in a European pact against migration, which perpetuates the promises of the EU’s (anti-)migration policy over the last three decades: externalisation, enhanced borders, accelerated asylum procedures, detention and deportations to prevent and deter migrants from the global South. It seeks to strike yet another deal between European member states, without consulting – and at the expense of – migrants themselves. Because most of the policy means contained in the pact are not new, and have always failed to durably end illegalised migration – instead they have created a large precaritised population at the heart of Europe – we do not see how they would work today. Migrants will continue to arrive, and many will remain stranded in front-line states or other EU states as they await deportation. As such, the outcome of the pact (if it is agreed upon) is likely a perpetuation and generalisation of the hotspot system, the very system whose untenability – glaringly demonstrated by Moria’s fire – prompted the presentation of the New Pact in the first place. Even if the Commission’s “no more Morias” rhetoric would like to persuade us of the opposite,[5] the ruins of Moria point to the past as well as the potential future of the CEAS if the Commission has its way.

We are dismayed at the loss of yet another opportunity for Europe to fundamentally re-orient its policy of closure, one which is profoundly at odds with the reality of large-scale displacement in an unequal and interconnected world. We are dismayed at the prospect of more suffering and more political crises that can only be the outcome of this continued policy failure. Clearly, an entirely different approach to how Europe engages with the movements of migration is called for. One which actually aims to de-escalate and transform the enduring mobility conflict. One which starts from the reality of the movements of migrants and offers a frame for it to unfold rather than seeks to suppress and deny it.

Notes and references

[1] We have offered an extensive analysis of the following argument in previous articles. See in particular : Bernd Kasparek. 2016. “Complementing Schengen: The Dublin System and the European Border and Migration Regime”. In Migration Policy and Practice, edited by Harald Bauder and Christian Matheis, 59–78. Migration, Diasporas and Citizenship. Houndmills & New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Charles Heller and Lorenzo Pezzani. 2016. “Ebbing and Flowing: The EU’s Shifting Practices of (Non-)Assistance and Bordering in a Time of Crisis”. Near Futures Online. No 1. Available here.

[2] For first analyses see Steve Peers. 2020. “First analysis of the EU’s new asylum proposals”, EU Law Analysis, 25 September 2020; Sergio Carrera. 2020. “Whose Pact? The Cognitive Dimensions of the New EU Pact on Migration and Asylum”, CEPS, September 2020.

[3] Carrera, ibid.

[4] For a discussion of migration of migrants’ own relocation key, see Philipp Lutz, David Kaufmann and Anna Stütz. 2020. “Humanitarian Protection as a European Public Good: The Strategic Role of States and Refugees”, Journal of Common Market Studies 2020 Volume 58. Number 3. pp. 757–775. To compare the actual asylum applications across Europe over the last years with different relocations keys, see the tool developed by Etienne Piguet.

▻https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/the-eus-pact-against-migration-part-one

#whole-of-route_approach #relocalisation #clé_de_relocalisation #relocation_key #pays-tiers_sûrs #EU_Return_Coordinator #solidarité_flexible #externalisation #new_pact

Towards a European pact with migrants, Part Two

We call for a new Pact that addresses the reality of migrants’ movements, the systemic conditions leading people to flee their homes as well as the root causes of Europe’s racism.

In Part One, we analysed the EU’s new Pact against migration. Here, we call for an entirely different approach to how Europe engages with migration, one which offers a legal frame for migration to unfold, and addresses the systemic conditions leading people to flee their homes as well as the root causes of Europe’s racism.Let us imagine for a moment that the EU Commission truly wanted, and was in a position, to reorient the EU’s migration policy in a direction that might actually de-escalate and transform the enduring mobility conflict: what might its pact with migrants look like?

The EU’s pact with migrants might start from three fundamental premises. First, it would recognize that any policy that is entirely at odds with social practices is bound to generate conflict, and ultimately fail. A migration policy must start from the social reality of migration and provide a frame for it to unfold. Second, the pact would acknowledge that no conflict can be brought to an end unilaterally. Any process of conflict transformation must bring together the conflicting parties, and seek to address their needs, interests and values so that they no longer clash with each other. In particular, migrants from the global South must be included in the definition of the policies that concern them. Third, it would recognise, as Tendayi Achiume has put it, that migrants from the global South are no strangers to Europe.[1] They have long been included in the expansive webs of empire. Migration and borders are embedded in these unequal relations, and no end to the mobility conflict can be achieved without fundamentally transforming them. Based on these premises, the EU’s pact with migrants might contain the following four core measures:
Global justice and conflict prevention

Instead of claiming to tackle the “root causes” of migration by diverting and instrumentalising development aid towards border control, the EU’s pact with migrants would end all European political and economic relations that contribute to the crises leading to mass displacement. The EU would end all support to dictatorial regimes, would ban all weapon exports, terminate all destabilising military interventions. It would cancel unfair trade agreements and the debts of countries of the global South. It would end its massive carbon emissions that contribute to the climate crisis. Through these means, the EU would not claim to end migration perceived as a “problem” for Europe, but it would contribute to allowing more people to live a dignified life wherever they are and decrease forced migration, which certainly is a problem for migrants. A true commitment to global justice and conflict prevention and resolution is necessary if Europe wishes to limit the factors that lead too many people onto the harsh paths of exile in their countries and regions, a small proportion of whom reach European shores.
Tackling the “root causes” of European racism

While the EU’s so-called “global approach” to migration has in fact been one-sided, focused exclusively on migration as “the problem” rather then the processes that drive the EU’s policies of exclusion, the EU’s pact with migrants would boldly tackle the “root causes” of racism and xenophobia in Europe. Bold policies designed to address the EU’s colonial past and present and the racial imaginaries it has unleashed would be proposed, a positive vision for living in common in diverse societies affirmed, and a more inclusive and fair economic system would be established in Europe to decrease the resentment of European populations which has been skilfully channelled against migrants and racialised people.
Universal freedom of movement

By tackling the causes of large-scale displacement and of exclusionary migration policies, the EU would be able to de-escalate the mobility conflict, and could thus propose a policy granting all migrants legal pathways to access and stay in Europe. As an immediate outcome of the institution of right to international mobility, migrants would no longer resort to smugglers and risk their lives crossing the sea – and thus no longer be in need of being rescued. Using safe and legal means of travel would also, in the time of Covid-19 pandemic, allow migrants to adopt all sanitary measures that are necessary to protect migrants and those they encounter. No longer policed through military means, migration could appear as a normal process that does not generate fear. Frontex, the European border agency, would be defunded, and concentrate its limited activities on detecting actual threats to the EU rather then constructing vulnerable populations as “risks”. In a world that would be less unequal and in which people would have the possibly to lead a dignified life wherever they are, universal freedom of movement would not lead to an “invasion” of Europe. Circulatory movement rather then permanent settlement would be frequent. Migrants’ legal status would no longer allow employers to push working conditions down. A European asylum system would continue to exist, to grant protection and support to those in need. The vestiges of the EU’s hotspots and detention centres might be turned into ministries of welcome, which would register and redirect people to the place of their choice. Registration would thus be a mere certification of having taken the first step towards European citizenship, transforming the latter into a truly post-national institution, a far horizon which current EU treaties only hint at.
Democratizing borders

Considering that all European migration policies to date have been fundamentally undemocratic – in that they were imposed on a group of people – migrants – who had no say in the legislative and political process defining the laws that govern their movement – the pact would instead be the outcome of considerable consultative process with migrants and the organisations that support them, as well the states of the global South. The pact, following from Étienne Balibar’s suggestion, would in turn propose to permanently democratise borders by instituting “a multilateral, negotiated control of their working by the populations themselves (including, of course, migrant populations),” within “new representative institutions” that “are not merely ‘territorial’ and certainly not purely national.”[2] In such a pact, the original promise of Europe as a post-national project would finally be revived.

Such a policy orientation may of course appear as nothing more then a fantasy. And yet it appears evident to us that the direction we suggest is the only realistic one. European citizens and policy makers alike must realise that the question is not whether migrants will exercise their freedom to cross borders, but at what human and political cost. As a result, it is far more realistic to address the processes within which the mobility conflict is embedded, than seeking to ban human mobility. As the Black Lives Matter’s slogan “No justice no peace!” resonating in the streets of the world over recent months reminds us, without mobility justice, [3] their can be no end to mobility conflict.
The challenges ahead for migrant solidarity movements

Our policy proposals are perfectly realistic in relation to migrants’ movements and the processes shaping them, yet we are well aware that they are not on the agenda of neoliberal and nationalist Europe. If the EU Commission has squandered yet another opportunity to reorient the EU’s migration policy, it is simply that this Europe, governed by these member states and politicians, has lost the capacity to offer bold visions of democracy, freedom and justice for itself and the world. As such, we have little hope for a fundamental reorientation of the EU’s policies. The bleak prospect is of the perpetuation of the mobility conflict, and the human suffering and political crises it generates.

What are those who seek to support migrants to do in this context?

We must start by a sobering note addressed to the movement we are part of: the fire of Moria is not only a symptom and symbol of the failures of the EU’s migration policies and member states, but also of our own strategies. After all, since the hotspots were proposed in 2015 we have tirelessly denounced them, and documented the horrendous living conditions they have created. NGOs have litigated against them, but efforts have been turned down by a European Court of Human Rights that appears increasingly reluctant to position itself on migration-related issues and is thereby contributing to the perpetuation of grave violations by states.

And despite the extraordinary mobilisation of civil society in alliance with municipalities across Europe who have declared themselves ready to welcome migrants, relocations never materialised on any significant scale. After five years of tireless mobilization, the hotspots still stand, with thousands of asylum seekers trapped in them.

While the conditions leading to the fire are still being clarified, it appears that the migrants held hostage in Moria took it into their own hands to try to get rid of the camp through the desperate act of burning it to the ground. As such, while we denounce the EU’s policies, our movements are urgently in need of re-evaluating their own modes of action, and re-imagining them more effectively.

We have no lessons to give, as we share these shortcomings. But we believe that some of the directions we have suggested in our utopian Pact with migrants can guide migrant solidarity movements as well , as they may be implemented from the bottom-up in the present and help reopen our political imagination.

The freedom to move is not, or not only, a distant utopia, that may be instituted by states in some distant future. It can also be seen as a right and freedom that illegalised migrants seize on a day-to-day basis as they cross borders without authorisation, and persist in living where they choose.

Freedom of movement can serve as a useful compass to direct and evaluate our practices of contestation and support. Litigation remains an important tool to counter the multiple forms of violence and violations that migrants face along their trajectories, even as we acknowledge that national and international courts are far from immune to the anti-migrant atmosphere within states. Forging infrastructures of support for migrants in the course of their mobility (such as the WatchTheMed Alarm Phone and the civilian rescue fleet) – and their stay (such as the many citizen platforms for housing )– is and will continue to be essential.

While states seek to implement what they call an “integrated border management” that seeks to manage migrants’ unruly mobilities before, at, and after borders, we can think of our own networks as forming a fragmented yet interconnected “integrated border solidarity” along the migrants’ entire trajectory. The criminalisation of our acts of solidarity by states is proof that we are effective in disrupting the violence of borders.

Solidarity cities have formed important nodes in these chains, as municipalities do have the capacity to enable migrants to live in dignity in urban spaces, and limit the reach of their security forces for example. Their dissonant voices of welcome have been important in demonstrating that segments of the European population, which are far from negligible, refuse to be complicit with the EU’s policies of closure and are ready to embody an open relation of solidarity with migrants and beyond. However we must also acknowledge that the prerogative of granting access to European states remains in the hands of central administrations, not in those of municipalities, and thus the readiness to welcome migrants has not allowed the latter to actually seek sanctuary.

While humanitarian and humanist calls for welcome are important, we too need to locate migration and borders in a broader political and economic context – that of the past and present of empire – so that they can be understood as questions of (in)justice. Echoing the words of the late Edouard Glissant, as activists focusing on illegalised migration we should never forget that “to have to force one’s way across borders as a result of one’s misery is as scandalous as what founds that misery”.[4] As a result of this framing, many more alliances can be forged today between migrant solidarity movements and the global justice and climate justice movements, as well as anti-racist, anti-fascist, feminist and decolonial movements. Through such alliances, we may be better equipped to support migrants throughout their entire trajectories, and transform the conditions that constrain them today.

Ultimately, to navigate its way out of its own impasses, it seems to us that migrant solidarity movements must address four major questions.

First, what migration policy do we want? The predictable limits of the EU’s pact against migration may be an opportunity to forge our own alternative agenda.

Second, how can we not only oppose the implementation of restrictive policies but shape the policy process itself so as to transform the field on which we struggle? Opposing the EU’s anti-migrant pact over the coming months may allow us to conduct new experiments.

Third, as long as policies that deny basic principles of equality, freedom, justice, and our very common humanity, are still in place, how can we lead actions that disrupt them effectively? For example, what are the forms of nongovernmental evacuations that might support migrants in accessing Europe, and moving across its internal borders?

Fourth, how can struggles around migration and borders be part of the forging of a more equal, free, just and sustainable world for all?

The next months during which the EU’s Pact against migration will be discussed in front of the European Parliament and Council will see an uphill battle for all those who still believe in the possibility of a Europe of openness and solidarity. While we have no illusions as to the policy outcome, this is an opportunity we must seize, not only to claim that another Europe and another world is possible, but to start building them from below.

Notes and references

[1] Tendayi Achiume. 2019, “The Postcolonial Case for Rethinking Borders.” Dissent 66.3: pp.27-32.

[2] Etienne Balibar. 2004. We, the People of Europe? Reflections on Transnational Citizenship. Princeton: University Press, p. 108 and 117.

[3] Mimi Sheller. 2018. Mobility Justice: The Politics of Movement in an Age of Extremes. London: Verso.

[4] Edouard Glissant. 2006. “Il n’est frontière qu’on n’outrepasse”. Le Monde diplomatique, October 2006.

▻https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/towards-pact-migrants-part-two

Pacte européen sur la migration et l’asile : Afin de garantir un nouveau départ et d’éviter de reproduire les erreurs passées, certains éléments à risque doivent être reconsidérés et les aspects positifs étendus.

L’engagement en faveur d’une approche plus humaine de la protection et l’accent mis sur les aspects positifs et bénéfiques de la migration avec lesquels la Commission européenne a lancé le Pacte sur la migration et l’asile sont les bienvenus. Cependant, les propositions formulées reflètent très peu cette rhétorique et ces ambitions. Au lieu de rompre avec les erreurs de la précédente approche de l’Union européenne (UE) et d’offrir un nouveau départ, le Pacte continue de se focaliser sur l’externalisation, la dissuasion, la rétention et le retour.

Cette première analyse des propositions, réalisée par la société civile, a été guidée par les questions suivantes :

Les propositions formulées sont-elles en mesure de garantir, en droit et en pratique, le respect des normes internationales et européennes ?
Participeront-elles à un partage plus juste des responsabilités en matière d’asile au niveau de l’UE et de l’international ?
Seront-elles susceptibles de fonctionner en pratique ?

Au lieu d’un partage automatique des responsabilités, le Pacte introduit un système de Dublin, qui n’en porte pas le nom, plus complexe et un mécanisme de « parrainage au retour »

Le Pacte sur la migration et l’asile a manqué l’occasion de réformer en profondeur le système de Dublin : le principe de responsabilité du premier pays d’arrivée pour examiner les demandes d’asile est, en pratique, maintenu. De plus, le Pacte propose un système complexe introduisant diverses formes de solidarité.

Certains ajouts positifs dans les critères de détermination de l’Etat membre responsable de la demande d’asile sont à relever, par exemple, l’élargissement de la définition des membres de famille afin d’inclure les frères et sœurs, ainsi qu’un large éventail de membres de famille dans le cas des mineurs non accompagnés et la délivrance d’un diplôme ou d’une autre qualification par un Etat membre. Cependant, au regard de la pratique actuelle des Etats membres, il sera difficile de s’éloigner du principe du premier pays d’entrée comme l’option de départ en faveur des nouvelles considérations prioritaires, notamment le regroupement familial.

Dans le cas d’un nombre élevé de personnes arrivées sur le territoire (« pression migratoire ») ou débarquées suite à des opérations de recherche et de sauvetage, la solidarité entre Etats membres est requise. Les processus qui en découlent comprennent une série d’évaluations, d’engagements et de rapports devant être rédigés par les États membres. Si la réponse collective est insuffisante, la Commission européenne peut prendre des mesures correctives. Au lieu de promouvoir un mécanisme de soutien pour un partage prévisible des responsabilités, ces dispositions tendent plutôt à créer des formes de négociations entre États membres qui nous sont toutes devenues trop familières. La complexité des propositions soulève des doutes quant à leur application réelle en pratique.

Les États membres sont autorisés à choisir le « parrainage de retour » à la place de la relocalisation de personnes sur leur territoire, ce qui indique une attention égale portée au retour et à la protection. Au lieu d’apporter un soutien aux Etats membres en charge d’un plus grand nombre de demandes de protection, cette proposition soulève de nombreuses préoccupations juridiques et relatives au respect des droits de l’homme, en particulier si le transfert vers l’Etat dit « parrain » se fait après l’expiration du délai de 8 mois. Qui sera en charge de veiller au traitement des demandeurs d’asile déboutés à leur arrivée dans des Etats qui n’acceptent pas la relocalisation ?

Le Pacte propose d’étendre l’utilisation de la procédure à la frontière, y compris un recours accru à la rétention

A défaut de rééquilibrer la responsabilité entre les États membres de l’UE, la proposition de règlement sur les procédures communes exacerbe la pression sur les États situés aux frontières extérieures de l’UE et sur les pays des Balkans occidentaux. La Commission propose de rendre, dans certains cas, les procédures d’asile et de retour à la frontière obligatoires. Cela s’appliquerait notamment aux ressortissants de pays dont le taux moyen de protection de l’UE est inférieur à 20%. Ces procédures seraient facultatives lorsque les Etats membres appliquent les concepts de pays tiers sûr ou pays d’origine sûr. Toutefois, la Commission a précédemment proposé que ceux-ci deviennent obligatoires pour l’ensemble des Etats membres. Les associations réitèrent leurs inquiétudes quant à l’utilisation de ces deux concepts qui ont été largement débattus entre 2016 et 2019. Leur application obligatoire ne doit plus être proposée.

La proposition de procédure à la frontière repose sur deux hypothèses erronées – notamment sur le fait que la majorité des personnes arrivant en Europe n’est pas éligible à un statut de protection et que l’examen des demandes de protection peut être effectué facilement et rapidement. Ni l’une ni l’autre ne sont correctes. En effet, en prenant en considération à la fois les décisions de première et de seconde instance dans toute l’UE il apparaît que la plupart des demandeurs d’asile dans l’UE au cours des trois dernières années ont obtenu un statut de protection. En outre, le Pacte ne doit pas persévérer dans cette approche erronée selon laquelle les procédures d’asile peuvent être conduites rapidement à travers la réduction de garanties et l’introduction d’un système de tri. La durée moyenne de la procédure d’asile aux Pays-Bas, souvent qualifiée d’ « élève modèle » pour cette pratique, dépasse un an et peut atteindre deux années jusqu’à ce qu’une décision soit prise.

La proposition engendrerait deux niveaux de standards dans les procédures d’asile, largement déterminés par le pays d’origine de la personne concernée. Cela porte atteinte au droit individuel à l’asile et signifierait qu’un nombre accru de personnes seront soumises à une procédure de deuxième catégorie. Proposer aux Etats membres d’émettre une décision d’asile et d’éloignement de manière simultanée, sans introduire de garanties visant à ce que les principes de non-refoulement, d’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant, et de protection de la vie privée et familiale ne soient examinés, porte atteinte aux obligations qui découlent du droit international. La proposition formulée par la Commission supprime également l’effet suspensif automatique du recours, c’est-à-dire le droit de rester sur le territoire dans l’attente d’une décision finale rendue dans le cadre d’une procédure à la frontière.

L’idée selon laquelle les personnes soumises à des procédures à la frontière sont considérées comme n’étant pas formellement entrées sur le territoire de l’État membre est trompeuse et contredit la récente jurisprudence de l’UE, sans pour autant modifier les droits de l’individu en vertu du droit européen et international.

La proposition prive également les personnes de la possibilité d’accéder à des permis de séjour pour des motifs autres que l’asile et impliquera très probablement une privation de liberté pouvant atteindre jusqu’à 6 mois aux frontières de l’UE, c’est-à-dire un maximum de douze semaines dans le cadre de la procédure d’asile à la frontière et douze semaines supplémentaires en cas de procédure de retour à la frontière. En outre, les réformes suppriment le principe selon lequel la rétention ne doit être appliquée qu’en dernier recours dans le cadre des procédures aux frontières. En s’appuyant sur des restrictions plus systématiques des mouvements dans le cadre des procédures à la frontière, la proposition restreindra l’accès de l’individu aux services de base fournis par des acteurs qui ne pourront peut-être pas opérer à la frontière, y compris pour l’assistance et la représentation juridiques. Avec cette approche, on peut s’attendre aux mêmes échecs rencontrés dans la mise en œuvre des « hotspot » sur les îles grecques.

La reconnaissance de l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant comme élément primordial dans toutes les procédures pour les États membres est positive. Cependant, la Commission diminue les garanties de protection des enfants en n’exemptant que les mineurs non accompagnés ou âgés de moins de douze ans des procédures aux frontières. Ceci est en contradiction avec la définition internationale de l’enfant qui concerne toutes les personnes jusqu’à l’âge de dix-huit ans, telle qu’inscrite dans la Convention relative aux droits de l’enfant ratifiée par tous les États membres de l’UE.

Dans les situations de crise, les États membres sont autorisés à déroger à d’importantes garanties qui soumettront davantage de personnes à des procédures d’asile de qualité inférieure

La crainte d’iniquité procédurale est d’autant plus visible dans les situations où un État membre peut prétendre être confronté à une « situation exceptionnelle d’afflux massif » ou au risque d’une telle situation.

Dans ces cas, le champ d’application de la procédure obligatoire aux frontières est considérablement étendu à toutes les personnes en provenance de pays dont le taux moyen de protection de l’UE est inférieur à 75%. La procédure d’asile à la frontière et la procédure de retour à la frontière peuvent être prolongées de huit semaines supplémentaires, soit cinq mois chacune, ce qui porte à dix mois la durée maximale de privation de liberté. En outre, les États membres peuvent suspendre l’enregistrement des demandes d’asile pendant quatre semaines et jusqu’à un maximum de trois mois. Par conséquent, si aucune demande n’est enregistrée pendant plusieurs semaines, les personnes sont susceptibles d’être exposées à un risque accru de rétention et de refoulement, et leurs droits relatifs à un accueil digne et à des services de base peuvent être gravement affectés.

Cette mesure permet aux États membres de déroger à leur responsabilité de garantir un accès à l’asile et un examen efficace et équitable de l’ensemble des demandes d’asile, ce qui augmente ainsi le risque de refoulement. Dans certains cas extrêmes, notamment lorsque les États membres agissent en violation flagrante et persistante des obligations du droit de l’UE, le processus de demande d’autorisation à la Commission européenne pourrait être considéré comme une amélioration, étant donné qu’actuellement la loi est ignorée, sans consultation et ce malgré les critiques de la Commission européenne. Toutefois, cela ne peut être le point de départ de l’évaluation de cette proposition de la législation européenne. L’impact à grande échelle de cette dérogation offre la possibilité à ce qu’une grande majorité des personnes arrivant dans l’UE soient soumises à une procédure de second ordre.

Pré-filtrage à la frontière : risques et opportunités

La Commission propose un processus de « pré-filtrage à l’entrée » pour toutes les personnes qui arrivent de manière irrégulière aux frontières de l’UE, y compris à la suite d’un débarquement dans le cadre des opérations de recherche et de sauvetage. Le processus de pré-filtrage comprend des contrôles de sécurité, de santé et de vulnérabilité, ainsi que l’enregistrement des empreintes digitales, mais il conduit également à des décisions impactant l’accès à l’asile, notamment en déterminant si une personne doit être sujette à une procédure d’asile accélérée à la frontière, de relocalisation ou de retour. Ce processus peut durer jusqu’à 10 jours et doit être effectué au plus près possible de la frontière. Le lieu où les personnes seront placées et l’accès aux conditions matérielles d’accueil demeurent flous. Le filtrage peut également être appliqué aux personnes se trouvant sur le territoire d’un État membre, ce qui pourrait conduire à une augmentation de pratiques discriminatoires. Des questions se posent également concernant les droits des personnes soumises au filtrage, tels que l’accès à l’information, , l’accès à un avocat et au droit de contester la décision prise dans ce contexte ; les motifs de refus d’entrée ; la confidentialité et la protection des données collectées. Etant donné que les États membres peuvent facilement se décharger de leurs responsabilités en matière de dépistage médical et de vulnérabilité, il n’est pas certain que certains besoins seront effectivement détectés et pris en considération.

Une initiative à saluer est la proposition d’instaurer un mécanisme indépendant des droits fondamentaux à la frontière. Afin qu’il garantisse une véritable responsabilité face aux violations des droits à la frontière, y compris contre les éloignements et les refoulements récurrents dans un grand nombre d’États membres, ce mécanisme doit être étendu au-delà de la procédure de pré-filtrage, être indépendant des autorités nationales et impliquer des organisations telles que les associations non gouvernementales.

La proposition fait de la question du retour et de l’expulsion une priorité

L’objectif principal du Pacte est clair : augmenter de façon significative le nombre de personnes renvoyées ou expulsées de l’UE. La création du poste de Coordinateur en charge des retours au sein de la Commission européenne et d’un directeur exécutif adjoint aux retours au sein de Frontex en sont la preuve, tandis qu’aucune nomination n’est prévue au sujet de la protection de garanties ou de la relocalisation. Le retour est considéré comme un élément admis dans la politique migratoire et le soutien pour des retours dignes, en privilégiant les retours volontaires, l’accès à une assistance au retour et l’aide à la réintégration, sont essentiels. Cependant, l’investissement dans le retour n’est pas une réponse adaptée au non-respect systématique des normes d’asile dans les États membres de l’UE.

Rien de nouveau sur l’action extérieure : des propositions irréalistes qui risquent de continuer d’affaiblir les droits de l’homme

La tension entre l’engagement rhétorique pour des partenariats mutuellement bénéfiques et la focalisation visant à placer la migration au cœur des relations entre l’UE et les pays tiers se poursuit. Les tentatives d’externaliser la responsabilité de l’asile et de détourner l’aide au développement, les mécanismes de visa et d’autres outils pour inciter les pays tiers à coopérer sur la gestion migratoire et les accords de réadmission sont maintenues. Cela ne représente pas seulement un risque allant à l’encontre de l’engagement de l’UE pour ses principes de développement, mais cela affaiblit également sa posture internationale en générant de la méfiance et de l’hostilité depuis et à l’encontre des pays tiers. De plus, l’usage d’accords informels et la coopération sécuritaire sur la gestion migratoire avec des pays tels que la Libye ou la Turquie risquent de favoriser les violations des droits de l’homme, d’encourager les gouvernements répressifs et de créer une plus grande instabilité.

Un manque d’ambition pour des voies légales et sûres vers l’Europe

L’opportunité pour l’UE d’indiquer qu’elle est prête à contribuer au partage des responsabilités pour la protection au niveau international dans un esprit de partenariat avec les pays qui accueillent la plus grande majorité des réfugiés est manquée. Au lieu de proposer un objectif ambitieux de réinstallation de réfugiés, la Commission européenne a seulement invité les Etats membres à faire plus et a converti les engagements de 2020 en un mécanisme biennal, ce qui résulte en la perte d’une année de réinstallation européenne.

La reconnaissance du besoin de faciliter la migration de main-d’œuvre à travers différents niveaux de compétences est à saluer, mais l’importance de cette migration dans les économies et les sociétés européennes ne se reflète pas dans les ressources, les propositions et les actions allouées.

Le soutien aux activités de recherche et de sauvetage et aux actions de solidarité doit être renforcé

La tragédie humanitaire dans la mer Méditerranée nécessite encore une réponse y compris à travers un soutien financier et des capacités de recherches et de sauvetage. Cet enjeu ainsi que celui du débarquement sont pris en compte dans toutes les propositions, reconnaissant ainsi la crise humanitaire actuelle. Cependant, au lieu de répondre aux comportements et aux dispositions règlementaires des gouvernements qui obstruent les activités de secours et le travail des défendeurs des droits, la Commission européenne suggère que les standards de sécurité sur les navires et les niveaux de communication avec les acteurs privés doivent être surveillés. Les acteurs privés sont également requis d’adhérer non seulement aux régimes légaux, mais aussi aux politiques et pratiques relatives à « la gestion migratoire » qui peuvent potentiellement interférer avec les obligations de recherches et de sauvetage.

Bien que la publication de lignes directrices pour prévenir la criminalisation de l’action humanitaire soit la bienvenue, celles-ci se limitent aux actes mandatés par la loi avec une attention spécifique aux opérations de sauvetage et de secours. Cette approche risque d’omettre les activités humanitaires telles que la distribution de nourriture, d’abris, ou d’information sur le territoire ou assurés par des organisations non mandatées par le cadre légal qui sont également sujettes à ladite criminalisation et à des restrictions.

Des signes encourageants pour l’inclusion

Les changements proposés pour permettre aux réfugiés d’accéder à une résidence de long-terme après trois ans et le renforcement du droit de se déplacer et de travailler dans d’autres Etats membres sont positifs. De plus, la révision du Plan d’action pour l’inclusion et l’intégration et la mise en place d’un groupe d’experts pour collecter l’avis des migrants afin de façonner la politique européenne sont les bienvenues.

La voie à suivre

La présentation des propositions de la Commission est le commencement de ce qui promet d’être une autre longue période conflictuelle de négociations sur les politiques européennes d’asile et de migration. Alors que ces négociations sont en cours, il est important de rappeler qu’il existe déjà un régime d’asile européen et que les Etats membres ont des obligations dans le cadre du droit européen et international.

Cela requiert une action immédiate de la part des décideurs politiques européens, y compris de la part des Etats membres, de :

Mettre en œuvre les standards existants en lien avec les conditions matérielles d’accueil et les procédures d’asile, d’enquêter sur leur non-respect et de prendre les mesures disciplinaires nécessaires ;
Sauver des vies en mer, et de garantir des capacités de sauvetage et de secours, permettant un débarquement et une relocalisation rapide ;
Continuer de s’accorder sur des arrangements ad-hoc de solidarité pour alléger la pression sur les Etats membres aux frontières extérieures de l’UE et encourager les Etats membres à avoir recours à la relocalisation.

Concernant les prochaines négociations sur le Pacte, nous recommandons aux co-législateurs de :

Rejeter l’application obligatoire de la procédure d’asile ou de retour à la frontière : ces procédures aux standards abaissés réduisent les garanties des demandeurs d’asile et augmentent le recours à la rétention. Elles exacerbent le manque de solidarité actuel sur l’asile dans l’UE en plaçant plus de responsabilité sur les Etats membres aux frontières extérieures. L’expérience des hotspots et d’autres initiatives similaires démontrent que l’ajout de procédures ou d’étapes dans l’asile peut créer des charges administratives et des coûts significatifs, et entraîner une plus grande inefficacité ;
Se diriger vers la fin de la privation de liberté de migrants, et interdire la rétention de mineurs conformément à la Convention internationale des droits de l’enfant, et de dédier suffisamment de ressources pour des solutions non privatives de libertés appropriées pour les mineurs et leurs familles ;
Réajuster les propositions de réforme afin de se concentrer sur le maintien et l’amélioration des standards des droits de l’homme et de l’asile en Europe, plutôt que sur le retour ;
Œuvrer à ce que les propositions réforment fondamentalement la façon dont la responsabilité des demandeurs d’asile en UE est organisée, en adressant les problèmes liés au principe de pays de première entrée, afin de créer un véritable mécanisme de solidarité ;
Limiter les possibilités pour les Etats membres de déroger à leurs responsabilités d’enregistrer les demandes d’asile ou d’examiner les demandes, afin d’éviter de créer des incitations à opérer en mode gestion de crise et à diminuer les standards de l’asile ;
Augmenter les garanties pendant la procédure de pré-filtrage pour assurer le droit à l’information, l’accès à une aide et une représentation juridique, la détection et la prise en charge des vulnérabilités et des besoins de santé, et une réponse aux préoccupations liées à l’enregistrement et à la protection des données ;
Garantir que le mécanisme de suivi des droits fondamentaux aux frontières dispose d’une portée large afin de couvrir toutes les violations des droits fondamentaux à la frontière, qu’il soit véritablement indépendant des autorités nationales et dispose de ressources adéquates et qu’il contribue à la responsabilisation ;
S’opposer aux tentatives d’utiliser l’aide au développement, au commerce, aux investissements, aux mécanismes de visas, à la coopération sécuritaire et autres politiques et financements pour faire pression sur les pays tiers dans leur coopération étroitement définie par des objectifs européens de contrôle migratoire ;
Evaluer l’impact à long-terme des politiques migratoires d’externalisation sur la paix, le respect des droits et le développement durable et garantir que la politique extérieure migratoire ne contribue pas à la violation de droits de l’homme et prenne en compte les enjeux de conflits ;
Développer significativement les voies légales et sûres vers l’UE en mettant en œuvre rapidement les engagements actuels de réinstallation, en proposant de nouveaux objectifs ambitieux et en augmentant les opportunités de voies d’accès à la protection ainsi qu’à la migration de main-d’œuvre et universitaire en UE ;
Renforcer les exceptions à la criminalisation lorsqu’il s’agit d’actions humanitaires et autres activités indépendantes de la société civile et enlever les obstacles auxquels font face les acteurs de la société civile fournissant une assistance vitale et humanitaire sur terre et en mer ;
Mettre en place une opération de recherche et de sauvetage en mer Méditerranée financée et coordonnée par l’UE ;
S’appuyer sur les propositions prometteuses pour soutenir l’inclusion à travers l’accès à la résidence à long-terme et les droits associés et la mise en œuvre du Plan d’action sur l’intégration et l’inclusion au niveau européen, national et local.

▻https://www.forumrefugies.org/s-informer/positions/europe/774-pacte-europeen-sur-la-migration-et-l-asile-afin-de-garantir-un-no

Nouveau Pacte européen  : les migrant.e.s et réfugié.e.s traité.e.s comme des « # colis à trier  »

Le jour même de la Conférence des Ministres européens de l’Intérieur, EuroMed Droits présente son analyse détaillée du nouveau Pacte européen sur l’asile et la migration, publié le 23 septembre dernier (▻https://euromedrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Analysis-of-Asylum-and-Migration-Pact_Final_Clickable.pdf).

On peut résumer les plus de 500 pages de documents comme suit  : le nouveau Pacte européen sur l’asile et la migration déshumanise les migrant.e.s et les réfugié.e.s, les traitant comme des «  #colis à trier  » et les empêchant de se déplacer en Europe. Ce Pacte soulève de nombreuses questions en matière de respect des droits humains, dont certaines sont à souligner en particulier  :

L’UE détourne le concept de solidarité. Le Pacte vise clairement à «  rétablir la confiance mutuelle entre les États membres  », donnant ainsi la priorité à la #cohésion:interne de l’UE au détriment des droits des migrant.e.s et des réfugié.e.s. La proposition laisse le choix aux États membres de contribuer – en les mettant sur un pied d’égalité – à la #réinstallation, au #rapatriement, au soutien à l’accueil ou à l’#externalisation des frontières. La #solidarité envers les migrant.e.s et les réfugié.e.s et leurs droits fondamentaux sont totalement ignorés.

Le pacte promeut une gestion «  sécuritaire  » de la migration. Selon la nouvelle proposition, les migrant.e.s et les réfugié.e.s seront placé.e.s en #détention et privé.e.s de liberté à leur arrivée. La procédure envisagée pour accélérer la procédure de demande d’asile ne pourra se faire qu’au détriment des lois sur l’asile et des droits des demandeur.se.s. Il est fort probable que la #procédure se déroulera de manière arbitraire et discriminatoire, en fonction de la nationalité du/de la demandeur.se, de son taux de reconnaissance et du fait que le pays dont il/elle provient est «  sûr  », ce qui est un concept douteux.

L’idée clé qui sous-tend cette vision est simple  : externaliser autant que possible la gestion des frontières en coopérant avec des pays tiers. L’objectif est de faciliter le retour et la réadmission des migrant.e.s dans le pays d’où ils/elles sont parti.es. Pour ce faire, l’Agence européenne de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes (Frontex) verrait ses pouvoirs renforcés et un poste de coordinateur.trice européen.ne pour les retours serait créé. Le pacte risque de facto de fournir un cadre juridique aux pratiques illégales telles que les refoulements, les détentions arbitraires et les mesures visant à réduire davantage la capacité en matière d’asile. Des pratiques déjà en place dans certains États membres.

Le Pacte présente quelques aspects «  positifs  », par exemple en matière de protection des enfants ou de regroupement familial, qui serait facilité. Mais ces bonnes intentions, qui doivent être mises en pratique, sont noyées dans un océan de mesures répressives et sécuritaires.

EuroMed Droits appelle les Etats membres de l’UE à réfléchir en termes de mise en œuvre pratique (ou non) de ces mesures. Non seulement elles violent les droits humains, mais elles sont impraticables sur le terrain  : la responsabilité de l’évaluation des demandes d’asile reste au premier pays d’arrivée, sans vraiment remettre en cause le Règlement de Dublin. Cela signifie que des pays comme l’Italie, Malte, l’Espagne, la Grèce et Chypre continueront à subir une «  pression  » excessive, ce qui les encouragera à poursuivre leurs politiques de refoulement et d’expulsion. Enfin, le Pacte ne répond pas à la problématique urgente des «  hotspots  » et des camps de réfugié.e.s comme en Italie ou en Grèce et dans les zones de transit à l’instar de la Hongrie. Au contraire, cela renforce ce modèle dangereux en le présentant comme un exemple à exporter dans toute l’Europe, alors que des exemples récents ont démontré l’impossibilité de gérer ces camps de manière humaine.

▻https://euromedrights.org/fr/publication/nouveau-pacte-europeen%e2%80%af-les-migrant-e-s-et-refugie-e-s-traite

#paquets_de_la_poste #paquets #poste #tri #pays_sûrs

A “Fresh Start” or One More Clunker? Dublin and Solidarity in the New Pact

In ongoing discussions on the reform of the CEAS, solidarity is a key theme. It stands front and center in the New Pact on Migration and Asylum: after reassuring us of the “human and humane approach” taken, the opening quote stresses that Member States must be able to “rely on the solidarity of our whole European Union”.

In describing the need for reform, the Commission does not mince its words: “[t]here is currently no effective solidarity mechanism in place, and no efficient rule on responsibility”. It’s a remarkable statement: barely one year ago, the Commission maintained that “[t]he EU [had] shown tangible and rapid support to Member States under most pressure” throughout the crisis. Be that as it may, we are promised a “fresh start”. Thus, President Von der Leyen has announced on the occasion of the 2020 State of the Union Address that “we will abolish the Dublin Regulation”, the 2016 Dublin IV Proposal (examined here) has been withdrawn, and the Pact proposes a “new solidarity mechanism” connected to “robust and fair management of the external borders” and capped by a new “governance framework”.

Before you buy the shiny new package, you are advised to consult the fine print however. Yes, the Commission proposes to abolish the Dublin III Regulation and withdraws the Dublin IV Proposal. But the Proposal for an Asylum and Migration Management Regulation (hereafter “the Migration Management Proposal”) reproduces word-for-word the Dublin III Regulation, subject to amendments drawn … from the Dublin IV Proposal! As for the “governance framework” outlined in Articles 3-7 of the Migration Management Proposal, it’s a hodgepodge of purely declamatory provisions (e.g. Art. 3-4), of restatements of pre-existing obligations (Art. 5), of legal bases authorizing procedures that require none (Art. 7). The one new item is a yearly monitoring exercise centered on an “European Asylum and Migration Management Strategy” (Art. 6), which seems as likely to make a difference as the “Mechanism for Early Warning, Preparedness and Crisis Management”, introduced with much fanfare with the Dublin III Regulation and then left in the drawer before, during and after the 2015/16 crisis.

Leaving the provisions just mentioned for future commentaries – fearless interpreters might still find legal substance in there – this contribution focuses on four points: the proposed amendments to Dublin, the interface between Dublin and procedures at the border, the new solidarity mechanism, and proposals concerning force majeure. Caveat emptor! It is a jungle of extremely detailed and sometimes obscure provisions. While this post is longer than usual – warm thanks to the lenient editors! – do not expect an exhaustive summary, nor firm conclusions on every point.
Dublin, the Undying

To borrow from Mark Twain, reports of the death of the Dublin system have been once more greatly exaggerated. As noted, Part III of the Migration Management Proposal (Articles 8-44) is for all intents and purposes an amended version of the Dublin III Regulation, and most of the amendments are lifted from the 2016 Dublin IV Proposal.

A first group of amendments concerns the responsibility criteria. Some expand the possibilities to allocate applicants based on their “meaningful links” with Member States: Article 2(g) expands the family definition to include siblings, opening new possibilities for reunification; Article 19(4) enlarges the criterion based on previous legal abode (i.e. expired residence documents); in a tip of the hat to the Wikstroem Report, commented here, Article 20 introduces a new criterion based on prior education in a Member State.

These are welcome changes, but all that glitters is not gold. The Commission advertises “streamlined” evidentiary requirements to facilitate family reunification. These would be necessary indeed: evidentiary issues have long undermined the application of the family criteria. Unfortunately, the Commission is not proposing anything new: Article 30(6) of the Migration Management Proposal corresponds in essence to Article 22(5) of the Dublin III Regulation.

Besides, while the Commission proposes to expand the general definition of family, the opposite is true of the specific definition of family applicable to “dependent persons”. Under Article 16 of the Dublin III Regulation, applicants who e.g. suffer from severe disabilities are to be kept or brought together with a care-giving parent, child or sibling residing in a Member State. Due to fears of sham marriages, spouses have been excluded and this is legally untenable and inhumane, but instead of tackling the problem the Commission proposes in Article 24 to worsen it by excluding siblings. The end result is paradoxical: persons needing family support the most will be deprived – for no apparent reason other than imaginary fears of “abuses” – of the benefits of enlarged reunification possibilities. “[H]uman and humane”, indeed.

The fight against secondary movements inspires most of the other amendments to the criteria. In particular, Article 21 of the Proposal maintains and extends the much-contested criterion of irregular entry while clarifying that it applies also to persons disembarked after a search and rescue (SAR) operation. The Commission also proposes that unaccompanied children be transferred to the first Member State where they applied if no family criterion is applicable (Article 15(5)). This would overturn the MA judgment of the ECJ whereby in such cases the asylum claim must be examined in the State where the child last applied and is present. It’s not a technical fine point: while the case-law of the ECJ is calculated to spare children the trauma of a transfer, the proposed amendment would subject them again to the rigours of Dublin.

Again to discourage secondary movements, the Commission proposes – as in 2016 – a second group of amendments: new obligations for the applicants (Articles 9-10). Applicants must in principle apply in the Member State of first entry, remain in that State for the duration of the Dublin procedure and, post-transfer, remain in the State responsible. Moving to the “wrong” State entails losing the benefits of the Reception Conditions Directive, subject to “the need to ensure a standard of living in accordance with” the Charter. It is debatable whether this is a much lesser standard of reception. More importantly: as reception conditions in line with the Directive are seldom guaranteed in several frontline Member States, the prospect of being treated “in accordance with the Charter” elsewhere will hardly dissuade applicants from moving on.

The 2016 Proposal foresaw, as further punishment, the mandatory application of accelerated procedures to “secondary movers”. This rule disappears from the Migration Management Proposal, but as Daniel Thym points out in his forthcoming contribution on secondary movements, it remains in Article 40(1)(g) of the 2016 Proposal for an Asylum Procedures Regulation. Furthermore, the Commission proposes deleting Article 18(2) of the Dublin III Regulation, i.e. the guarantee that persons transferred back to a State that has meanwhile discontinued or rejected their application will have their case reopened, or a remedy available. This is a dangerous invitation to Member States to reintroduce “discontinuation” practices that the Commission itself once condemned as incompatible with effective access to status determination.

To facilitate responsibility-determination, the Proposal further obliges applicants to submit relevant information before or at the Dublin interview. Late submissions are not to be considered. Fairness would demand that justified delays be excused. Besides, it is also proposed to repeal Article 7(3) of the Dublin III Regulation, whereby authorities must take into account evidence of family ties even if produced late in the process. All in all, then, the Proposal would make proof of family ties harder, not easier as the Commission claims.

A final group of amendments concern the details of the Dublin procedure, and might prove the most important in practice.

Some “streamline” the process, e.g. with shorter deadlines (e.g. Article 29(1)) and a simplified take back procedure (Article 31). Controversially, the Commission proposes again to reduce the scope of appeals against transfers to issues of ill-treatment and misapplication of the family criteria (Article 33). This may perhaps prove acceptable to the ECJ in light of its old Abdullahi case-law. However, it contravenes Article 13 ECHR, which demands an effective remedy for the violation of any Convention right.
Other procedural amendments aim to make it harder for applicants to evade transfers. At present, if a transferee absconds for 18 months, the transfer is cancelled and the transferring State becomes responsible. Article 35(2) of the Proposal allows the transferring State to “stop the clock” if the applicant absconds, and to resume the transfer as soon as he reappears.
A number of amendments make responsibility more “stable” once assigned, although not as “permanent” as the 2016 Proposal would have made it. Under Article 27 of the Proposal, the responsibility of a State will only cease if the applicant has left the Dublin area in compliance with a return decision. More importantly, under Article 26 the responsible State will have to take back even persons to whom it has granted protection. This would be a significant extension of the scope of the Dublin system, and would “lock” applicants in the responsible State even more firmly and more durably. Perhaps by way of compensation, the Commission proposes that beneficiaries of international protection obtain “long-term status” – and thus mobility rights – after three years of residence instead of five. However, given that it is “very difficult in practice” to exercise such rights, the compensation seems more theoretical than effective and a far cry from a system of free movement capable of offsetting the rigidities of Dublin.

These are, in short, the key amendments foreseen. While it’s easy enough to comment on each individually, it is more difficult to forecast their aggregate impact. Will they – to paraphrase the Commission – “improv[e] the chances of integration” and reduce “unauthorised movements” (recital 13), and help closing “the existing implementation gap”? Probably not, as none of them is a game-changer.

Taken together, however, they might well aggravate current distributive imbalances. Dublin “locks in” the responsibilities of the States that receive most applications – traditional destinations such as Germany or border States such as Italy – leaving the other Member States undisturbed. Apart from possible distributive impacts of the revised criteria and of the now obligations imposed on applicants, first application States will certainly be disadvantaged combination by shortened deadlines, security screenings (see below), streamlined take backs, and “stable” responsibility extending to beneficiaries of protection. Under the “new Dublin rules” – sorry for the oxymoron! – effective solidarity will become more necessary than ever.
Border procedures and Dublin

Building on the current hotspot approach, the Proposals for a Screening Regulation and for an Asylum Procedures Regulation outline a new(ish) “pre-entry” phase. This will be examined in a forthcoming post by Lyra Jakuleviciene, but the interface with infra-EU allocation deserves mention here.

In a nutshell, persons irregularly crossing the border will be screened for the purpose of identification, health and security checks, and registration in Eurodac. Protection applicants may then be channelled to “border procedures” in a broad range of situations. This will be mandatory if the applicant: (a) attempts to mislead the authorities; (b) can be considered, based on “serious reasons”, “a danger to the national security or public order of the Member States”; (c) comes from a State whose nationals have a low Union-wide recognition rate (Article 41(3) of the Asylum Procedure Proposal).

The purpose of the border procedure is to assess applications “without authorising the applicant’s entry into the Member State’s territory” (here, p.4). Therefore, it might have seemed logical that applicants subjected to it be excluded from the Dublin system – as is the case, ordinarily, for relocations (see below). Not so: under Article 41(7) of the Proposal, Member States may apply Dublin in the context of border procedures. This weakens the idea of “seamless procedures at the border” somewhat but – from the standpoint of both applicants and border States – it is better than a watertight exclusion: applicants may still benefit from “meaningful link” criteria, and border States are not “stuck with the caseload”. I would normally have qualms about giving Member States discretion in choosing whether Dublin rules apply. But as it happens, Member States who receive an asylum application already enjoy that discretion under the so-called “sovereignty clause”. Nota bene: in exercising that discretion, Member States apply EU Law and must observe the Charter, and the same principle must certainly apply under the proposed Article 41(7).

The only true exclusion from the Dublin system is set out in Article 8(4) of the Migration Management Proposal. Under this provision, Member States must carry out a security check of all applicants as part of the pre-entry screening and/or after the application is filed. If “there are reasonable grounds to consider the applicant a danger to national security or public order” of the determining State, the other criteria are bypassed and that State becomes responsible. Attentive readers will note that the wording of Article 8(4) differs from that of Article 41(3) of the Asylum Procedure Proposal (e.g. “serious grounds” vs “reasonable grounds”). It is therefore unclear whether the security grounds to “screen out” an applicant from Dublin are coextensive with the security grounds making a border procedure mandatory. Be that as it may, a broad application of Article 8(4) would be undesirable, as it would entail a large-scale exclusion from the guarantees that applicants derive from the Dublin system. The risk is moderate however: by applying Article 8(4) widely, Member States would be increasing their own share of responsibilities under the system. As twenty-five years of Dublin practice indicate, this is unlikely to happen.
“Mandatory” and “flexible” solidarity under the new mechanism

So far, the Migration Management Proposal does not look significantly different from the 2016 Dublin IV Proposal, which did not itself fundamentally alter existing rules, and which went down in flames in inter- and intra-institutional negotiations. Any hopes of a “fresh start”, then, are left for the new solidarity mechanism.

Unfortunately, solidarity is a difficult subject for the EU: financial support has hitherto been a mere fraction of Member State expenditure in the field; operational cooperation has proved useful but cannot tackle all the relevant aspects of the unequal distribution of responsibilities among Member States; relocations have proved extremely beneficial for thousands of applicants, but are intrinsically complex operations and have also proven politically divisive – an aspect which has severely undermined their application and further condemned them to be small scale affairs relative to the needs on the ground. The same goes a fortiori for ad hoc initiatives – such as those that followed SAR operations over the last two years– which furthermore lack the predictability that is necessary for sharing responsibilities effectively. To reiterate what the Commission stated, there is currently “no effective solidarity mechanism in place”.

Perhaps most importantly, the EU has hitherto been incapable of accurately gauging the distributive asymmetries on the ground, to articulate a clear doctrine guiding the key determinations of “how much solidarity” and “what kind(s) of solidarity”, and to define commensurate redistributive targets on this basis (see here, p.34 and 116).

Alas, the opportunity to elaborate a solidarity doctrine for the EU has been completely missed. Conceptually, the New Pact does not go much farther than platitudes such as “[s]olidarity implies that all Member States should contribute”. As Daniel Thym aptly observed, “pragmatism” is the driving force behind the Proposal: the Commission starts from a familiar basis – relocations – and tweaks it in ways designed to convince stakeholders that solidarity becomes both “compulsory” and “flexible”. It’s a complicated arrangement and I will only describe it in broad strokes, leaving the crucial dimensions of financial solidarity and operational cooperation to forthcoming posts by Iris Goldner Lang and Lilian Tsourdi.

The mechanism operates according to three “modes”. In its basic mode, it is to replace ad hoc solidarity initiatives following SAR disembarkations (Articles 47-49 of the Migration Management Proposal):

The Commission determines, in its yearly Migration Management Report, whether a State is faced with “recurring arrivals” following SAR operations and determines the needs in terms of relocations and other contributions (capacity building, operational support proper, cooperation with third States).
The Member States are “invited” to notify the “contributions they intend to make”. If offers are sufficient, the Commission combines them and formally adopts a “solidarity pool”. If not, it adopts an implementing act summarizing relocation targets for each Member State and other contributions as offered by them. Member States may react by offering other contributions instead of relocations, provided that this is “proportional” – one wonders how the Commission will tally e.g. training programs for Libyan coastguards with relocation places.
If the relocations offered fall 30% short of the target indicated by the Commission, a “critical mass correction mechanism” will apply: each Member States will be obliged to meet at least 50% of the quota of relocations indicated by the Commission. However, and this is the new idea offered by the Commission to bring relocation-skeptics onboard, Member States may discharge their duties by offering “return sponsorships” instead of relocations: the “sponsor” Member State commits to support the benefitting Member State to return a person and, if the return is not carried out within eight months, to accept her on its territory.

If I understand correctly the fuzzy provision I have just summarized – Article 48(2) – it all boils down to “half-compulsory” solidarity: Member States are obliged to cover at least 50% of the relocation needs set by the Commission through relocations or sponsorships, and the rest with other contributions.

After the “solidarity pool” is established and the benefitting Member State requests its activation, relocations can start:

The eligible persons are those who applied for protection in the benefitting State, with the exclusion of those that are subject to border procedures (Article 45(1)(a)).Also excluded are those whom Dublin criteria based on “meaningful links” – family, abode, diplomas – assign to the benefitting State (Article 57(3)). These rules suggest that the benefitting State must carry out identification, screening for border procedures and a first (reduced?) Dublin procedure before it can declare an applicant eligible for relocation.
Persons eligible for return sponsorship are “illegally staying third-country nationals” (Article 45(1)(b)).
The eligible persons are identified, placed on a list, and matched to Member States based on “meaningful links”. The transfer can only be refused by the State of relocation on security grounds (Article 57(2)(6) and (7)), and otherwise follows the modalities of Dublin transfers in almost all respects (e.g. deadlines, notification, appeals). However, contrary to what happens under Dublin, missing the deadline for transfer does not entail that the relocation is cancelled it (see Article 57(10)).
After the transfer, applicants will be directly admitted to the asylum procedure in the State of relocation only if it has been previously established that the benefitting State would have been responsible under criteria other than those based on “meaningful links” (Article 58(3)). In all the other cases, the State of relocation will run a Dublin procedure and, if necessary, transfer again the applicant to the State responsible (see Article 58(2)). As for persons subjected to return sponsorship, the State of relocation will pick up the application of the Return Directive where the benefitting State left off (or so I read Article 58(5)!).

If the Commission concludes that a Member State is under “migratory pressure”, at the request of the concerned State or of its own motion (Article 50), the mechanism operates as described above except for one main point: beneficiaries of protection also become eligible for relocation (Article 51(3)). Thankfully, they must consent thereto and are automatically granted the same status in the relocation State (see Articles 57(3) and 58(4)).

If the Commission concludes that a Member State is confronted to a “crisis”, rules change further (see Article 2 of the Proposal for a Migration and Asylum Crisis Regulation):

Applicants subject to the border procedure and persons “having entered irregularly” also become eligible for relocation. These persons may then undergo a border procedure post-relocation (see Article 41(1) and (8) of the Proposal for an Asylum Procedures Regulation).
Persons subject to return sponsorship are transferred to the sponsor State if their removal does not occur within four – instead of eight – months.
Other contributions are excluded from the palette of contributions available to the other Member States (Article 2(1)): it has to be relocation or return sponsorship.
The procedure is faster, with shorter deadlines.

It is an understatement to say that the mechanism is complex, and your faithful scribe still has much to digest. For the time being, I would make four general comments.

First, it is not self-evident that this is a good “insurance scheme” for its intended beneficiaries. As noted, the system only guarantees that 50% of the relocation needs of a State will be met. Furthermore, there are hidden costs: in “SAR” and “pressure” modes, the benefitting State has to screen the applicant, register the application, and assess whether border procedures or (some) Dublin criteria apply before it can channel the applicant to relocation. It is unclear whether a 500 lump sum is enough to offset the costs (see Article 79 of the Migration Management Proposal). Besides, in a crisis situation, these preliminary steps might make relocation impractical – think of the Greek registration backlog in 2015/6. Perhaps, extending relocation to persons “having entered irregularly” when the mechanism is in “crisis mode” is meant precisely to take care of this. Similar observations apply to return sponsorship. Under Article 55(4) of the Migration Management Proposal, the support offered by the sponsor to the benefitting State can be rather low key (e.g. “counselling”) and there seems to be no guarantee that the benefitting State will be effectively relieved of the political, administrative and financial costs associated to return. Moving from costs to risks, it is clear that the benefitting State bears all the risks of non implementation – in other words, if the system grinds to a halt or breaks down, it will be Moria all over again. In light of past experience, one can only agree with Thomas Gammelthoft-Hansen that it’s a “big gamble”. Other aspects examined below – the vast margins of discretion left to the Commission, and the easy backdoor opened by the force majeure provisions – do not help either to create predictability.
Second, as just noted the mechanism gives the Commission practically unlimited discretion at all critical junctures. The Commission will determine whether a Member States is confronted to “recurring arrivals”, “pressure” or a “crisis”. It will do so under definitions so open-textured, and criteria so numerous, that it will be basically the master of its determinations (Article 50 of the Migration Management Proposal). The Commission will determine unilaterally relocation and operational solidarity needs. Finally, the Commission will determine – we do not know how – if “other contributions” are proportional to relocation needs. Other than in the most clear-cut situations, there is no way that anyone can predict how the system will be applied.
Third: the mechanism reflects a powerful fixation with and unshakable faith in heavy bureaucracy. Protection applicants may undergo up to three “responsibility determination” procedures and two transfers before finally landing in an asylum procedure: Dublin “screening” in the first State, matching, relocation, full Dublin procedure in the relocation State, then transfer. And this is a system that should not “compromise the objective of the rapid processing of applications”(recital 34)! Decidedly, the idea that in order to improve the CEAS it is above all necessary to suppress unnecessary delays and coercion (see here, p.9) has not made a strong impression on the minds of the drafters. The same remark applies mutatis mutandis to return sponsorships: whatever the benefits in terms of solidarity, one wonders if it is very cost-effective or humane to drag a person from State to State so that they can each try their hand at expelling her.
Lastly and relatedly, applicants and other persons otherwise concerned by the relocation system are given no voice. They can be “matched”, transferred, re-transferred, but subject to few exceptions their aspirations and intentions remain legally irrelevant. In this regard, the “New Pact” is as old school as it gets: it sticks strictly to the “no choice” taboo on which Dublin is built. What little recognition of applicants’ actorness had been made in the Wikstroem Report is gone. Objectifying migrants is not only incompatible with the claim that the approach taken is “human and humane”. It might prove fatal to the administrative efficiency so cherished by the Commission. Indeed, failure to engage applicants is arguably the key factor in the dismal performance of the Dublin system (here, p.112). Why should it be any different under this solidarity mechanism?

Framing Force Majeure (or inviting defection?)

In addition to addressing “crisis” situations, the Proposal for a Migration and Asylum Crisis Regulation includes separate provisions on force majeure.

Thereunder, any Member State may unilaterally declare that it is faced with a situation making it “impossible” to comply with selected CEAS rules, and thus obtain the right – subject to a mere notification – to derogate from them. Member States may obtain in this way longer Dublin deadlines, or even be exempted from the obligation to accept transfers and be liberated from responsibilities if the suspension goes on more than a year (Article 8). Furthermore, States may obtain a six-months suspension of their duties under the solidarity mechanism (Article 9).

The inclusion of this proposal in the Pact – possibly an attempt to further placate Member States averse to European solidarity? – beggars belief. Legally speaking, the whole idea is redundant: under the case-law of the ECJ, Member States may derogate from any rule of EU Law if confronted to force majeure. However, putting this black on white amounts to inviting (and legalizing) defection. The only conceivable object of rules of this kind would have been to subject force majeure derogations to prior authorization by the Commission – but there is nothing of the kind in the Proposal. The end result is paradoxical: while Member States are (in theory!) subject to Commission supervision when they conclude arrangements facilitating the implementation of Dublin rules, a mere notification will be enough to authorize them to unilaterally tear a hole in the fabric of “solidarity” and “responsibility” so painstakingly – if not felicitously – woven in the Pact.
Concluding comments

We should have taken Commissioner Ylva Johansson at her word when she said that there would be no “Hoorays” for the new proposals. Past the avalanche of adjectives, promises and fancy administrative monikers hurled at the reader – “faster, seamless migration processes”; “prevent the recurrence of events such as those seen in Moria”; “critical mass correction mechanism” – one cannot fail to see that the “fresh start” is essentially an exercise in repackaging.

On responsibility-allocation and solidarity, the basic idea is one that the Commission incessantly returns to since 2007 (here, p. 10): keep Dublin and “correct” it through solidarity schemes. I do sympathize to an extent: realizing a fair balance of responsibilities by “sharing people” has always seemed to me impracticable and undesirable. Still, one would have expected that the abject failure of the Dublin system, the collapse of mutual trust in the CEAS, the meagre results obtained in the field of solidarity – per the Commission’s own appraisal – would have pushed it to bring something new to the table.

Instead, what we have is a slightly milder version of the Dublin IV Proposal – the ultimate “clunker” in the history of Commission proposals – and an ultra-bureaucratic mechanism for relocation, with the dubious addition of return sponsorships and force majeure provisions. The basic tenets of infra-EU allocation remain the same – “no choice”, first entry – and none of the structural flaws that doomed current schemes to failure is fundamentally tackled (here, p.107): solidarity is beefed-up but appears too unreliable and fuzzy to generate trust; there are interesting steps on “genuine links”, but otherwise no sustained attempt to positively engage applicants; administrative complexity and coercive transfers reign on.

Pragmatism, to quote again Daniel Thym’s excellent introductory post, is no sin. It is even expected of the Commission. This, however, is a study in path-dependency. By defending the status quo, wrapping it in shiny new paper, and making limited concessions to key policy actors, the Commission may perhaps carry its proposals through. However, without substantial corrections, the “new” Pact is unlikely to save the CEAS or even to prevent new Morias.

▻http://eumigrationlawblog.eu/a-fresh-start-or-one-more-clunker-dublin-and-solidarity-in-the-ne

#Francesco_Maiani

#force_majeure

European Refugee Policy: What’s Gone Wrong and How to Make It Better

In 2015 and 2016, more than 1 million refugees made their way to the European Union, the largest number of them originating from Syria. Since that time, refugee arrivals have continued, although at a much slower pace and involving people from a wider range of countries in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.

The EU’s response to these developments has had five main characteristics.

First, a serious lack of preparedness and long-term planning. Despite the massive material and intelligence resources at its disposal, the EU was caught completely unaware by the mass influx of refugees five years ago and has been playing catch-up ever since. While the emergency is now well and truly over, EU member states continue to talk as if still in the grip of an unmanageable “refugee crisis.”

Second, the EU’s refugee policy has become progressively based on a strategy known as “externalization,” whereby responsibility for migration control is shifted to unstable states outside Europe. This has been epitomized by the deals that the EU has done with countries such as Libya, Niger, Sudan, and Turkey, all of which have agreed to halt the onward movement of refugees in exchange for aid and other rewards, including support to the security services.

Third, asylum has become increasingly criminalized, as demonstrated by the growing number of EU citizens and civil society groups that have been prosecuted for their roles in aiding refugees. At the same time, some frontline member states have engaged in a systematic attempt to delegitimize the NGO search-and-rescue organizations operating in the Mediterranean and to obstruct their life-saving activities.

The fourth characteristic of EU countries’ recent policies has been a readiness to inflict or be complicit in a range of abuses that challenge the principles of both human rights and international refugee law. This can be seen in the violence perpetrated against asylum seekers by the military and militia groups in Croatia and Hungary, the terrible conditions found in Greek refugee camps such as Moria on the island of Lesvos, and, most egregiously of all, EU support to the Libyan Coastguard that enables it to intercept refugees at sea and to return them to abusive detention centers on land.

Fifth and finally, the past five years have witnessed a serious absence of solidarity within the EU. Frontline states such as Greece and Italy have been left to bear a disproportionate share of the responsibility for new refugee arrivals. Efforts to relocate asylum seekers and resettle refugees throughout the EU have had disappointing results. And countries in the eastern part of the EU have consistently fought against the European Commission in its efforts to forge a more cooperative and coordinated approach to the refugee issue.

The most recent attempt to formulate such an approach is to be found in the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, which the Commission proposed in September 2020.

It would be wrong to entirely dismiss the Pact, as it contains some positive elements. These include, for example, a commitment to establish legal pathways to asylum in Europe for people who are in need of protection, and EU support for member states that wish to establish community-sponsored refugee resettlement programs.

In other respects, however, the Pact has a number of important, serious flaws. It has already been questioned by those countries that are least willing to admit refugees and continue to resist the role of Brussels in this policy domain. The Pact also makes hardly any reference to the Global Compacts on Refugees and Migration—a strange omission given the enormous amount of time and effort that the UN has devoted to those initiatives, both of which were triggered by the European emergency of 2015-16.

At an operational level, the Pact endorses and reinforces the EU’s externalization agenda and envisages a much more aggressive role for Frontex, the EU’s border control agency. At the same time, it empowers member states to refuse entry to asylum seekers on the basis of very vague criteria. As a result, individuals may be more vulnerable to human smugglers and traffickers. There is also a strong likelihood that new refugee camps will spring up on the fringes of Europe, with their residents living in substandard conditions.

Finally, the Pact places enormous emphasis on the involuntary return of asylum seekers to their countries of origin. It even envisages that a hardline state such as Hungary could contribute to the implementation of the Pact by organizing and funding such deportations. This constitutes an extremely dangerous new twist on the notions of solidarity and responsibility sharing, which form the basis of the international refugee regime.

If the proposed Pact is not fit for purpose, then what might a more constructive EU refugee policy look like?

It would in the first instance focus on the restoration of both EU and NGO search-and-rescue efforts in the Mediterranean and establish more predictable disembarkation and refugee distribution mechanisms. It would also mean the withdrawal of EU support for the Libyan Coastguard, the closure of that country’s detention centers, and a substantial improvement of the living conditions experienced by refugees in Europe’s frontline states—changes that should take place with or without a Pact.

Indeed, the EU should redeploy the massive amount of resources that it currently devotes to the externalization process, so as to strengthen the protection capacity of asylum and transit countries on the periphery of Europe. A progressive approach on the part of the EU would involve the establishment of not only faster but also fair asylum procedures, with appropriate long-term solutions being found for new arrivals, whether or not they qualify for refugee status.

These changes would help to ensure that those searching for safety have timely and adequate opportunities to access their most basic rights.

▻https://www.refugeesinternational.org/reports/2020/11/5/european-refugee-policy-whats-gone-wrong-and-how-to-make-it-b

The Future EU Action Plan on Integration and Inclusion: Ensuring an Approach Inclusive of All

https://i.imgur.com/8I4scxD.png

The New Pact on Migration and Asylum: Turning European Union Territory into a non-Territory

Externalization policies in 2020: where is the European Union territory?

In spite of the Commission’s rhetoric stressing the novel elements of the Pact on Migration and Asylum (hereinafter: the Pact – summarized and discussed in general here), there are good reasons to argue that the Pact develops and consolidates, among others, the existing trends on externalization policies of migration control (see Guild et al). Furthermore, it tries to create new avenues for a ‘smarter’ system of management of immigration, by additionally controlling access to the European Union territory for third country nationals (TCNs), and by creating different categories of migrants, which are then subject to different legal regimes which find application in the European Union territory.

The consolidation of existing trends concerns the externalization of migration management practices, resort to technologies in developing migration control systems (further development of Eurodac, completion of the path toward full interoperability between IT systems), and also the strengthening of the role of the European Union executive level, via increased joint management involving European Union agencies: these are all policies that find in the Pact’s consolidation.

This brief will focus on externalization (practices), a concept which is finding a new declination in the Pact: indeed, the Pact and several of the measures proposed, read together, are aiming at ‘disentangling’ the territory of the EU, from a set of rights which are related with the presence of the migrant or of the asylum seeker on the territory of a Member State of the EU, and from the relation between territory and access to a jurisdiction, which is necessary to enforce rights which otherwise remain on paper.

Interestingly, this process of separation, of splitting between territory-law/rights-jurisdiction takes place not outside, but within the EU, and this is the new declination of externalization which one can find in the measures proposed in the Pact, namely with the proposal for a Screening Regulation and the amended proposal for a Procedure Regulation. It is no accident that other commentators have interpreted it as a consolidation of ‘fortress Europe’. In other words, this externalization process takes place within the EU and aims at making the external borders more effective also for the TCNs who are already in the territory of the EU.

The proposal for a pre-entry screening regulation

A first instrument which has a pivotal role in the consolidation of the externalization trend is the proposed Regulation for a screening of third country nationals (hereinafter: Proposal Screening Regulation), which will be applicable to migrants crossing the external borders without authorization. The aim of the screening, according to the Commission, is to ‘accelerate the process of determining the status of a person and what type of procedure should apply’. More precisely, the screening ‘should help ensure that the third country nationals concerned are referred to the appropriate procedures at the earliest stage possible’ and also to avoid absconding after entrance in the territory in order to reach a different state than the one of arrival (recital 8, preamble of proposal). The screening should contribute as well to curb secondary movements, which is a policy target highly relevant for many northern and central European Union states.

In the new design, the screening procedure becomes the ‘standard’ for all TCNs who crossed the border in irregular manner, and also for persons who are disembarked following a search and rescue (SAR) operation, and for those who apply for international protection at the external border crossing points or in transit zones. With the screening Regulation, all these categories of persons shall not be allowed to enter the territory of the State during the screening (Arts 3 and 4 of the proposal).

Consequently, different categories of migrants, including asylum seekers which are by definition vulnerable persons, are to be kept in locations situated at or in proximity to the external borders, for a time (up to 5 days, which can become 10 at maximum), defined in the Regulation, but which must be respected by national administrations. There is here an implicit equation between all these categories, and the common denominator of this operation is that all these persons have crossed the border in an unauthorized manner.

It is yet unclear how the situation of migrants during the screening is to be organized in practical terms, transit zones, hotspot or others, and if this can qualify as detention, in legal terms. The Court of Justice has ruled recently on Hungarian transit zones (see analysis by Luisa Marin), by deciding that Röszke transit zone qualified as ‘detention’, and it can be argued that the parameters clarified in that decision could find application also to the case of migrants during the screening phase. If the situation of TCNs during the screening can be considered detention, which is then the legal basis? The Reception Conditions Directive or the Return Directive? If the national administrations struggle to meet the tight deadlines provided for the screening system, these questions will become more urgent, next to the very practical issue of the actual accommodation for this procedure, which in general does not allow for access to the territory.

On the one side, Article 14(7) of the proposal provides a guarantee, indicating that the screening should end also if the checks are not completed within the deadlines; on the other side, the remaining question is: to which procedure is the applicant sent and how is the next phase then determined? The relevant procedure following the screening here seems to be determined in a very approximate way, and this begs the question on the extent to which rights can be protected in this context. Furthermore, the right to have access to a lawyer is not provided for in the screening phase. Given the relevance of this screening phase, also fundamental rights should be monitored, and the mechanism put in place at Article 7, leaves much to the discretion of the Member States, and the involvement of the Fundamental Rights Agency, with guidance and support upon request of the MS can be too little to ensure fundamental rights are not jeopardized by national administrations.

This screening phase, which has the purpose to make sure, among other things, that states ‘do their job’ as to collecting information and consequently feeding the EU information systems, might therefore have important effects on the merits of the individual case, since border procedures are to be seen as fast-track, time is limited and procedural guarantees are also sacrificed in this context. In the case the screening ends with a refusal of entry, there is a substantive effect of the screening, which is conducted without legal assistance and without access to a legal remedy. And if this is not a decision in itself, but it ends up in a de-briefing form, this form might give substance to the next stage of the procedure, which, in the case of asylum, should be an individualized and accurate assessment of one’s individual circumstances.

Overall, it should be stressed that the screening itself does not end up in a formal decision, it nevertheless represents an important phase since it defines what comes after, i.e., the type of procedure following the screening. It must be observed therefore, that the respect of some procedural rights is of paramount importance. At the same time, it is important that communication in a language TCNs can understand is effective, since the screening might end in a de-briefing form, where one or more nationalities are indicated. Considering that one of the options is the refusal of entry (Art. 14(1) screening proposal; confirmed by the recital 40 of the Proposal Procedure Regulation, as amended in 2020), and the others are either access to asylum or expulsion, one should require that the screening provides for procedural guarantees.

Furthermore, the screening should point to any element which might be relevant to refer the TCNs into the accelerated examination procedure or the border procedure. In other words, the screening must indicate in the de-briefing form the options that protect asylum applicants less than others (Article 14(3) of the proposal). It does not operate in the other way: a TCN who has applied for asylum and comes from a country with a high recognition rate is not excluded from the screening (see blog post by Jakuleviciene).

The legislation creates therefore avenues for disentangling, splitting the relation between physical presence of an asylum applicant on a territory and the set of laws and fundamental rights associated to it, namely a protective legal order, access to rights and to a jurisdiction enforcing those rights. It creates a sort of ‘lighter’ legal order, a lower density system, which facilitates the exit of the applicant from the territory of the EU, creating a sort of shift from a Europe of rights to the Europe of borders, confinement and expulsions.

The proposal for new border procedures: an attempt to create a lower density territory?

Another crucial piece in this process of establishing a stronger border fence and streamline procedures at the border, creating a ‘seamless link between asylum and return’, in the words of the Commission, is constituted by the reform of the border procedures, with an amendment of the 2016 proposal for the Regulation procedure (hereinafter: Amended Proposal Procedure Regulation).

Though border procedures are already present in the current Regulation of 2013, they are now developed into a “border procedure for asylum and return”, and a more developed accelerated procedure, which, next to the normal asylum procedure, comes after the screening phase.

The new border procedure becomes obligatory (according to Art. 41(3) of the Amended Proposal Procedure Regulation) for applicants who arrive irregularly at the external border or after disembarkation and another of these grounds apply:

– they represent a risk to national security or public order;

– the applicant has provided false information or documents or by withholding relevant information or document;

– the applicant comes from a non-EU country for which the share of positive decisions in the total number of asylum decisions is below 20 percent.

This last criterion is especially problematic, since it transcends the criterion of the safe third country and it undermines the principle that every asylum application requires a complex and individualized assessment of the particular personal circumstances of the applicant, by introducing presumptive elements in a procedure which gives fewer guarantees.

During the border procedure, the TCN is not granted access to the EU. The expansion of the new border procedures poses also the problem of the organization of the facilities necessary for the new procedures, which must be a location at or close to the external borders, in other words, where migrants are apprehended or disembarked.

Tellingly enough, the Commission’s explanatory memorandum describes as guarantees in the asylum border procedure all the situations in which the border procedure shall not be applied, for example, because the necessary support cannot be provided or for medical reasons, or where the ‘conditions for detention (…) cannot be met and the border procedure cannot be applied without detention’.

Also here the question remains on how to qualify their stay during the procedure, because the Commission aims at limiting resort to detention. The situation could be considered de facto a detention, and its compatibility with the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice in the Hungarian transit zones case is questionable.

Another aspect which must be analyzed is the system of guarantees after the decision in a border procedure. If an application is rejected in an asylum border procedure, the “return procedure” applies immediately. Member States must limit to one instance the right to effective remedy against the decision, as posited in Article 53(9). The right to an effective remedy is therefore limited, according to Art. 53 of the Proposed Regulation, and the right to remain, a ‘light’ right to remain one could say, is also narrowly constructed, in the case of border procedures, to the first remedy against the negative decision (Art. 54(3) read together with Art. 54(4) and 54(5)). Furthermore, EU law allows Member States to limit the right to remain in case of subsequent applications and provides that there is no right to remain in the case of subsequent appeals (Art. 54(6) and (7)). More in general, this proposal extends the circumstances where the applicant does not have an automatic right to remain and this represents an aspect which affects significantly and in a factual manner the capacity to challenge a negative decision in a border procedure.

Overall, it can be argued that the asylum border procedure is a procedure where guarantees are limited, because the access to the jurisdiction is taking place in fast-track procedures, access to legal remedies is also reduced to the very minimum. Access to the territory of the Member State is therefore deprived of its typical meaning, in the sense that it does not imply access to a system which is protecting rights with procedures which offer guarantees and are therefore also time-consuming. Here, efficiency should govern a process where the access to a jurisdiction is lighter, is ‘less dense’ than otherwise. To conclude, this externalization of migration control policies takes place ‘inside’ the European Union territory, and it aims at prolonging the effects of containment policies because they make access to the EU territory less meaningful, in legal terms: the presence of the person in the territory of the EU does not entail full access to the rights related to the presence on the territory.

Solidarity in cooperating with third countries? The “return sponsorship” and its territorial puzzle

Chapter 6 of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum proposes, among other things, to create a conditionality between cooperation on readmission with third countries and the issuance of visas to their nationals. This conditionality was legally established in the 2019 revision of the Visa Code Regulation. The revision (discussed here) states that, given their “politically sensitive nature and their horizontal implications for the Member States and the Union”, such provisions will be triggered once implementing powers are conferred to the Council (following a proposal from the Commission).

What do these measures entail? We know that they can be applied in bulk or separately. Firstly, EU consulates in third countries will not have the usual leeway to waive some documents required to apply for visas (Art. 14(6), visa code). Secondly, visa applicants from uncooperative third countries will pay higher visa fees (Art. 16(1) visa code). Thirdly, visa fees to diplomatic and service passports will not be waived (Art. 16(5)b visa code). Fourthly, time to take a decision on the visa application will be longer than 15 days (Art. 23(1) visa code). Fifthly, the issuance of multi-entry visas (MEVs) from 6 months to 5 years is suspended (Art. 24(2) visa code). In other words, these coercive measures are not aimed at suspending visas. They are designed to make the procedure for obtaining a visa more lengthy, more costly, and limited in terms of access to MEVs.

Moreover, it is important to stress that the revision of the Visa Code Regulation mentions that the Union will strike a balance between “migration and security concerns, economic considerations and general external relations”. Consequently, measures (be they restrictive or not) will result from an assessment that goes well beyond migration management issues. The assessment will not be based exclusively on the so-called “return rate” that has been presented as a compass used to reward or blame third countries’ cooperation on readmission. Other indicators or criteria, based on data provided by the Member States, will be equally examined by the Commission. These other indicators pertain to “the overall relations” between the Union and its Member States, on the one hand, and a given third country, on the other. This broad category is not defined in the 2019 revision of the Visa Code, nor do we know what it precisely refers to.

What do we know about this linkage? The idea of linking cooperation on readmission with visa policy is not new. It was first introduced at a bilateral level by some member states. For example, fifteen years ago, cooperation on redocumentation, including the swift delivery of laissez-passers by the consular authorities of countries of origin, was at the centre of bilateral talks between France and North African countries. In September 2005, the French Ministry of the Interior proposed to “sanction uncooperative countries [especially Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria] by limiting the number of short-term visas that France delivers to their nationals.” Sanctions turned out to be unsuccessful not only because of the diplomatic tensions they generated – they were met with strong criticisms and reaction on the part of North African countries – but also because the ratio between the number of laissez-passers requested by the French authorities and the number of laissez-passers delivered by North African countries’ authorities remained unchanged.

At the EU level, the idea to link readmission with visa policy has been in the pipeline for many years. Let’s remember that, in October 2002, in its Community Return Policy, the European Commission reflected on the positive incentives that could be used in order to ensure third countries’ constant cooperation on readmission. The Commission observed in its communication that, actually, “there is little that can be offered in return. In particular visa concessions or the lifting of visa requirements can be a realistic option in exceptional cases only; in most cases it is not.” Therefore, the Commission set out to propose additional incentives (e.g. trade expansion, technical/financial assistance, additional development aid).

In a similar vein, in September 2015, after years of negotiations and failed attempt to cooperate on readmission with Southern countries, the Commission remarked that the possibility to use Visa Facilitation Agreements as an incentive to cooperate on readmission is limited in the South “as the EU is unlikely to offer visa facilitation to certain third countries which generate many irregular migrants and thus pose a migratory risk. And even when the EU does offer the parallel negotiation of a visa facilitation agreement, this may not be sufficient if the facilitations offered are not sufficiently attractive.”

More recently, in March 2018, in its Impact Assessment accompanying the proposal for an amendment of the Common Visa Code, the Commission itself recognised that “better cooperation on readmission with reluctant third countries cannot be obtained through visa policy measures alone.” It also added that “there is no hard evidence on how visa leverage can translate into better cooperation of third countries on readmission.”

Against this backdrop, why has so much emphasis been put on the link between cooperation on readmission and visa policy in the revised Visa Code Regulation and later in the New Pact? The Commission itself recognised that this conditionality might not constitute a sufficient incentive to ensure the cooperation on readmission.

To reply to this question, we need first to question the oft-cited reference to third countries’ “reluctance”[n1] to cooperate on readmission in order to understand that, cooperation on readmission is inextricably based on unbalanced reciprocities. Moreover, migration, be it regular or irregular, continues to be viewed as a safety valve to relieve pressure on unemployment and poverty in countries of origin. Readmission has asymmetric costs and benefits having economic social and political implications for countries of origin. Apart from being unpopular in Southern countries, readmission is humiliating, stigmatizing, violent and traumatic for migrants,[n2] making their process of reintegration extremely difficult, if not impossible, especially when countries of origin have often no interest in promoting reintegration programmes addressed to their nationals expelled from Europe.

Importantly, the conclusion of a bilateral agreement does not automatically lead to its full implementation in the field of readmission, for the latter is contingent on an array of factors that codify the bilateral interactions between two contracting parties. Today, more than 320 bilateral agreements linked to readmission have been concluded between the 27 EU Member States and third countries at a global level. Using an oxymoron, it is possible to argue that, over the past decades, various EU member states have learned that, if bilateral cooperation on readmission constitutes a central priority in their external relations (this is the official rhetoric), readmission remains peripheral to other strategic issue-areas which are detailed below. Finally, unlike some third countries in the Balkans or Eastern Europe, Southern third countries have no prospect of acceding to the EU bloc, let alone having a visa-free regime, at least in the foreseeable future. This basic difference makes any attempt to compare the responsiveness of the Balkan countries to cooperation on readmission with Southern non-EU countries’ impossible, if not spurious.

Today, patterns of interdependence between the North and the South of the Mediterranean are very much consolidated. Over the last decades, Member States, especially Spain, France, Italy and Greece, have learned that bringing pressure to bear on uncooperative third countries needs to be evaluated cautiously lest other issues of high politics be jeopardized. Readmission cannot be isolated from a broader framework of interactions including other strategic, if not more crucial, issue-areas, such as police cooperation on the fight against international terrorism, border control, energy security and other diplomatic and geopolitical concerns. Nor can bilateral cooperation on readmission be viewed as an end in itself, for it has often been grafted onto a broader framework of interactions.

This point leads to a final remark regarding “return sponsorship” which is detailed in Art. 55 of the proposal for a regulation on asylum and migration management. In a nutshell, the idea of the European Commission consists in a commitment from a “sponsoring Member State” to assist another Member State (the benefitting Member State) in the readmission of a third-country national. This mechanism foresees that each Member State is expected to indicate the nationalities for which they are willing to provide support in the field of readmission. The sponsoring Member State offers an assistance by mobilizing its network of bilateral cooperation on readmission, or by opening a dialogue with the authorities of a given third country where the third-country national will be deported. If, after eight months, attempts are unsuccessful, the third-country national is transferred to the sponsoring Member State. Note that, in application of Council Directive 2001/40 on mutual recognition of expulsion decisions, the sponsoring Member State may or may not recognize the expulsion decision of the benefitting Member State, just because Member States continue to interpret the Geneva Convention in different ways and also because they have different grounds for subsidiary protection.

Viewed from a non-EU perspective, namely from the point of view of third countries, this mechanism might raise some questions of competence and relevance. Which consular authorities will undertake the identification process of the third country national with a view to eventually delivering a travel document? Are we talking about the third country’s consular authorities located in the territory of the benefitting Member State or in the sponsoring Member State’s? In a similar vein, why would a bilateral agreement linked to readmission – concluded with a given ‘sponsoring’ Member State – be applicable to a ‘benefitting’ Member State (with which no bilateral agreement or arrangement has been signed)? Such territorially bounded contingencies will invariably be problematic, at a certain stage, from the viewpoint of third countries. Additionally, in acting as a sponsoring Member State, one is entitled to wonder why an EU Member State might decide to expose itself to increased tensions with a given third country while putting at risk a broader framework of interactions.

As the graph shows, not all the EU Member States are equally engaged in bilateral cooperation on readmission with third countries. Moreover, a geographical distribution of available data demonstrates that more than 70 per cent of the total number of bilateral agreements linked to readmission (be they formal or informal[n3]) concluded with African countries are covered by France, Italy and Spain. Over the last decades, these three Member States have developed their respective networks of cooperation on readmission with a number of countries in Africa and in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8eUfaXQlFZY/X8UGriAC8tI/AAAAAAAARVQ/8JLNd24XJQkk5L6YOCbtDJtNLfnIjDUjQCLcBGAsYHQ/w451-h247/Graph%2B1%2BNov%2B30%2B2020.jpg

Given the existence of these consolidated networks, the extent to which the “return sponsorship” proposed in the Pact will add value to their current undertakings is objectively questionable. Rather, if the “return sponsorship” mechanism is adopted, these three Member States might be deemed to act as sponsoring Member States when it comes to the expulsion of irregular migrants (located in other EU Member States) to Africa and the MENA region. More concretely, the propensity of, for example, Austria to sponsor Italy in expelling from Italy a foreign national coming from the MENA region or from Africa is predictably low. Austria’s current networks of cooperation on readmission with MENA and African countries would never add value to Italy’s consolidated networks of cooperation on readmission with these third countries. Moreover, it is unlikely that Italy will be proactively “sponsoring” other Member States’ expulsion decisions, without jeopardising its bilateral relations with other strategic third countries located in the MENA region or in Africa, to use the same example. These considerations concretely demonstrate that the European Commission’s call for “solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility”, on which its “return sponsorship” mechanism is premised, is contingent on the existence of a federative Union able to act as a unitary supranational body in domestic and foreign affairs. This federation does not exist in political terms.

Beyond these practical aspects, it is important to realise that the cobweb of bilateral agreements linked to readmission has expanded as a result of tremendously complex bilateral dynamics that go well beyond the mere management of international migration. These remarks are crucial to understanding that we need to reflect properly on the conditionality pattern that has driven the external action of the EU, especially in a regional context where patterns of interdependence among state actors have gained so much relevance over the last two decades. Moreover, given the clear consensus on the weak correlation between cooperation on readmission and visa policy (the European Commission being no exception to this consensus), linking the two might not be the adequate response to ensure third countries’ cooperation on readmission, especially when the latter are in position to capitalize on their strategic position with regard to some EU Member States.

Conclusions

This brief reflection has highlighted a trend which is taking shape in the Pact and in some of the measures proposed by the Commission in its 2020 package of reforms. It has been shown that the proposals for a pre-entry screening and the 2020 amended proposal for enhanced border procedures are creating something we could label as a ‘lower density’ European Union territory, because the new procedures and arrangements have the purpose of restricting and limiting access to rights and to jurisdiction. This would happen on the territory of a Member State, but in a place at or close to the external borders, with a view to confining migration and third country nationals to an area where the territory of a state, and therefore, the European territory, is less … ‘territorial’ than it should be: legally speaking, it is a ‘lower density’ territory.

The “seamless link between asylum and return” the Commission aims to create with the new border procedures can be described as sliding doors through which the third country national can enter or leave immediately, depending on how the established fast-track system qualifies her situation.

However, the paradox highlighted with the “return sponsorship” mechanism shows that readmission agreements or arrangements are no panacea, for the vested interests of third countries must also be taken into consideration when it comes to cooperation on readmission. In this respect, it is telling that the Commission never consulted third states on the new return sponsorship mechanism, as if their territories were not concerned by this mechanism, which is far from being the case. For this reason, it is legitimate to imagine that the main rationale for the return sponsorship mechanism may be another one, and it may be merely domestic. In other words, the return sponsorship, which transforms itself into a form of relocation after eight months if the third country national is not expelled from the EU territory, subtly takes non-frontline European Union states out of their comfort-zone and engage them in cooperating on expulsions. If they fail to do so, namely if the third-country national is not expelled after eight months, non-frontline European Union states are as it were ‘forcibly’ engaged in a ‘solidarity practice’ that is conducive to relocation.

Given the disappointing past experience of the 2015 relocations, it is impossible to predict whether this mechanism will work or not. However, once one enters sliding doors, the danger is to remain stuck in uncertainty, in a European Union ‘no man’s land’ which is nothing but another by-product of the fortress Europe machinery.

▻http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2020/11/the-new-pact-on-migration-and-asylum.html

Un rapport sur la loi grecque, et la proposition de la Commission de règlement de filtrage des personnes migrantes aux frontières extérieures, et qui fait partie du #Pacte européen de migration et d’asile.

EU’s proposed screening rules for migrants are based on « failed and violent » Greek law

▻https://seenthis.net/messages/899186
#Grèce #loi

Le nouveau Pacte européen sur la migration et l’asile

Ce 23 septembre 2020, la Commission européenne a présenté son très attendu nouveau Pacte sur la migration et l’asile.

Alors que l’Union européenne (UE) traverse une crise politique majeure depuis 2015 et que les solutions apportées ont démontré leur insuffisance en matière de solidarité entre États membres, leur violence à l’égard des exilés et leur coût exorbitant, la Commission européenne ne semble pas tirer les leçons du passé.

Au menu du Pacte : un renforcement toujours accru des contrôles aux frontières, des procédures expéditives aux frontières de l’UE avec, à la clé, la détention généralisée pour les nouveaux arrivants, la poursuite de l’externalisation et un focus sur les expulsions. Il n’y a donc pas de changement de stratégie.

Le Règlement Dublin, injuste et inefficace, est loin d’être aboli. Le nouveau système mis en place changera certes de nom, mais reprendra le critère tant décrié du “premier pays d’entrée” dans l’UE pour déterminer le pays responsable du traitement de la demande d’asile. Quant à un mécanisme permanent de solidarité pour les États davantage confrontés à l’arrivée des exilés, à l’instar des quotas de relocalisations de 2015-2017 – relocalisations qui furent un échec complet -, la Commission propose une solidarité permanente et obligatoire mais… à la carte, où les États qui ne veulent pas accueillir de migrants peuvent choisir à la place de “parrainer” leur retour, ou de fournir un soutien opérationnel aux États en difficulté. La solidarité n’est donc cyniquement pas envisagée pour l’accueil, mais bien pour le renvoi des migrants.

Pourtant, l’UE fait face à beaucoup moins d’arrivées de migrants sur son territoire qu’en 2015 (1,5 million d’arrivées en 2015, 140.00 en 2019)

Fin 2019, l’UE accueillait 2,6 millions de réfugiés, soit l’équivalent de 0,6% de sa population. À défaut de voies légales et sûres, les personnes exilées continuent de fuir la guerre, la violence, ou de rechercher une vie meilleure et doivent emprunter des routes périlleuses pour rejoindre le territoire de l’UE : on dénombre plus de 20.000 décès depuis 2014. Une fois arrivées ici, elles peuvent encore être détenues et subir des mauvais traitements, comme c’était le cas dans le camp qui a brûlé à Moria. Lorsqu’elles poursuivent leur route migratoire au sein de l’UE, elles ne peuvent choisir le pays où elles demanderont l’asile et elles font face à la loterie de l’asile…

Loin d’un “nouveau départ” avec ce nouveau Pacte, la Commission propose les mêmes recettes et rate une opportunité de mettre en œuvre une tout autre politique, qui soit réellement solidaire, équitable pour les États membres et respectueuse des droits fondamentaux des personnes migrantes, avec l’établissement de voies légales et sûres, des procédures d’asile harmonisées et un accueil de qualité, ou encore la recherche de solutions durables pour les personnes en situation irrégulière.

Dans cette brève analyse, nous revenons sur certaines des mesures phares telles qu’elles ont été présentées par la Commission européenne et qui feront l’objet de discussions dans les prochains mois avec le Parlement européen et le Conseil européen. Nous expliquerons également en quoi ces mesures n’ont rien d’innovant, sont un échec de la politique migratoire européenne, et pourquoi elles sont dangereuses pour les personnes migrantes.

▻https://www.cire.be/publication/le-nouveau-pacte-europeen-sur-la-migration-et-lasile

Pour télécharger l’analyse :
▻https://www.cire.be/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php?juwpfisadmin=false&action=wpfd&task=file.download&wpfd_category_

New pact on migration and asylum. Perspective on the ’other side’ of the EU border

https://refugee-rights.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/RRE_NewPactOnMigrationAndAsylum.jpg https://i.imgur.com/eBqKz6Q.png

At the end of September 2020, and after camp Moria on Lesvos burned down leaving over 13,000 people in an even more precarious situation than they were before, the European Commission (EC) introduced a proposal for the New Pact on Migration and Asylum. So far, the proposal has not been met with enthusiasm by neither member states or human rights organisations.

Based on first-hand field research interviews with civil society and other experts in the Balkan region, this report provides a unique perspective of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum from ‘the other side’ of the EU’s borders.

#Balkans #route_des_Balkans #rapport #Refugee_rights #militarisation

Impakter | Un « nouveau » pacte sur l’asile et les migrations ?

Le média en ligne Impakter propose un article d’analyse du Pacte sur l’asile et les migrations de l’Union européenne. Publié le 23 septembre 2020, le pacte a été annoncé comme un “nouveau départ”. En réalité, le pacte n’est pas du tout un nouveau départ, mais la même politique avec un ensemble de nouvelles propositions. L’article pointe l’aspect critique du projet, et notamment des concepts clés tels que : « processus de pré-selection », « le processus accélérée » et le « pacte de retour ». L’article donne la parole à plusieurs expertises et offre ainsi une meilleure compréhension de ce que concrètement ce pacte implique pour les personnes migrantes.

L’article de #Charlie_Westbrook “A “New” Pact on Migration and Asylum ?” a été publié le 11 février dans le magazine en ligne Impakter (sous licence Creative Commons). Nous vous en proposons un court résumé traduisant les lignes directrices de l’argumentaire, en français ci-dessous. Pour lire l’intégralité du texte en anglais, vous pouvez vous rendre sur le site de Impakter.

–---

Le “Nouveau pacte sur la migration et l’asile”, a été publié le 23 septembre, faisant suite à l’incendie du camp surpeuplé de Moria. Le pacte a été annoncé comme un “nouveau départ”. En réalité, le pacte n’est pas du tout un nouveau départ, mais la même politique avec un ensemble de nouvelles propositions sur lesquelles les États membres de l’UE devront maintenant se mettre d’accord – une entreprise qui a déjà connu des difficultés.

Les universitaires, les militants et les organisations de défense des droits de l’homme de l’UE soulignent les préoccupations éthiques et pratiques que suscitent nombre des propositions suggérées par la Commission, ainsi que la rhétorique axée sur le retour qui les anime. Charlie Westbrook la journaliste, a contacté Kirsty Evans, coordinatrice de terrain et des campagnes pour Europe Must Act, qui m’a fait part de ses réactions au nouveau Pacte.

Cet essai vise à présenter le plus clairement possible les problèmes liés à ce nouveau pacte, en mettant en évidence les principales préoccupations des experts et des ONG. Ces préoccupations concernent les problèmes potentiels liés au processus de présélection, au processus accéléré (ou “fast-track”) et au mécanisme de parrainage des retours.

Le processus de présélection

La nouvelle proposition est d’instaurer une procédure de contrôle préalable à l’entrée sur le territoire européen. L’ONG Human Rights Watch, dénonce la suggestion trompeuse du pacte selon laquelle les personnes soumises à la procédure frontalière ne sont pas considérées comme ayant formellement pénétré sur le territoire. Ce processus concerne toute personne extra-européenne qui franchirait la frontière de manière irrégulière. Ce manque de différenciation du type de besoin inquiète l’affirme l’avocate et professeur Lyra Jakulevičienė, car cela signifie que la politique d’externalisation sera plus forte que jamais. Ce nouveau règlement brouille la distinction entre les personnes demandant une protection internationale et les autres migrants “en plaçant les deux groupes de personnes sous le même régime juridique au lieu de les différencier clairement, car leurs chances de rester dans l’UE sont très différentes”. Ce processus d’externalisation, cependant, “se déroule “à l’intérieur” du territoire de l’Union européenne, et vise à prolonger les effets des politiques d’endiguement parce qu’elles rendent l’accès au territoire de l’UE moins significatif”, comme l’expliquent Jean-Pierre Cassarino, chercheur principal à la chaire de la politique européenne de voisinage du Collège d’Europe, et Luisa Marin, professeur adjoint de droit européen. En d’autres termes, les personnes en quête de protection n’auront pas pleinement accès aux droits européens en arrivant sur le territoire de l’UE. Il faudra d’abord déterminer ce qu’elles “sont”. En outre, les recherches universitaires montrent que les processus d’externalisation “entraînent le contournement des normes fondamentales, vont à l’encontre de la bonne gouvernance, créent l’immobilité et contribuent à la crise du régime mondial des réfugiés, qui ne parvient pas à assurer la protection”. Les principales inquiétudes de ces deux expert·es sont les suivantes : la rapidité de prise de décision (pas plus de 5 jours), l’absence d’assistance juridique, Etat membre est le seul garant du respect des droits fondamentaux et si cette période de pré-sélection sera mise en œuvre comme une détention.

Selon Jakulevičienė, la proposition apporte “un grand potentiel” pour créer davantage de camps de style “Moria”. Il est difficile de voir en quoi cela profiterait à qui que ce soit.

Procédure accélérée

Si un demandeur est orienté vers le système accéléré, une décision sera prise dans un délai de 12 semaines – une durée qui fait craindre que le système accéléré n’aboutisse à un retour injuste des demandeurs. En 2010, Human Rights Watch a publié un rapport de fond détaillant comment les procédures d’asile accélérées étaient inadaptées aux demandes complexes et comment elles affectaient négativement les femmes demandeurs d’asile en particulier.
Les personnes seront dirigées vers la procédure accélérée si : l’identité a été cachée ou que de faux documents ont été utilisés, si elle représente un danger pour la sécurité nationale, ou si elle est ressortissante d’un pays pour lesquels moins de 20% des demandes ont abouti à l’octroi d’une protection internationale.

Comme l’exprime le rapport de Human Rights Watch (HRW), “la procédure à la frontière proposée repose sur deux hypothèses erronées – que la majorité des personnes arrivant en Europe n’ont pas besoin de protection et que l’évaluation des demandes d’asile peut être faite facilement et rapidement”.

Essentiellement, comme l’écrivent Cassarino et Marin, “elle porte atteinte au principe selon lequel toute demande d’asile nécessite une évaluation complexe et individualisée de la situation personnelle particulière du demandeur”.

Tout comme Jakulevičienė, Kirsty Evans s’inquiète de la manière dont le pacte va alimenter une rhétorique préjudiciable, en faisant valoir que “le langage de l’accélération fait appel à la “protection” de la rhétorique nationale évidente dans la politique et les médias en se concentrant sur le retour des personnes sur leur propre territoire”.

Un pacte pour le retour

Désormais, lorsqu’une demande d’asile est rejetée, la décision de retour sera rendue en même temps.

Le raisonnement présenté par la Commission pour proposer des procédures plus rapides et plus intégrées est que des procédures inefficaces causent des difficultés excessives – y compris pour ceux qui ont obtenu le droit de rester.

Les procédures restructurées peuvent en effet profiter à certains. Cependant, il existe un risque sérieux qu’elles aient un impact négatif sur le droit d’asile des personnes soumises à la procédure accélérée – sachant qu’en cas de rejet, il n’existe qu’un seul droit de recours.

La proposition selon laquelle l’UE traitera désormais les retours dans leur ensemble, et non plus seulement dans un seul État membre, illustre bien l’importance que l’UE accorde aux retours. À cette fin, l’UE propose la création d’un nouveau poste de coordinateur européen des retours qui s’occupera des retours et des réadmissions.

Décrite comme “la plus sinistre des nouvelles propositions”, et assimilée à “une grotesque parodie de personnes parrainant des enfants dans les pays en développement par l’intermédiaire d’organisations caritatives”, l’option du parrainage de retour est également un signe fort de l’approche par concession de la Commission.

Pour M. Evans, le fait d’autoriser les pays à opter pour le “retour” comme moyen de “gérer la migration” semble être une validation du comportement illégal des États membres, comme les récentes expulsions massives en Grèce. Alors, qu’est-ce que le parrainage de retour ? Eh bien, selon les termes de l’UE, le parrainage du retour est une option de solidarité dans laquelle l’État membre “s’engage à renvoyer les migrants en situation irrégulière sans droit de séjour au nom d’un autre État membre, en le faisant directement à partir du territoire de l’État membre bénéficiaire”.

Les États membres préciseront les nationalités qu’ils “parraineront” en fonction, vraisemblablement, des relations préexistantes de l’État membre de l’UE avec un État non membre de l’UE. Lorsque la demande d’un individu est rejetée, l’État membre qui en est responsable s’appuiera sur ses relations avec le pays tiers pour négocier le retour du demandeur.

En outre, en supposant que les réadmissions soient réussies, le parrainage des retours fonctionne sur la base de l’hypothèse qu’il existe un pays tiers sûr. C’est sur cette base que les demandes sont rejetées. La manière dont cela affectera le principe de non-refoulement est la principale préoccupation des organisations des droits de l’homme et des experts politiques, et c’est une préoccupation qui découle d’expériences antérieures. Après tout, la coopération avec des pays tiers jusqu’à présent – à savoir l’accord Turquie-UE et l’accord Espagne-Maroc – a suscité de nombreuses critiques sur le coût des droits de l’homme.

Mais en plus des préoccupations relatives aux droits de l’homme, des questions sont soulevées sur les implications ou même les aspects pratiques de l’”incitation” des pays tiers à se conformer, l’image de l’UE en tant que champion des droits de l’homme étant déjà corrodée aux yeux de la communauté internationale.

Il s’agira notamment d’utiliser la délivrance du code des visas comme méthode d’incitation. Pour les pays qui ne coopèrent pas à la réadmission, les visas seront plus difficiles à obtenir. La proposition visant à pénaliser les pays qui appliquent des restrictions en matière de visas n’est pas nouvelle et n’a pas conduit à une amélioration des relations diplomatiques. Guild fait valoir que cette approche est injuste pour les demandeurs de visa des pays “non coopérants” et qu’elle risque également de susciter des sentiments d’injustice chez les voisins du pays tiers.

L’analyse de Guild est que le nouveau pacte est diplomatiquement faible. Au-delà du financement, il offre “peu d’attention aux intérêts des pays tiers”. Il faut reconnaître, après tout, que la réadmission a des coûts et des avantages asymétriques pour les pays qui les acceptent, surtout si l’on considère que la migration, comme le soulignent Cassarino et Marin, “continue d’être considérée comme une soupape de sécurité pour soulager la pression sur le chômage et la pauvreté dans les pays d’origine”.

►https://asile.ch/2021/03/02/impakter-un-nouveau-pacte-sur-lasile-et-les-migrations

L’article original :
A “New” Pact on Migration and Asylum ?
▻https://impakter.com/a-new-pact-on-migration-and-asylum

The EU Pact on Migration and Asylum in light of the United Nations Global Compact on Refugees. International Experiences on Containment and Mobility and their Impacts on Trust and Rights

https://www.asileproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Thumb-Cover-Book.jpg

In September 2020, the European Commission published what it described as a New Pact on Migration and Asylum (emphasis added) that lays down a multi-annual policy agenda on issues that have been central to debate about the future of European integration. This book critically examines the new Pact as part of a Forum organized by the Horizon 2020 project ASILE – Global Asylum Governance and the EU’s Role.

ASILE studies interactions between emerging international protection systems and the United Nations Global Compact for Refugees (UN GCR), with particular focus on the European Union’s role and the UN GCR’s implementation dynamics. It brings together a new international network of scholars from 13 institutions examining the characteristics of international and country specific asylum governance instruments and arrangements applicable to people seeking international protection. It studies the compatibility of these governance instruments’ with international protection and human rights, and the UN GCR’s call for global solidarity and responsibility sharing.

▻https://www.asileproject.eu/the-eu-pact-on-migration-and-asylum-in-light-of-the-united-nations-glob

Le nouveau pacte européen : un mécanisme de « solidarité » pour les expulsions et l’externalisation des politiques migratoires
–-> Dans rapport de Migreurop sur l’externalisation des frontières européennes dans les Balkans (2021)

▻https://migreurop.org/article3046.html?lang=fr

#chez_soi

@chezsoi

ça fait super bizarre de recevoir un mail au sujet de cet article quand, dans le même temps, le passage du #squat #politique au #chez-soi puis au #on_est_chez_nous est de plus en plus sordide sur l’ex zone à défendre :
« Adopte un relou », un article refusé par indymedia nantes où des habitants de la zad tentent d’expliquer pourquoi ils cherchent à virer quelqu’un (en vrai, toutes les personnes qui habitent à ses côtés comme s’il était contagieux)
▻https://nantes.indymedia.org/articles/49188
Les commentaires qui mettent de la perspective :
▻https://nantes.indymedia.org/articles/49188#comment-312516
▻https://nantes.indymedia.org/articles/49188#comment-312532

Le hangar de l’avenir a failli finir en cendres fin février, informé par un mail de zadibao@riseup.net.
►https://zadibao.net n’est plus actualisé depuis fin 2019 mais la réaction suite à l’incendie est reprise sur zad.nadir.org
▻https://zad.nadir.org/spip.php?article6702&var_mode=calcul
▻https://zad.nadir.org/spip.php?article6704

https://zad.nadir.org/local/cache-vignettes/L500xH335/int2hang-0d5f4.jpg?1582936164

Des espaces comme le site Nantes Indymedia, se sont employés, au cours des dernières années et encore très récemment, à relayer divers appels et commentaires invitant à « brûler la zad » et ses habitant.e.s. Ces « médias » (1) colportent avec un zèle de procureur un récit diabolisant et des mensonges factuels sur de soit-disant « traîtres » et « collabos ». Ceci à propos de personnes qui ont résisté durement sur le terrain face à la répression d’État et ont opté entre les expulsions du printemps 2018 pour une négociation collective - alimentée par un rapport de force constant - afin d’obtenir des baux stables sur les terres, plutôt que de se résoudre à la destruction de l’ensemble des lieux de vie de la zad. Ces personnes ont tout fait pour que le plus de lieux habités soient préservés et pour maintenir une communauté large et hétérogène. Elles ne sont en tout état de cause pas responsables des choix tactiques différents qui n’ont malheureusement pas permis - face aux tanks - de faire réellement obstacle à l’expulsion de certains lieux de vie.

(1) Il est nécessaire de clarifier à ce sujet le rôle joué par le compte facebook « nonaeroportNotreDamedesLandes / zone à défendre de Notre Dame des Landes ». Ce compte qui cherche à maintenir l’apparence d’un compte « officiel » du mouvement et de la zad est actuellement tenu par une/des personnes qui n’y habitent absolument pas, qui se targuent d’une forme d’impartialité, mais dont le parti-pris malveillant ainsi que la propension à relayer sans aucune vérification mensonges et appels haineux est largement avérée.

@val_k je ne suis pas du tout impliqué sur l’avenir de la ZAD et mon implication dans le passé est encore moindre. Pour les infos, je privilégie zad.nadir, zadibao et toi-même, les post et réactions sur
nantes.indymedia @indymedianantes m’indiffère car je ne sais pas qui sont ces gens et de quoi ils causent.