#décret

Italy’s Matteo Salvini says ’little ethnic shops’ should close by 9pm

Minister calls late-night stores mostly run by foreigners ‘meeting place for drug deals’

Italy’s far-right interior minister has come under fire for a proposal that would force what he calls “little ethnic shops” to close by 9pm.

Matteo Salvini added the measure to his immigrant-targeting security decree, arguing late-night grocery stores, mostly run by foreigners, are “a meeting place for drug deals and people who raise hell”.

He claimed the initiative was not specifically aimed at foreigners and was merely a way to “limit the abuses of certain shops”.

Thousands of grocery stores across Italy are run by immigrants, mainly people from Bangladesh and India, many of whom bought premises for a low price during the financial crisis.

Mauro Bussoni, the general secretary of Confesercenti, a retail association, said: “You can’t make a law that discriminates some entrepreneurs over others.

“Those who have a commercial activity have rights and duties: the duty to respect rules and the right to remain open, whether the activity is managed by a foreigner or an Italian.”

Carlo Rienzi, the president of Codacons, a consumer association, said it was unfair to “generalise”, while noting shops that stayed open late were essential for people seeking “last-minute” purchases. But he agreed there should be a clampdown on outlets that have “created disorder” or “degraded” historical town centres.

Andrea Marcucci, a politician from the centre-left Democratic party, said imposing curfews was among the premises of “a regime”.

If the proposal became law, an industry source said, it should also apply to Italian-owned outlets, including bars, while security measures must also extend to foreign business owners.

“Some say that Italian people go into their shop late at night and try to extort money from them,” said the source. “But they are too afraid to report such incidents to the police.”

Salvini’s security decree, unveiled in September, includes plans to abolish key protections for immigrants and make it easier for them to be deported.

On Thursday, he reiterated a plan to hire 10,000 more police officers, an initiative funded by money that previously paid for migrant reception and integration projects. Parliament has until mid-November to debate and modify the decree before it becomes law.

Salvini’s latest proposal comes after Luigi Di Maio, his coalition partner, said measures would be introduced by the end of the year to limit Sunday trading in an attempt to preserve family traditions.

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/b2ccd29a21a4ca78e255da713fcd8ba3ac16879e/0_150_6360_3816/master/6360.jpg?width=620&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=9591c6ce94ea9bb87185ace51414f0d9#.jpg

▻https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/12/italy-matteo-salvini-little-ethnic-shops-foreigners?CMP=share_btn_tw
#désordre #couvre-feu #décret
ping @isskein

Publié sur la page FB de Filippo Furri :

« Mi permetto di riprendere il commento della splendida Rosanna Marcato che è stata uno degli attori fondamentali di un percorso di sviluppo e crescita di un modello di accoglienza innovativo, che è alle fondamenta del mio lungo lavoro di ricerca sulla nozione di CITTà RIFUGIO : le città, le comunità locali, dove può realizzarsi la solidarietà concreta e reciproca, sono e devono rimanere luoghi di resistenza ai poteri fascisti che si diffondono dovunque, alla paranoia identitaria costruita a tavolino e iniettata nei cervelli e negli spiriti di spettatori impauriti e paranoici. lo SPRAR nasceva da forme di azione sperimentale «dal basso» e solidale (antifascista, antirazzista), che i governi autoritari e fascisti detestano e combattono.

«L 11 settembre 2001 Venezia tra le prime città italiane ha dato il via ad un sistema di accoglienza (pna) che si è poi trasformato nello SPRAR. Era il frutto di esperienze di accoglienza, di saperi professionali e della volontà di costruire un sistema di accoglienza territoriale stabile e moderno. Un servizio sociale a tutti gli effetti con regole certe e rendicontazioni esatte e controllabili. Molte delle regole, degli strumenti e delle metodologie di lavoro che ancora funzionano furono elaborati da questa città e dal servizio che dirigevo. 27 anni di lavoro buttati nel cesso. Siate maledetti voi e anche quelli di prima che ci hanno ficcato in questa situazione di merda»

Immigrazione, Andrea Maestri: “Nel decreto Salvini tradisce il contratto di governo”

Andrea Maestri critica il decreto Immigrazione: “Fino a oggi lo Sprar rappresentava un modello pubblico e trasparente nella gestione delle risorse. Chi adesso non rientra nel sistema Sprar non sparisce magicamente dal territorio. E quindi finirà nei Centri d’accoglienza straordinari, i Cas, che sono tutti privati”.

Dopo aver licenziato l’atteso Dl Immigrazione, il ministro degli Interni Matteo Salvini, a proposito del futuro degli Sprar (Sistema di protezione per richiedenti asilo e rifugiati) e del ridimensionamento di questi centri in favore dei Cas, ha dichiarato: «Il rischio è inesistente, anche qui viene messo ordine in un sistema. Da quando sono ministro abbiamo ridotto di circa 20 mila unità le presenze in tutti questi tipi di strutture. Coloro che sono nel giusto come amministratori locali e come profughi non hanno nulla a che temere da questo provvedimento». In conferenza stampa il ministro degli Interni ha spiegato che il sistema Sprar continua a sopravvivere «limitatamente ai casi di protezione internazionale e dei minori non accompagnati». Ma stanno davvero così le cose? Ne abbiamo parlato con Andrea Maestri, della segreteria nazionale di Possibile.

Nel contratto di governo si parlava di una diminuzione della capacità d’azione dei privati nella gestione dell’accoglienza. Con questo decreto la promessa non è stata mantenuta.

Assolutamente no. Credo che qualunque osservatore attento non possa che gridare allo scandalo per questo gravissimo inadempimento, nei confronti soprattutto dei cittadini che hanno creduto nella buona fede di chi ha firmato il contratto di governo. Secondo quel contratto sembrava si volesse puntare sul modello pubblico e diffuso. E’ in corso al contrario una privatizzazione hard del sistema dell’accoglienza. Fino a oggi lo Sprar, anche se in modo minoritario, coinvolgendo gli enti locali, rappresentava un modello pubblico e trasparente nella gestione delle risorse, che venivano rendicontate. Nel momento in cui diventa uno strumento ulteriormente residuale, perché si rivolge solo a coloro che hanno già ottenuto la protezione internazionale – si parla appunto solo dei ‘titolari’, non più di richiedenti asilo che hanno fatto domanda – comincia a riguardare solo un numero ridotto di persone. Ma chi non rientra nel sistema Sprar non sparisce magicamente dal territorio, e quindi bisognerà trovargli un’altra collocazione: cioè nei Centri d’accoglienza straordinari, i Cas, che sono appunto tutti privati, gestiti dalle prefetture, ognuna con modalità diverse di scelta del contraente, con modalità di rendicontazione a macchia di leopardo.

Ma Salvini sostiene l’opposto, cioè che questo rischio è inesistente.

Se avesse ragione Salvini aumenterebbe il numero di persone che vivono per strada in una condizione di fragilità sociale umana ed esistenziale: se questi migranti non vengono accolti dai Comuni all’interno degli Sprar, se non se ne occupano le prefetture attarverso gli appaltatori privati all’interno dei Cas, vorrà dire che saranno in giro. Sono persone prive di documenti, che non possono fare contratti regolari di locazione, e nemmeno condividere contratti di locazione con altri. E questo sì che farà aumentare l’irregolarità e la criminalità organizzata e disorganizzata. Con un’unica conseguenza: aumenterà la percezione di insicurezza diffusa.

Nel testo definitivo, all’articolo 2 è confermata la norma sugli appalti per i lavori nei centri, che possono essere affidati senza previa pubblicazione del bando di gara. E’ in linea con la Costituzione?

C’è questa norma, ma con alcuni ritocchi. In pratica la procedura negoziata, senza previa pubblicazione di un bando pubblico, può essere fatta per gli appalti sotto soglia comunitaria. Ma se si considera che la soglia comunitaria per lavori, dal primo gennaio 2018 è di circa 5 milioni e mezzo di euro, è evidente che con quella somma più che un Cas si può fare un vero e proprio carcere. Sono importi molto elevati che consentono al governo di fare procedure negoziate, limitando il confronto concorrenziale solo a 5 ditte scelte discrezionalmente dall’amministrazione. Qui c’è una lesione del principio di trasparenza e di concorrenza. Poi hanno scritto che verranno rispettati alcuni criteri, come quello di rotazione, però la sostanza rimane. L’articolo 63 del codice degli Appalti dovrebbe essere limitato a casi del tutto eccezionali: ad esempio una data amministrazione può avere l’interesse a trattare con un determinato soggetto se vuole commissionargli un’opera d’arte per una piazza pubblica; oppure sono previsti casi straordinari d’urgenza, in cui è ammissibile una deroga del genere. Ma non siamo in nessuno di questi due campi. Il governo per i prossimi tre anni sta stabilendo una procedura in deroga alle norme dell’evidenza pubblica. E’ piuttosto grave che si apra una parentesi del genere per un lasso così lungo di tempo. La prima bozza che era circolata negli ambienti dell’Anci, era spudorata, un colpo allo stomaco. Poi ci sarà stato un intervento da parte forse degli uffici ministeriali di Palazzo Chigi, o da parte dello stesso Presidente della Repubblica, che probabilmente hanno limitato un po’ il danno. Ma rimane uno degli aspetti più discutibili e negativi dell’intero provvedimento, perché è proprio uno di quegli ambiti su cui Salvini ha fatto sempre propaganda, contestando il modello del Cara di Mineo. Qui si sta dicendo che il ministero sta prospettando appalti senza evidenza publica. E la Corte Costituzionale se sarà chiamata a intervenire non mancherà di censurare quest’aspetto.

Dal momento che il testo prevede il raddoppio dei tempi di trattenimento nei Cpr, da 90 a 180 giorni, vuol dire che ne serviranno di più? Qual è la ratio?

E’ tutto collegato, c’è una coerenza, negativa ovviamente. Nel momento in cui tu trasformi lo Sprar, e lo snaturi, visto che non si tratta più di un sistema di accoglienza per i richiedenti asilo, ma solo per i rifugiati, avremo sempre più persone disperse nel territorio, o nei Cas. E quindi viene privilegiata una gestione emergenziale. Questo farà aumentare il numero delle persone espulse dal sistema, ma non dal territorio. Ci saranno sempre più persone irregolari, e quindi una maggiore necessità di Cpr. Quelli attuali sicuramente non basteranno, quindi se ne dovranno fare degli altri. Per alimentare la narrazione emergenziale si dirà che bisogna fare in fretta, e da qui proviene il vincolo dei tre anni per la deroga per i bandi di gara per le imprese. Quando costruiranno un nuovo centro sarà a quel punto interessante vedere quali aziende verranno chiamate a concorrere, e con quali criteri. Questa è l’economia dell’emergenza, che si deve autoalimentare non solo nella propaganda, ma anche nella sostanza.

Cosa ne pensa del permesso di soggiorno per atti di valore civile?

Siamo alla banalità del male. Togliendo la protezione umanitaria come istituto generale, tantissime persone che ricadevano in zone grigie, non facilmente ascrivibili ad una categoria giuridica, ma che rientravano comunque in quell’ambito di tutela ampia dei diritti umani fondamentali, si trovano adesso in difficoltà. E mi riferisco soprattutto a quelle persone vulnerabili, che arrivano in Italia deprivati, fisicamente e moralmente, dopo aver attraversato per esempio l’inferno libico. Adesso per loro non ci sarà più nessuna tutela. Ci sono al loro posto queste sei categorie molto rigide che lasciano poco spazio all’attenzione di cui necessitano invece alcuni casi particolari. Un po’ per caso, come in una lotteria, se uno è in una condizione di irregolarità, ma gli capita di salvare una persona durante un incidente stradale da una macchina in fiamme, o ipotizziamo, con un po’ di fantasia, se quest’immigrato salvasse il ministro Salvini che annaspa in mare, potrebbe ottenere il permesso di soggiorno in virtù della sua azione di valore civile. Mi sembrano delle restrizioni cieche e ottuse che non migliorano minimamente lo stato delle cose. Perché la via maestra sarebbe una riforma organica del testo unico sull’immigrazione, che rendesse trasparenti e legali i canali di ingresso in Italia. Sarebbe fortemente depotenziato il canale della protezione internazionale, che ovviamente è sotto pressione perché non esiste altro modo per entrare in Italia legalmente. Ma ovviamente questo decreto crea un consenso molto più immediato.

▻https://www.fanpage.it/immigrazione-maestri-nel-decreto-salvini-tradisce-il-contratto-di-governo

Cosa prevede il decreto Salvini su immigrazione e sicurezza

Il 24 settembre il consiglio dei ministri ha approvato all’unanimità il cosiddetto decreto Salvini su immigrazione e sicurezza. Il decreto si compone di tre titoli: il primo si occupa di riforma del diritto d’asilo e della cittadinanza, il secondo di sicurezza pubblica, prevenzione e contrasto della criminalità organizzata; e l’ultimo di amministrazione e gestione dei beni sequestrati e confiscati alla mafia.

Nei giorni precedenti all’approvazione si erano diffuse delle voci su possibili dissidi tra i due partiti di maggioranza, Lega e Movimento 5 stelle, ma il ministro dell’interno Matteo Salvini durante la conferenza stampa a palazzo Chigi ha voluto sottolineare che i cinquestelle hanno approvato senza riserve il suo progetto di riforma.

All’inizio i decreti avrebbero dovuto essere due: il primo sull’immigrazione e il secondo sulla sicurezza e sui beni confiscati alle mafie, poi nel corso dell’ultima settimana sono state fatte delle “limature” e i due decreti sono stati accorpati in un unico provvedimento. Il decreto dovrà ora essere inviato al presidente della repubblica Sergio Mattarella che a sua volta deve autorizzare che la norma sia presentata alle camere. Ecco in sintesi cosa prevede.

Abolizione della protezione umanitaria. Il primo articolo contiene nuove disposizioni in materia della concessione dell’asilo e prevede di fatto l’abrogazione della protezione per motivi umanitari che era prevista dal Testo unico sull’immigrazione. Oggi la legge prevede che la questura conceda un permesso di soggiorno ai cittadini stranieri che presentano “seri motivi, in particolare di carattere umanitario o risultanti da obblighi costituzionali o internazionali dello stato italiano”, oppure alle persone che fuggono da emergenze come conflitti, disastri naturali o altri eventi di particolare gravità in paesi non appartenenti all’Unione europea.

La protezione umanitaria può essere riconosciuta anche a cittadini stranieri che non è possibile espellere perché potrebbero essere oggetto di persecuzione nel loro paese (articolo 19 della legge sull’immigrazione) o in caso siano vittime di sfruttamento lavorativo o di tratta. In questi casi il permesso ha caratteristiche differenti. La durata è variabile da sei mesi a due anni ed è rinnovabile. Questa tutela è stata introdotta in Italia nel 1998.

▻https://www.internazionale.it/bloc-notes/annalisa-camilli/2018/09/24/decreto-salvini-immigrazione-e-sicurezza

Italy: The security decree that makes everyone more insecure

JRS Italy (Centro Astalli) is concerned about the effects that the new measures introduced by the ’Salvini decree’ on migration and security – unanimously approved on the 24th of September by the Italian Council of Ministers – will have on the lives of migrants and on the social cohesion of the whole country.

The combination of the Security Decree and the Immigration Decree in a single piece of legislation is misleading as it associates security issues, such as organised crime and terrorism, with the issue of managing migration, in particular forced migration. This is particularly wrong knowing that a completely different legislative approach is needed to deal with migration challenges, particularly in terms of programmes, general management and migrants’ integration.

For JRS Italy, the reform of the Protection System for Asylum Seekers and Refugees (SPRAR) foreseen by the decree represent a fundamental step back for the Italian reception system. By excluding applicants for international protection from this type of reception the reform is in clear contradiction with the principle that a successful integration process starts from the first reception, as the current Integration Plan for refugees of the Italian Ministry of the Interior also states.

The SPRAR, recognized as a qualitative system also by international observers, is therefore cut down, despite being the only reception system that guarantees maximum transparency in the management of resources. At the same time, the large collective centres for asylum seekers are strengthened even though the experience on the ground largely shows that, also due to the lack of involvement of local administrations, establishing such centres often encounters resistance and generates social tensions.

According to Camillo Ripamonti SJ, JRS Italy’s president, “It is a step backwards that does not take into account on the one hand the lives and stories of the people, and on the other hand the work that for decades many humanitarian organizations and civil society have done in close collaboration with the institutions - in particular with local authorities”.

“Criminalising migrants” – Ripamonti concludes – “is not the right way to deal with the presence of foreign citizens in Italy. Enlarging grey zones that are not regulated by law and making legal procedures less accessible and more complicated, contributes to make our country less secure and more fragile."

▻http://jrseurope.org/news_detail?TN=NEWS-20180925084854

Decreto Salvini, Mattarella firma ma ricorda a Conte gli obblighi fissati dalla Costituzione

Il provvedimento è quello che riguarda sicurezza e immigrazione. Il presidente della Repubblica invia al premier una lettera in cui richiama l’articolo 10 della Carta. La replica di Salvini: «ciapa lì e porta a cà». Polemica dei medici sulla norma per i presidi sanitari

▻https://www.repubblica.it/politica/2018/10/04/news/dl_sicurezza_mattarella_firma_lettera_a_conte_obblighi_costituzione-20814

“I grandi centri di accoglienza vanno superati”. Anzi no. Se Salvini contraddice se stesso

Ad agosto il ministero dell’Interno ha trasmesso al Parlamento una relazione molto dura sul modello straordinario dei Cas, presentati come “luoghi difficili da gestire e da vivere che attirano gli interessi criminali”. Proponendo l’alternativa dello SPRAR. Ma nonostante le evidenze e gli elogi per il sistema di protezione diffuso, il “decreto immigrazione” va nella direzione opposta.

grandi centri di accoglienza in Italia sono “luoghi difficili da gestire e da vivere”, producono “effetti negativi oltre che nell’impatto con le collettività locali anche sull’efficienza dei servizi forniti ai migranti”, e per il loro “rilevante onere finanziario” rappresentano una “fonte di attrazione per gli interessi criminali”. Per questo è necessario un loro “alleggerimento progressivo” puntando sulle “progettualità SPRAR” (Sistema di protezione per richiedenti asilo e rifugiati), autentico “ponte necessario all’inclusione e punto di riferimento per le reti territoriali di sostegno”. Garanzia di “processi più solidi e più facili di integrazione”.

Recita così la “Relazione sul funzionamento del sistema di accoglienza predisposto al fine di fronteggiare le esigenze straordinarie connesse all’eccezionale afflusso di stranieri nel territorio nazionale”, relativa al 2017, trasmessa alla Camera dei deputati il 14 agosto di quest’anno e presentata da un ministro che sostiene pubblicamente il contrario: Matteo Salvini.

Ad agosto, in quella relazione, il titolare dell’Interno ha infatti riconosciuto come nel circuito SPRAR, “oltre al vitto e alloggio”, venga “garantito ai richiedenti asilo un percorso qualificato, finalizzato alla conquista dell’autonomia individuale” grazie alla “realizzazione di progetti territoriali di accoglienza”. Un modello da promuovere per merito delle “qualità dei servizi resi ai beneficiari che non si limitano ad interventi materiali di base (vitto e alloggio) ma assicurano una serie di attività funzionali alla riconquista dell’autonomia individuale, come l’insegnamento della lingua italiana, la formazione e la qualificazione professionale, l’orientamento legale, l’accesso ai servizi del territorio, l’orientamento e l’inserimento lavorativo, abitativo e sociale, oltre che la tutela psico socio-sanitaria”. Ma ancora nel 2017, su 183.681 migranti ospitati nelle strutture temporanee, hotspot, centri di prima accoglienza e SPRAR, appena 24.471 occupavano l’accoglienza virtuosa del Sistema di protezione per richiedenti asilo e rifugiati. Da lì la corretta intenzione di alleggerire i grandi centri a favore dell’approccio diffuso e integrato.

Poi però il governo ha smentito se stesso: nonostante le riconosciute qualità dello SPRAR, l’esecutivo ha messo mano alla materia attraverso il recente decreto legge su immigrazione e sicurezza (Dl 113), licenziato dal governo ed emanato dal Capo dello Stato a inizio ottobre, puntando in direzione opposta. In quella che Gianfranco Schiavone, vice presidente dell’Associazione studi giuridici sull’immigrazione, ha definito la “destrutturazione del sistema di accoglienza”.

L’articolo 12 del “decreto Salvini”, infatti, trasforma l’attuale SPRAR in un sistema per soli titolari di protezione internazionale, un terzo degli attuali accolti, tagliando fuori così i richiedenti asilo, i beneficiari di protezione umanitaria (sostanzialmente abrogata) e coloro che avessero fatto ricorso contro la decisione di diniego delle Commissioni territoriali sulla loro domanda. Per gli esclusi si apriranno le porte degli attuali centri governativi di prima accoglienza o dei centri di accoglienza straordinaria (CAS), proprio quelli di cui la relazione presentata dal ministro Salvini, poche settimane prima, auspicava il superamento.
“La riforma pare fotografare la realtà della prassi precedente al decreto legge -ha evidenziato l’ASGI in un documento che mette in fila i profili di manifesta illegittimità costituzionale del decreto-. I CAS sono il ‘non’ sistema di accoglienza per la generalità dei richiedenti asilo, in violazione della Direttiva Ue sull’accoglienza che consente simili riduzioni di standard soltanto per periodi temporanei e per eventi imprevedibili, mentre le strutture dello SPRAR sono sempre più riservate a minori (non sempre), a titolari di protezione internazionale e spesso a chi si trova in condizioni (spesso familiari) disperate”.

Non solo. Come ha ricordato l’Associazione nazionale dei Comuni italiani (ANCI), il 43% degli accolti nello SPRAR “ha concluso positivamente il proprio percorso di accoglienza ed ha raggiunto uno stato di autonomia, e un ulteriore 31% ha acquisito gli strumenti indispensabili per ‘camminare sulle proprie gambe’”. “Lo SPRAR riesce a rendere autonome le persone in un lasso di tempo indubbiamente inferiore rispetto a ciò che accade nei CAS. Nello SPRAR il tempo medio di permanenza è infatti di 6 mesi, questo significa che in un posto SPRAR vengono mediamente accolte all’anno 2 persone. Nei Comuni dove esiste un progetto SPRAR, i costi economici e sociali subiscono una notevole flessione”. Motivo per cui a metà ottobre l’ANCI ha presentato alcuni emendamenti in vista dell’iter parlamentare che porterà alla conversione del decreto. Uno di questi chiede proprio di consentire l’accesso dei “richiedenti asilo vulnerabili (compresi nuclei familiari con figli minori) all’interno dei progetti SPRAR, per evitare che ricadano, inevitabilmente, sui bilanci dei Comuni e delle Regioni i costi dei servizi socio-sanitari che sarà in ogni caso necessario erogare senza poter accedere ad alcun rimborso da parte dello Stato (stimati circa 286 milioni di euro annui”.

Posto di fronte alla contraddizione tra la relazione di agosto e il decreto di ottobre, il ministero dell’Interno ha fatto sapere ad Altreconomia che la Relazione non è altro che un “adempimento richiesto dalla normativa” e che questa “si riferisce, nel merito, al periodo cui la stessa fa riferimento”. Come se nell’arco di otto mesi lo SPRAR fosse cambiato.

Ed ecco quindi che il “ponte necessario all’inclusione” è diventato la “pacchia” da interrompere: la graduatoria dei progetti avanzati dagli enti locali ed esaminati dal Viminale, per ulteriori 3.500 posti da aggiungersi ai 32mila attualmente finanziati, di cui era prevista la pubblicazione a luglio 2018, non ha mai visto la luce. E le nuove richieste di adesione al Sistema da parte dei territori -altri 2.500 nuovi posti- non sono state nemmeno prese in considerazione. Il risultato è che 6mila potenziali nuovi posti SPRAR sono stati “sacrificati” sull’altare della linea Salvini. Quella di ottobre, però, non quella di agosto.

▻https://altreconomia.it/decreto-salvini-cas

Decreto Salvini: come trasformare più di 100mila persone in clandestini
▻http://www.perunaltracitta.org/2018/09/25/decreto-salvini-ci-vogliono-al-sicuro-ma-ci-rubano-il-futuro
#clandestinisation #illégalisation

Anche Bologna sospende il decreto Salvini

Dopo Torino, anche il Consiglio comunale di Bologna ha approvato un ordine del giorno per chiedere la sospensione dell’applicazione del decreto legge in materia di immigrazione e sicurezza, per rivalutarne l’impatto in termini economici, sociali e sulla sicurezza dei territori. Diversamente da Torino, qui i 5 Stelle si sono astenuti

▻http://www.vita.it/it/article/2018/10/30/anche-bologna-sospende-il-decreto-salvini/149571
#Bologne #Turin #résistance

Beyond closed ports: the new Italian Decree-Law on Immigration and Security

In the past months, Italian migration policies have been in the spotlight with regard to the deterrence measures adopted to prevent sea arrivals of migrants. After the closure of ports to vessels transporting migrants and the reduction of search and rescue operations at sea, the government adopted a restrictive approach to the internal norms, reforming the architecture of the Italian system of protection.

On 24 September 2018, the Italian Council of Ministers unanimously adopted a new Decree-Law on Immigration and Security. Strongly endorsed by the Minister of the Interior Matteo Salvini, the final text of the Decree contains ‘urgent measures’ on international protection and immigration, as well as on public security, prevention of terrorism and organised crime. Following the approval of the President of Republic, the bill has come into force on October 5. The future of the Decree now lays in the hands of the Parliament, which will have to transpose it into law within sixty days of its publication or it will retrospectively lose its effect.

The securitarian approach adopted sparked strong criticism within civil society and the President of the Republic himself accompanied his signature with an accompanying letter addressed to the President of the Council, reminding that all ‘constitutional and international obligations’ assumed by Italy remain binding, even if there is no explicit reference to them in the Decree. This blog post provides an overview of the first two Chapters of the Decree-Law, dedicated to immigration and asylum. It will further analyze their impact on the rights of protection seekers and their compatibility with European law, International law as well as the Italian Constitution.

1. Provisions on humanitarian residence permits and fight against irregular migration

1.1 The abrogation of ‘humanitarian protection’

The main change introduced by the first Chapter of the Decree-Law concerns what is commonly referred to as ‘humanitarian protection’, namely a residence permit issued to persons who are not eligible to refugee status or subsidiary protection but cannot be expelled from the country because of ‘serious reasons of humanitarian nature, or resulting from constitutional or international obligations of the State’ (art. 5(6) of the Consolidated Act on Immigration).

The humanitarian residence permit was introduced as a safeguard clause in the Italian legislation, complementing international protection within the meaning of article 10 paragraph 3 of the Constitution, which stipulates that: ‘[a] foreigner who, in his home country, is denied the actual exercise of the democratic freedoms guaranteed by the Italian Constitution shall be entitled to the right of asylum under the conditions established by law.’ The important role of ‘humanitarian protection’ has been further clarified by the Italian highest court (Court of Cassation), which stated that the right to be issued a humanitarian permit, together with refugee status and subsidiary protection, constitutes a fundamental part of the right of asylum enshrined in the Constitution (see for example judgement 22111/2014).

In practice, humanitarian residence permits were a ‘flexible instrument’ which could cover several circumstances emerging from forced displacement where there was no sufficient evidence of an individual risk of persecution or serious harm. As explained by the Court of Cassation, prior to the entry into force of the Decree, humanitarian protection was granted to persons suffering from an ‘effective deprivation of human rights’ upon the fulfilment of two interrelated conditions: the ‘objective situation in the country of origin of the applicant’ and ‘the applicant’s personal condition that determined the reason for departure’ (see judgement 4455/2018). The Court further presented as possible example of human rights deprivation the situation of a person coming from a country where the political or environmental situation exposes her to extreme destitution and does not allow her to attain a minimum standard of dignified existence. As noted by the Court, the definition of environmental issues does not only contain natural disasters but it may also include non-contingent events, such as droughts or famines, which deprive the person from having a basic livelihood.

However, as already mentioned, the grounds for obtaining humanitarian protection were relatively open and could be adjusted to other situations entailing a deprivation of basic human rights, such as the inability of the country of origin to protect the right to health of applicants affected by serious conditions, or the family situation of the applicant interpreted in light of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Also, the level of social integration reached by an applicant during her stay in Italy, together with the situation of poverty or instability in the country of origin, were also to be considered as a ground to grant humanitarian protection.

By radically transforming article 5(6) and severely restricting the possibility for rejected asylum applicants to be granted residence permits in light of constitutional and international obligations or for humanitarian reasons, article 1 of the Decree-Law substantially abrogates ‘humanitarian protection’. Instead, the Decree provides for the creation of a ‘special protection’ residence permit, which can be issued only to those persons who cannot be expelled due to the non-refoulement obligations defined in article 19 of the Consolidated Act on Immigration unless the applicant can be returned to a country where she could receive ‘equivalent protection’.

The first article of the Decree-Law further creates new residence permits that can be granted in restricted ‘special cases’, as for example: persons affected by ‘exceptionally serious’ medical conditions; persons who cannot return to their home countries due to ‘exceptional natural disasters’; and persons who have carried out ‘exceptional civil acts’. The Decree, however, does not modify the grounds for granting special residence permits to victims of trafficking, violence or labour exploitation, as already provided for in arts. 18 and 18-bis of the Consolidated Act on Immigration.

The new Decree reduces not only the scope of protection and the number of potential beneficiaries but also the duration of the stay for third-country nationals falling into the above-mentioned ‘special’ categories. Whilst persons granted the ‘humanitarian’ status were provided with a two-year renewable residence permit, the permits issued in the new ‘special cases’ allow residence in Italy for shorter periods: six months for exceptional natural disasters or violence and one year in the other for ‘special protection’, ‘medical reasons’ and other ‘special cases’. Such permits are renewable and allow the holder to work but – differently from the humanitarian residence permit – they cannot be converted into a work permit when the circumstances for which they were issued cease to exist. Only in the event that the foreigner has accomplished exceptional civil acts, whose nature is not further specified, the person – at the discretion the Minister of the Interior – can be issued a residence permit lasting two years.

A final important amendment contained in article 1 of the Decree is related to those persons who are already beneficiaries of humanitarian residence permits at the time in which the Decree enters into force: their permits will not be renewable anymore on humanitarian grounds, even if the circumstances for which the permit was granted in the first place still exist. Therefore, unless the beneficiary is granted a conversion of her humanitarian permit into a work or study permit, or she falls under the new special cases listed in the decree law, she will find herself in an irregular situation and will risk being returned.

The abrogation of the ‘humanitarian’ residence permit is of particular concern as, since its creation in 1998, it has been an important legal instrument allowing to protect and regularise all third-country nationals who could not be returned to a third country. Suffice it to say that, in 2017 only, Italy has granted 20,166 residence permits on ‘humanitarian’ grounds, whereas only 6,827 persons were granted asylum and 6,880 subsidiary protection. To counter this trend, last July, the Minister of the Interior had already sent a letter to all administrative authorities involved in the asylum procedure, requesting them to adopt a stricter approach when granting protection on humanitarian grounds. Such decision has been justified with the rationale of conforming Italy to European standards, which do not provide for this third form of protection. Arguably, even if humanitarian protection is not harmonised at the EU level under the Qualification Directive, there are obligations imposed on all Member States by international refugee law and human rights law that prevent them from returning third-country nationals under certain circumstances. Looking at the practice of EU-28 Member States, in the course of 2017, 63 thousand asylum seekers were given authorisation to stay for humanitarian reasons under national law. This number could be even higher as it only encompasses first instance decisions for those persons who have been previously reported as asylum applicants, and does not take into account those who have been granted a permission to stay for humanitarian reasons without having lodged an asylum application.

Moreover, the abrogation of humanitarian protection is likely to open a protection gap under article 10 paragraph 3 of the Italian Constitution. As noted by the Italian Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration (ASGI), the substitution of humanitarian protection with a restricted list of ‘special’ residence permits, means that the right to asylum set out by the Constitution is ‘no longer fully implemented by the legislator’. This could open the possibility to bring legal actions to ascertain the right of asylum guaranteed by article 10 – which can be invoked directly in front of an ordinary court even in the absence of implementing legislation – or raise questions of constitutionality.

1.2 Making returns more effective

The second part of the first Chapter of the Decree-Law focuses on improving returns and facilitating the return of third-country nationals in an irregular situation. In order to achieve these objectives, article 2 of the Decree extends the maximum duration of the foreigner’s detention in return centres from 90 to 180 days. Article 4 further foresees that, in case the reception capacity of pre-removal centres is exhausted and prior to authorization of a judicial authority, foreigners may also be held in other ‘appropriate facilities’ and in border offices. In addition, article 3 of the new Decree-Law modifies the Decree Implementing the Reception Conditions Directive and the Procedures Directive (Decree-Law 18 August 2015, n. 142), by expanding grounds for detention in hotspots. Thus, foreigners who have been found in an irregular situation on the national territory or rescued during search and rescue operations at sea may be subject to detention in order to determine their identity and nationality. The maximum duration of detention is set to 30 days. In case it is impossible to verify such information, the person concerned can be transferred in a return center for a maximum of 180 days. Finally, article 6 increments the funding for returns, providing for the re-allocation of 3,5 million euros between 2018 and 2020. These funds – originally provided for assisted voluntary return and reintegration – will now be allocated to facilitate not further described ‘return measures’.

Even if the possibility to detain applicants for international protection in order to ascertain their identity and nationality is provided for in the Reception Conditions Directive, deprivation of liberty in such cases could be inconsistent with international refugee law read in conjunction with the Italian Constitution. According to ASGI, provisions connected to the deprivation of liberty in order to verify the identity and nationality are in violation of article 31 of the 1951 Geneva Convention and of article 13 of the Italian Constitution. In fact, since it is common to almost all asylum seekers not to possess valid documents proving their identity, such circumstances would not be proportionate to the ‘conditions of necessity and urgency’ required by article 13 of the Constitution to deprive someone of their liberty without judicial authorization. That been said, the debate on the lack of documentation to prove asylum seekers’ identity is likely to be of interest in the near future, as it is also fuelled by the European Commission recent proposal for a recast of the Return Directive, where the lack of documentation is included among the criteria establishing the existence of a risk of absconding to avoid return procedures.

2. Provisions on international protection

2.1 Provisions on asylum seekers who committed serious crimes

The second chapter of the new Decree reforms, with a restrictive turn, the rules on the revocation of and exclusion from international protection. Article 7 extends the list of crimes that, in case of final conviction amount to the exclusion from or to the revocation of international protection. These include: production, trafficking and possession of drugs; injuries or threats made to officers in performance of their duties; serious personal injury offence; female genital mutilation; robbery, extortion, burglary and theft, if compounded by the possession of weapons or drugs; slavery; exploitation of child prostitution.

Furthermore, article 10 of the new Decree introduces an accelerated procedure in the event that an asylum seeker is convicted – even prior to a final sentence – for one of the above-mentioned criminal offences and for the other serious crimes amounting to the exclusion from international protection already provided for in articles 12 and 16 Decree 251/2017. Thus, when the applicant is convicted in first instance, the Territorial Commissions for the Recognition of International Protection has to immediately examine the asylum claim and take a decision. In case the decision of the Commission rejects the request for international protection, the applicant is required to leave the country, even if the person concerned lodges an appeal against the asylum decision.

The Decree Law, by abrogating the suspensive effect of the appeal for a person who has been convicted in first instance arguably goes against article 27 of the Italian Constitution, which considers the defendant not guilty ‘until a final sentence has been passed.’ Moreover, pursuant Article 45 Asylum Procedure Directive, as a general rule Member States shall allow applicants to remain in the territory pending the outcome of the remedy. An exception might be allowed under article 46(6)(a) of the Asylum Procedures Directive, if the application is determined to be unfounded on grounds that the applicant is ‘for serious reasons’ considered to be a danger to the national security or public order of the Member State. However, article 46(6) also stipulates that even in such case there is no automatism and the decision whether or not the applicant may remain on the territory of the Member State should be taken by a court or tribunal. Therefore, insofar as the Decree provides for the automatic return of rejected asylum seekers pending an appeal, without a judicial decision authorising their removal, it is incompatible with the right to an effective remedy provided for by the Procedures Directive and enshrined in article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

In any instance, the return of a person – regardless of the fact that she may have committed a crime – cannot be performed when the individual concerned is at risk of refoulement as defined by article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 19 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. As follows from the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the prohibition of non-refoulement has an absolute character. The conduct of the person is irrelevant and even the involvement in serious crimes, such as terrorism, does not affect the prohibition to return individuals to states in which they faced a risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment (see ECtHR judgements in Saadi, Chahal, and Soering).

2.2 Provisions on subsequent applications and border procedures

Article 9 of the Decree implements into Italian legislation some restrictive provisions on subsequent applications that are allowed under the Asylum Procedures Directive (APD) but that had so far been regulated in a more favourable manner.

First of all, the Decree provides for new grounds of exclusion from the right to remain in the Italian territory, following almost verbatim the exception from the right to remain contained in article 41 of the APD. This includes all persons who have lodged a first subsequent application merely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of a decision which would result in their imminent removal, or make another subsequent application after their first subsequent application has been considered inadmissible or unfounded.

Secondly, article 9 establishes new rules on accelerated procedures for applicants who have introduced a subsequent application for international protection without new elements or findings supporting their claim. In case that the applicant was stopped following an attempt to elude border controls, this procedure also applies in border or transit zones. This is a novelty in Italian law, that until now did not provide for the possibility of carrying out the evaluation of an asylum claim at the border. According to the explanatory note to the Decree, this amendment follows the rationale of article 31(8)(g) APD. This article, however, provides for the possibility to apply accelerated and border procedure in case an application is lodged to avoid an earlier removal decision – which appears to be a stricter ground than the one provided for by the Italian decree.

Also, the Decree sets out a new ground for the inadmissibility of an asylum application: a subsequent application is inadmissible if it is lodged to prevent the enforcement of a decision which would result in her imminent removal and it shall be dismissed without being further examined. This is not consistent with article 40 APD, which provides at least for a preliminary examination on the presence of new elements substantiating the asylum claim.

Lastly, following the definitions of article 41 APD APD, the Decree limits the suspensive effect of appeals lodged in two circumstances. First, by all persons who have lodged a first subsequent application to delay the enforcement of a decision which would result in his or her imminent removal. Second, by asylum seekers whose application has been considered inadmissible as a subsequent application where no new elements or findings have arisen or have been presented by the applicant, whilst prior to the entry into force of the Decree-Law this only happened when an application was assessed as inadmissible for the second time.

2.3 Reception conditions for asylum seekers

One of the most discussed provisions of the Decree on immigration concerns the reception of asylum seekers, which undergoes substantive changes. The decree de facto abrogates the possibility for asylum seekers to access reception provided under the System for the Protection of Asylum Seekers and Refugees (SPRAR). The system, operated by local institutions, in cooperation with non-governmental and voluntary organizations, had not only the aim to provide basic reception but also to favour the social integration of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection. With the amendments introduced by article 12 of the new decree, only already recognized refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, as well as unaccompanied minors, will be granted accommodation within the SPRAR. Asylum seekers will, therefore, be only hosted in collective reception centres (CARA, CDA). In case of unavailability of places, applicants can also be hosted in temporary reception centres (CAS) where, according to the law, only basic levels of reception conditions have to be met.

These amendments fail to take into account the pre-existent structure of the Italian reception system. As a matter of law, the SPRAR was the only durable solution provided for asylum seekers, while the other types of reception centres have been designed only for initial or temporary reception (see articles 9 and 11 of the Decree implementing the Reception Conditions Directive). Considering the length of asylum procedures in the country, asylum seekers will be left with no alternative than remaining for months (or in some cases even years) in facilities which are often inadequate in terms of both capacity and structural and safety conditions.

This decision is of great concern as it is likely to put further strain on the Italian reception system, which already has a record of not providing an adequate standard of reception conditions to asylum applicants – as recognised in 2014 by the European Court of Human Rights. More recently, a Dutch court annulled a transfer to Italy pointing out that the new Decree raises questions about the structural deficiencies in the Italian reception system, in particular as it restricts access to adequate reception conditions to vulnerable asylum seekers.

Final remarks

Whilst the number of arrivals to Italy is at the lowest level registered in the past few years, the phenomenon of migration has reached the dimension of an emergency in the internal public debate, with the Decree-Law on Immigration and Security representing a major downturn in the architecture of the Italian system of protection.

The implementation of further grounds for exclusion and withdrawal of protection, the reduction of procedural guarantees, and the general restrictive approach on the rights of migrants and asylum seekers adopted in the Decree generate serious concerns. Above all, some of the provisions contained in the Decree may entail a risk of violation of the principle of non–refoulement, which is not only a cornerstone of the international refugee regime but also a fundamental guarantee that protects all human beings from being subject to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. What is more, some of the changes introduced with the Decree might have far-reaching practical consequences on the rights of the migrants who are already present or will arrive in the country. In particular, the repeal of ‘humanitarian’ residence permits, which have been widely used in the past years, is likely to have the unintended side-effect of increasing the number of migrants who will find themselves in an irregular situation. The new bill has been presented by the Interior Minister Matteo Salvini as ‘a step forward to make Italy safer’ – however it will arguably increase the number of cases of destitution, vulnerability, and exploitation.

It remains to be seen whether the Parliament will confirm the text of the Decree when ultimately converting it into law. However, considering that the time for discussion is limited (60 days only) it is doubtful that the bill will undergo substantial improvement. Also, as the Decree has become one of the flagship measures of the current Government, it is unlikely that it will be repealed in toto. The choice itself of the Government to use a decree having force of law – rather than of the ordinary legislative procedure – does not seem to stem from a situation of ‘obvious necessity and urgency’ as provided for by the Constitution. Rather, it appears to be a shortcut to obtain immediate results on matters where it is difficult to achieve political consensus through democratic debate. Against this backdrop, the new bill on Immigration and Security – with questionable democratic legitimacy – restricts the rights of asylum seekers and people displaced, making protection increasingly inaccessible.

▻http://eumigrationlawblog.eu/beyond-closed-ports-the-new-italian-decree-law-on-immigration-and

Anche #Padova tra i comuni contro il decreto sicurezza

Anche Padova tra i comuni contro il decreto sicurezza
„Dopo Torino e Bergamo, anche l’amministrazione comunale padovana manifesta la sua preoccupazione per questo provvedimento. Si muove anche l’Anci“

▻http://www.padovaoggi.it/politica/decreto-sicurezza-comune-contrario-padova-31-ottobre-2018.html

#Padoue

Decreto immigrazione, le brutte novità nascoste sotto la fiducia

Il governo ha presentato in aula un “emendamento interamente sostitutivo” del testo finora discusso. La “sorpresa” sono elementi di gran lunga più restrittivi in tema di diritto d’asilo. Tra questi, la nozione di “Paesi di origine sicuri”, un “cavallo di Troia” per smontare il sistema della protezione internazionale, come denunciano studiosi dell’Asgi

Con 163 voti a favore e 59 contrari, il 7 novembre il Senato della Repubblica ha approvato la fiducia al cosiddetto “decreto sicurezza e immigrazione” promosso in particolare dal ministro dell’Interno Matteo Salvini. Il testo votato da Palazzo Madama e inviato alla Camera, però, è stato modificato rispetto all’originario attraverso un “emendamento interamente sostitutivo” del Ddl (il numero 1.900), sulla cui approvazione il Governo aveva appunto posto la questione di fiducia 24 ore prima. Non si è trattato di interventi meramente formali quanto invece profondamente sostanziali. Tanto da non lasciare praticamente più nulla del precedente sistema di asilo, incardinato al principio costituzionale che all’articolo 10 della Carta riconosce quella tutela allo “straniero al quale sia impedito nel suo Paese l’effettivo esercizio delle libertà democratiche garantite dalla Costituzione italiana”.

Le 28 pagine di modifiche e integrazioni avanzate dall’esecutivo, secondo Gianfranco Schiavone, vicepresidente dell’Associazione per gli studi giuridici sull’immigrazione (Asgi, www.asgi.it), assumono infatti la forma di un “cavallo di Troia” -blindato dalla fiducia- utile a “introdurre novità di taglio iper restrittivo che nella prima versione del decreto non c’erano”. Creando così un provvedimento che è un “vero e proprio mostro”, senza peraltro dare troppo nell’occhio.
Alla già nota abrogazione della protezione umanitaria, allo stravolgimento dell’ex Sistema di protezione per richiedenti asilo e rifugiati (SPRAR), alle illegittimità costituzionali già evidenziate nelle scorse settimane dall’Asgi, si aggiungono nuovi elementi preoccupanti.

Schiavone ha il testo del maxi emendamento del governo sotto mano e scorre alle introdotte “Disposizioni in materia di Paesi di origine sicuri e manifesta infondatezza della domanda di protezione internazionale”.
Il primo punto riguarda i “Paesi di origine sicuri”, il caso cioè di uno “Stato non appartenente all’Unione europea” che stando al nuovo articolato potrà “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 […] 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”.

Per “accertare” che uno Stato sia o meno “di origine sicuro” ed eventualmente iscriverlo nell’elenco adottato per decreto dal ministro degli Esteri (“Di concerto con i Ministri dell’Interno e della Giustizia) ci si dovrà basare “sulle informazioni fornite dalla Commissione nazionale per il diritto di asilo”. La domanda di protezione del richiedente proveniente da quel Paese verrà sì esaminata ma, se rigettata sarà “considerata manifestamente infondata”.

“Dove è stata introdotta, la nozione di Paese di origine sicuro, che le direttive europee prevedono quale misura normativa solo facoltativa per gli Stati -riflette Schiavone- ha sempre prodotto gravissimi problemi poiché le domande di protezione sono per definizione individuali ovvero legate alla condizione specifica di un richiedente. Esaminare invece una domanda ritenendo già che un Paese di origine sia ‘sicuro’ crea una situazione di pregiudizio sostanziale nell’esame della domanda stessa e dà ampi margini per l’esercizio di un’influenza politica molto forte del potere esecutivo sull’organo di valutazione”. Ciò vale soprattutto per l’Italia oggi. Perché? “Perché chi stabilisce che il Paese di origine sia ‘sicuro’ sarà di fatto la Commissione nazionale per il diritto d’asilo, che non è organo amministrativo indipendente ed è fortemente connesso per composizione e struttura organizzativa al potere politico”. Tradotto: il Governo di turno potrà decidere che un Paese venga considerato di “origine sicuro” con obiettivi di carattere politico che nulla hanno a che fare con le domande di protezione. Schiavone pensa a casi come il Bangladesh, la Tunisia, il Senegal e così via.
Il rigetto della domanda per manifesta infondatezza comporta un forte indebolimento della tutela giurisdizionale -continua Schiavone- poiché il ricorso ha tempi di impugnazione più brevi e non c’è un’automatica sospensiva durante il contenzioso. Molte ragioni mi inducono a pensare, anche se ancora a caldo e riservandomi approfondimenti -conclude lo studioso- che la nozione di ‘Paese di origine sicuro’ sia del tutto estranea alla nozione di asilo delineata dalla nostra Costituzione”.

Tra le altre “novità” rispetto all’originario “decreto Salvini” c’è poi quella della cosiddetta “protezione interna” nel Paese terzo di provenienza del richiedente. “Se in una parte del territorio del Paese di origine, il richiedente non ha fondati motivi di temere di essere perseguitato o non corre rischi effettivi di subire danni gravi o ha accesso alla protezione contro persecuzioni o danni gravi e può legalmente e senza pericolo recarvisi ed essere ammesso e si può ragionevolmente supporre che vi si ristabilisca”, la sua domanda di protezione è “rigettata”. “Anche su questa norma, del tutto facoltativa nel diritto dell’Unione e che l’Italia, fin dal 2008, con saggezza, aveva evitato sono molti i dubbi di conformità rispetto all’articolo 10 della nostra Costituzione -riflette Schiavone-. È possibile segmentare un Paese in aree, evidenziando peraltro una situazione che è già di grande instabilità, visto che un Paese è diviso in due o più parti?. Cosa vuol dire in concreto che è ragionevole supporre che la persona si trasferisca nell’area del Paese considerata sicura? Quali i parametri di valutazione? È sufficiente solo la mancanza di rischio o è necessario che alla persona venga fornita una protezione effettiva e una assistenza materiale? La norma, genericissima, non fornisce alcuna risposta”. Ciò che è chiaro è che è scontata la tendenza, come ribadisce il vicepresidente Asgi, di considerare l’asilo come fosse una sorta di “extrema ratio” cui ricorrere quando nessuna altra soluzione, anche precaria e parziale all’interno di quel Paese sia possibile. “Che cosa ha a che fare tutto ciò con il diritto all’asilo garantito dalla Costituzione a coloro cui sia impedito nel suo Paese l’effettivo esercizio delle libertà democratiche? La distanza è abissale”.
Utilizzare la nozione di area interna sicura nel Paese di origine è solo un altro modo per respingere domande di asilo che tradizionalmente vengono accolte. “Pensiamo al caso dei cittadini afghani o iracheni e riteniamo per l’appunto che le persone possano spostarsi in una presunta ‘area sicura’ del Paese. Quanto è sicura? Come si valuta? Per quanto tempo? Che tipo di stabilità e assistenza deve provvedere ad assicurare lo Stato allo sfollato interno? Domande che rimangono senza risposta”.

Accanto al tema dei “Paesi di origine sicuri” e delle zone di “protezione interna”, il maxi emendamento interviene -come già il decreto 113- a proposito di cittadinanza. L’avvocato Livio Neri, socio di Asgi, elenca brevemente alcune delle misure del decreto legge governativo. “C’è l’aumento del contributo da versare per presentare ‘istanze o dichiarazioni di elezione, acquisto, riacquisto, rinuncia o concessione della cittadinanza’, che passa da 200 a 250 euro. C’è l’incredibile allungamento del ‘termine di definizione dei procedimenti’, da 24 a 48 mesi dalla data di presentazione della domanda. E c’è il brutto precedente della ‘revoca’ della cittadinanza prevista in caso di condanna definitiva per gravi reati”. Precedente che creerà peraltro nuova apolidia, dal momento che -come fa notare Neri- la norma così come è scritta (ed è rimasta) non prevede la circostanza che dopo la revoca sorga appunto una condizione di apolidia per l’interessato ed è perciò in contrasto con la Convenzione di New York sulla materia.

L’emendamento del governo aggiunge a questi (e altri) elementi un termine di sei mesi per il rilascio di estratti e certificati di stato civile “occorrenti ai fini del riconoscimento della cittadinanza italiana”, che significa secondo Neri “che lo stesso documento (ad esempio il certificato di nascita di un congiunto, ndr) ha termini diversi a seconda di chi lo richiede”. E pone poi come condizione necessaria alla “concessione della cittadinanza” il “possesso, da parte dell’interessato, di un’adeguata conoscenza della lingua italiana, non inferiore al livello B1 del Quadro comune europeo di riferimento per le lingue (QCER)”, salvo per chi abbia sottoscritto l’accordo di integrazione o sia titolare di permesso di soggiorno Ue per “soggiornanti di lungo periodo”. “Questa previsione -commenta amaramente Neri- avrà un durissimo impatto sulle persone con minori strumenti culturali a disposizione e che per questo non saranno riusciti a imparare l’italiano”.

▻https://altreconomia.it/decreto-immigrazione-novita

What will change for migrants under Italy’s new immigration and security decree?

As the decree passed the Senate, Italy’s upper house, Matteo Salvini tweeted it was an “historic day.” The decree still needs to pass the lower house by the end of November before it is enshrined in law. At the moment, that looks likely, so what will change for migrants if it is passed?

Like all decrees, Italy’s new security and immigration decree is composed of many complicated clauses and paragraphs. In short, it is intended to regulate immigration and public security. It has been pushed by Italy’s deputy prime minister and Minister of the Interior, Matteo Salvini, who is also leader of the anti-immigration party, La Lega (The Northern League).

Essentially, it will change the laws under which foreign migrants have been staying in the country since 1998. It is set to repeal the right to stay for humanitarian reasons. “Humanitarian protection” is a lower level of asylum status that is based on Italian rather than international law. Up until now, this right has been conceded for up to two years on serious humanitarian grounds and allowed migrants and refugees to access the job market, health services and social welfare.

The new decree will take this catch-all definition ’on humanitarian grounds’ away in favor of six new specific categories which applicants will need to fulfill. Has the applicant been smuggled or exploited? Are they subject to domestic violence? Do they need specific medical attention? Was there some kind of calamity in their country of origin or have they contributed in a special way to Italian civil society which would merit a right to stay?

Article two of the law doubles the length of time that migrants can be kept in repatriation centers whilst their cases are looked at. It will allow the authorities to build more centers too. Repatriations are expected to increase with more money being assigned to making sure they happen; three and a half million euros in total up to 2020.

Revoking refugee status

There will be a longer list of crimes that, if committed will lead to a refugee being refused asylum or having their refugee status revoked. The crimes include murder, armed robbery, extortion, violence towards public officials, people found to be practicing genital mutilation, armed theft and burglary, possession of drugs, slavery, sexual violence or kidnapping. Anyone found guilty of terrorist acts or trying to overturn the constitution provides another reason for expulsion under the new law.

The new decree is expected to weaken the SPRAR networks which were set up to protect refugees and asylum seekers in 2002. Only unaccompanied migrants and those who qualify for international protection will come under the future auspices of SPRAR. Everyone else will be sent to ’welcome centers’ or CARA (Welcome center for those requesting asylum). Social cooperatives assigned asylum seekers and migrants will be required to report to the authorities every three months with a list of people that they support. The decree is also expected to slash the budget assigned for food and lodging for migrants in CARA centers from 30 euros per person per day to 15 euros.

Anyone who marries an Italian will now have to wait four years instead of the current two before applying for citizenship. In addition, like in Germany, migrants hoping to remain in Italy will be required to pass a B1 language test.

Jubilation and condemnation

Matteo Salvini was pictured looking jubilant as the decree was passed by the Senate with 163 votes to 59. Not everyone was happy though. Roberto Saviano, an anti-Mafia writer who opposes the current Italian government called the decree “criminal” saying it was “self harming, [and] suicidal.” He pointed out that it would be impossible to repatriate more than 500,000 migrants without papers who are currently present in the country. “Much better,” he said “give them papers and allow them to work and pay taxes to the state.” He said the law would only serve to increase the number of “irregular migrants” in the country feeding organized crime networks.

The Democratic Party (PD) leader in the Senate, Andrea Marcucci contests the decree too. He was quoted in the left-leaning daily newspaper, La Repubblica, saying it “creates insecurity, not security and would make 100s of thousands more migrants clandestine in Italy.” He concluded: “This is a decree against Italy, against Italians and against security.”

Salvini disagrees. In interviews prior to the Senate vote, he said that the decree was not just about immigration but increasing security for everyone in Italy. “It’s about strengthening the anti-mafia organizations and anti-racket laws. It will make everything more serious and rigorous. […] It is a decree which will bring more money and power to the police, to mayors; will introduce more surveillance cameras.” He added that once the law has passed, he will be looking to reform the justice system too. That way, cases dragging on for years, until they enter proscription, will be a thing of the past.

The decree is scheduled to be put before the lower house on the November 22. With the Five Star Movement and the League holding a majority there too, (along with other right-leaning parties like Forza Italia and Fratelli D’Italia,) it is expected to pass without too many problems and enter law before the end of the year.

http://scd.infomigrants.net/media/resize/my_image_big/0478218e14f7c85b02eeb441f2b48d4ec8ecb72e.jpeg

Più immigrati irregolari, meno sicurezza

È ciò che produrrà in realtà il decreto, approvato dal Senato ma non ancora dalla Camera, con la stretta sulla protezione umanitaria. E intanto, contrariamente alle promesse elettorali, sono calati di molto i rimpatri

▻https://www.ilfoglio.it/sound-check/2018/11/12/news/piu-immigrati-irregolari-meno-sicurezza-223989

https://i.imgur.com/75fGLVx.jpg

vu passer sur FB

#merci @simplicissimus pour ce rapport complet ! #unclos #mer #délimitations_maritimes #frontières #différends_frontaliers

#zone_économique_exclusive #frontières_maritimes #frontière_maritime #Méditerranée #frontières #décret #Italie #Espagne #Algérie #cartographie #visualisation

@SGMer sur Twitter
▻https://twitter.com/sgmer/status/984801225999863808

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Daq3e-4X4AAJm82.jpg

Publication par l’#Algérie des coordonnées de sa #ZEE : pas de chevauchement avec la ZEE française en Méditerranée

En revanche pour les ZEE de (revendiquées par…) l’Espagne et l’Italie, il n’en va pas de même…

On remarque, au passage, que la conjonction des revendications de ZEE algérienne et française aboutit à la suppression de la frontière maritime entre l’Espagne et l’Italie…

#zone_économique_exclusive #frontières_maritimes #frontière_maritime #mer #Méditerranée #frontières #décret #cartographie #visualisation #différend_frontalier

L’Open Access adopté par le Gouvernement de la Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles

Ce mercredi 28 février, le Gouvernement de la Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles a adopté en dernière lecture le projet de décret "Open Access" porté par le Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, Jean-Claude Marcourt.

Le texte du décret stipule que tous les articles scientifiques subventionnés par des fonds publics devront être déposés dans un répertoire institutionnel (aussi appelé « archive ouverte »). Les insitutions devront également utiliser exclusivement les listes de publications provenant de ces répertoires pour l’évaluation des chercheurs.

À l’Université de Liège, cette politique existe déjà depuis presque 10 ans et est mise en place via le répertoire ORBi.

▻https://lib.uliege.be/en/news/l-open-access-adopte-par-le-gouvernement-de-la-federation-wallonie-bruxel

Attention :

« La Wallonie et Bruxelles s’engagent ainsi aux côtés d’acteurs de renommée mondiale tels que l’Université d’Harvard ou encore les universités Suisse telles que Zurich, Lausanne ou encore Genève .

En #Suisse, c’est le #golden_open_access qui est visé... ce qui n’est pas exactement dans la logique d’un accès gratuit aux résultats de recherche... mais c’est une manière de plus d’enrichir les éditeurs scientifiques prédateurs :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/651822
#FNS

La #voie_verte

La voie verte ou green open access est la voie de l’auto-archivage ou dépôt par l’auteur dans une #archive_ouverte.

Une archive ouverte est un réservoir où sont déposées des publications issues de la recherche scientifique et de l’enseignement dont l’accès est libre et gratuit. Elle peut être institutionnelle (ex. OATAO de l’ Université de Toulouse), régionale (ex. OpenAIRE pour l’Europe), nationale (HAL pour la France) ou disciplinaire (ex. arXiv en Physique, RePEC en Economie).

http://openaccess.couperin.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Fichier_000.png

‘Big Deal’ Cancellations Gain Momentum

An increasing number of universities are ending, or threatening to end, bundled journal subscriptions with major publishers.

Florida State University recently announced plans to cancel its “big deal” with Elsevier, but it is far from the first university to do so.

In recent years, there has been an uptick in the number of reports of libraries dropping their bundled journal deals with big publishers, which can cost upward of $1 million annually.

Rather than subscribing to a large volume of journals in a publisher’s collection, often at a substantial discount off the individual list price, some institutions are choosing to pay only for the journals they determine they need the most.

Rick Anderson, associate dean for collections and scholarly communications at the Marriott Library at the University of Utah, said that more cancellations are likely, but “how big the snowball is going to get” is an unanswered question.

“Will big-deal cancellations continue to bubble along at a slow but steady pace? Will they peter out altogether as libraries and publishers work out new terms that allow the libraries to renew? Will more and more libraries cancel their big deals until publishers finally abandon them?” asked Anderson. “It’s impossible to say at this point; I think all three of those scenarios are possible, though I think the first two are more likely than the third.”

Last year, Anderson published an article at The Scholarly Kitchen looking at big-deal cancellations by North American libraries. He identified 24 libraries that had canceled big deals, another four libraries that canceled but later resubscribed, and three libraries that announced cancellations but didn’t follow through.

Also last year, #SPARC, an advocacy group for open access and open education, launched a resource tracking big-deal cancellations worldwide. Greg Tananbaum, a senior consultant at SPARC, said that there is a “growing momentum” toward cancellations.

According to data from SPARC (which may not be comprehensive, said Tananbaum), in 2016 five U.S. and Canadian institutions announced cancellations with big publishers such as Springer Nature, Wiley, Taylor & Francis and Elsevier. In 2017, seven more North American institutions said they planned to cancel their big deals, including the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Kansas State University, among others.

Motivation for Cancellation

Both Tananbaum and Anderson agree that one factor driving cancellations of big deals is that library budgets are not growing at the same rate as the cost of subscriptions. Given budget restrictions, “there’s just a reality that tough choices have to be made,” said Tananbaum. He added that in each of the cases documented in the SPARC tracking resource, the institutions ran “meticulous assessments” to determine the value of their current arrangements, and found that “the value was not positive.” Typically a bundled deal would allow an institution to subscribe to a couple of thousand titles for the same list price as a few hundred individual subscriptions.

“What makes the big deal unsustainable isn’t the structure of the model, but the fact that it absorbs so much of a library’s materials budget, and the price rises steadily from year to year,” said Anderson. “That dynamic leads to an inevitable breaking point, at which the library can no longer afford to pay for it — or is forced to cancel other, equally desirable (or more desirable) subscriptions in order to keep paying for it.”

Another factor driving cancellations is a desire among some librarians to “stick it to the publishers,” said Anderson. “There is a truly remarkable level of anger that many librarians feel towards the publishers who sell subscriptions under the big-deal model,” he said. “This makes the prospect of canceling a big deal very attractive at a political level.”

Librarians are able to consider canceling big deals because it doesn’t mean going “cold turkey” anymore, said Tananbaum. Interlibrary loan systems can return a journal article in less than 24 hours at relatively low cost to the library, and many articles are available in open-access format for free, with tools like Unpaywall making them easy to find. If a researcher needs a paywalled paper instantly, they can still access that content, without a subscription, for around $30.

Though it is talked about less, the ease of accessing copyrighted papers though sites such as Sci-Hub and ResearchGate have also emboldened librarians, said Joseph Esposito, senior partner at publishing consultancy Clarke & Esposito.

Hard-Core Negotiating

In 2015, the Université de Montréal combined usage and citations data with the results of an extensive survey of faculty and students to determine that 5,893 titles were essential to research needs at the university — accounting for 12 percent of the institution’s total subscriptions, and around a third of all titles included in big deals.

A similar analysis has since been performed by 28 university libraries in Canada, with some “truly considering unbundling or exiting consortium negotiations to get better deals,” said Stéphanie Gagnon, director of collections at Université de Montréal.

Gagnon and her colleague Richard Dumont, university librarian at Montréal, said that unbundling big deals was a “last resort” strategy for the institution. The institution will first offer what it considers to be a “fair price” based on the needs of the community and the publishers’ pricing, said Dumont.

This approach “seems reasonable,” said Dumont, since four major publishers have accepted the institution’s offers — Wiley, SAGE, Elsevier and Cambridge University Press. Currently, the institution has two big deals unbundled: Springer Nature (2,116 titles canceled) and Taylor & Francis (2,231 titles canceled).

The Taylor & Francis big deal cost Montréal around half a million U.S. dollars per year for over 2,400 titles. Per title, the average cost was around $200. But Montréal calculated that only 253 titles were being used regularly, meaning the “real” cost was closer to $2,000 per title, said Gagnon. By unbundling this deal and the Springer Nature deal, and by renegotiating all big-deal subscriptions, the institution saves over $770,000 annually, said Gagnon.

Gagnon said she did not think teaching or research has been hindered by the cancellations, since the big deals that were unbundled did not contribute greatly to the needs of the community. Researchers can still access paywalled content they don’t have immediate access to through the interlibrary loan system. “Content is still available, with some hours’ delay,” said Gagnon.

Value for Money

Unlike Montréal, some institutions that have canceled big deals have not ended up saving much money, or negotiating a better deal. Brock University in Ontario, for example, canceled its big deal with Wiley in 2015, only to return a year later for the same price.

Ian Gibson, acting head of collections services at Brock, said the Wiley cancellation was prompted by a “perfect storm” of a weak Canadian dollar and a library budget that was not increasing in line with subscription costs. “The institution had no extra funds to buffer the FX crisis, and the hole in our budget was so big that only canceling Wiley or Elsevier would fill it,” said Gibson.

The institution looked into purchasing back just the most essential titles from Wiley, and found “there was no way to do it for less than we were paying for the big deal.” Gibson said that the university upped the library budget soon after, “and we jumped back into the Wiley deal through our consortium, and the pricing was as if we had never left.”

“Although the overall dollar cost for a big deal is typically enormous, the package usually includes so much content that the per-journal cost is quite low and would be dramatically higher on a per-journal basis if the titles were acquired as individual subscriptions,” said Anderson. Limiting titles, of course, also means that not everyone will get immediate access to the content they want. “This is probably the primary reason so many libraries (mine included) have held on to their big deals as long as they have.”

Getting Faculty on Board

At Montréal, the library worked hard to get faculty and student support before making any cancellations, said Gagnon. “We put in a lot of energy to explain, convince, answer and demonstrate to our staff and to the community what we were doing,” said Gagnon. The library built a website, published press releases and organized meetings. “It was a really global community project,” she said.

Perhaps one of the most surprising aspects of Florida State University’s pending cancellation of its big deal with Elsevier is that the Faculty Senate approved it, despite concerns that they would not be able to access journals as freely as they do now.

“The one question I keep getting asked is, ‘How did you get your faculty to agree to it?’” said Roy Ziegler, associate dean for collections and access at Florida State University. It hasn’t been an easy process, but outreach efforts have helped faculty to understand why this route is necessary. “Our faculty are willing to roll with it for now,” he said. “We don’t think our new model will do harm, but it will force faculty to change their behavior slightly — there’s a re-education piece.”

FSU will offer unmediated, instant access to content that is not subscribed to for faculty and graduate students at a cost of around $30 to the library, but will encourage them to access materials through the slower interlibrary loan system as much as possible. Undergraduate students will only have the option to go the slower (cheaper) route. Avoiding duplicated instant-access purchases will be a key factor in keeping costs down, said Ziegler.

By pulling out of its statewide agreement with Elsevier, FSU will lose access to Elsevier’s Freedom Collection — a system by which institutions have access to all nonsubscribed journal content at a significantly reduced rate. Ziegler said that FSU does “have an offer on the table right now” from Elsevier, but it’s not what they wanted. “If that offer gets better, we could stay in,” he said. FSU’s current deal with Elsevier costs around $1.8 million annually — 22 percent of the library’s total materials budget.

In an emailed statement, Elsevier said that the Freedom Collection is “still preferred by the vast majority of our customers who want the best value we can provide, but some customers want more purchasing options, and for them we’re happy to provide such flexibility.” The statement continued, “We generally see more new Freedom Collection customers than those who move to title by title, but there’s no particular trend over time.”

Taylor & Francis, Wiley, SAGE and Springer Nature declined to comment for this article.

A Shortsighted Decision?

Kent Anderson, CEO of publishing data analytics company RedLink, and former president of the Society for Scholarly Publishing, said that institutions that cancel big deals are making a “selfish” and shortsighted decision, an issue he also wrote about in a recent article for The Scholarly Kitchen. He compared canceling a big deal to canceling a newspaper subscription; journalists lose their jobs, local media collapses and soon no one knows what’s happening inside government.

Canceling big deals means that down the road, publishers won’t be able to keep up with the volume of research that is being produced, he said. He warned that if libraries and publishers continued to be “at loggerheads against each other,” they would ultimately alienate the researchers they are both trying to serve.

A loss of diversity in the publishing ecosystem concerns Kent Anderson. The survival of journals from smaller scholarly societies depends on their inclusion in big deals, he said. As the choice of publications to publish in gets “fewer and worse,” time to publication will get longer.

While many libraries say they are forced to cancel big deals because of budget constraints, Kent Anderson points out that library budgets are often just a tiny fraction of an institution’s total budget, suggesting that the money could be better allocated to prioritize these resources.

But Rick Anderson, of the University of Utah, said that suggesting the root of the issue is a funding problem, rather than a pricing problem, “feels a little bit like the bully on the playground taking our lunch money and then saying, ‘Hey, I’m not the problem, your mom needs to give you more lunch money.’”

https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/styles/large-copy/public/media/cancel.jpg?itok=tHGukF2O#.jpg

▻https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/05/08/more-institutions-consider-ending-their-big-deals-publishers

Le #business des publications scientifiques
VRS n° 412 - Printemps 2018

« Un pays qui exporte sa matière première à bas prix, et réimporte le produit fini au prix le plus fort, est dans une logique de sous-développement. C’est cette logique qui prévaut dans l’édition scientifique internationale. (…) Jusqu’à maintenant, l’édition scientifique électronique reproduit en grande partie les schémas archaïques de production, parce qu’elle émane des éditeurs scientifiques commerciaux… », écrivait Anne Dujol en 1996. « Il y a fort à parier que, dans un très proche avenir, de nombreux auteurs s’affranchiront des contraintes actuelles de la publication d’articles scientifiques et ‘publieront’ électroniquement les résultats de leurs travaux, » poursuivait-elle.

Hélas, elle sous-estimait la puissance et l’« agilité » des éditeurs mondialisés qui tiennent ce qui est devenu un des business les plus lucratifs au monde. Et elle surestimait la compréhension des enjeux de la part des scientifiques et de leur bureaucratie, dans un monde où, comme à la chasse, la publication est devenue une performance où le/la scientifique exhibe ses trophées.

L’inflation des publications est telle que les bibliographies, bien souvent stéréotypées, résultent davantage de la collecte de résumés que de discussions scientifiques. On écrit mais on ne lit pas ; et la critique des résultats, les vérifications, le dialogue s’en ressentent.

Peut-être plus grave encore, les scientifiques leur ayant délégué l’évaluation de leurs travaux en leur décernant le label « d’excellence » (« où publies-tu » plutôt que « que publies-tu »), les revues – et donc les éditeurs qui les possèdent – ont acquis un pouvoir exorbitant sur la politique scientifique des institutions, voire des Etats.

Mais le vent tourne. Les institutions de recherche et d’enseignement supérieur et leurs bibliothèques croisent le fer avec les éditeurs commerciaux. Et les chercheur·e·s commencent à reprendre en main l’édition de leur travail.

http://www.snesup.fr/sites/default/files/image-inserer/couv_vrs-412-printemps-2018-bd.png http://www.snesup.fr/sites/default/files/image-inserer/sommaire_vrs-412-printemps-2018-bd.png

Offensive contre les géants de l’édition scientifique en Europe

Les conseils de recherche de onze pays européens, dont la France et le Royaume-Uni, prennent les grands moyens pour endiguer la soif de profits des géants de l’édition scientifique, qui siphonnent les budgets des bibliothèques universitaires.

Ces onze États viennent de dévoiler un plan qui obligera d’ici deux ans leurs chercheurs subventionnés à publier le fruit de leurs travaux sur des plateformes en libre accès. Le but : mettre fin à la domination commerciale des cinq plus grands éditeurs scientifiques, qui font des profits considérables en publiant des articles fournis par les universitaires.

« Il ne faut pas enfermer la science derrière des murs payants », indique le manifeste du nom de « Plan S » dévoilé la semaine dernière par Science Europe, un regroupement d’organisations européennes vouées à la promotion et au financement de la recherche.

« Aucune raison ne justifie un modèle d’affaires établi sur des abonnements à des publications scientifiques. À l’ère numérique, le libre accès augmente la portée et la visibilité de la recherche universitaire », précise le document signé par Marc Schiltz, président de Science Europe.

Outre Paris et Londres, cette offensive est appuyée par les organismes subventionnaires des pays suivants : Suède, Norvège, Pays-Bas, Autriche, Irlande, Luxembourg, Italie, Pologne et Slovénie. Ces États, comme bien d’autres (dont le Québec et le Canada), en ont assez des coûts astronomiques des abonnements aux publications scientifiques comme Nature ou Science.

Comme Le Devoir l’a rapporté au cours de l’été, les frais d’abonnement aux magazines scientifiques accaparent désormais 73 % des budgets d’acquisition des bibliothèques universitaires. Les cinq grands éditeurs publient à eux seuls plus de la moitié des articles savants dans le monde. Les abonnements à ces magazines coûtent tellement cher que certaines bibliothèques n’ont plus les moyens d’acheter des livres.

L’offensive des pays européens contre ces tarifs jugés déraisonnables risque de faire mal aux géants de l’édition — notamment les groupes Elsevier, Springer Nature, John Wiley Sons, Taylor Francis et SAGE Publications — qui dominent le marché mondial.

« Ce ne sera pas la mort demain de ces grands ensembles-là, mais cette campagne s’ajoute aux désabonnements [aux périodiques scientifiques] de beaucoup d’universités en réaction à la hausse des coûts d’abonnement », dit Vincent Larivière, professeur à l’École de bibliothéconomie et des sciences de l’information de l’Université de Montréal (UdeM). Il dirige la Chaire de recherche du Canada sur les transformations de la communication savante.

Crise mondiale

Les grandes revues comme Nature sont attrayantes pour les chercheurs. Ces magazines sont prestigieux. Ils sont lus, donc beaucoup cités. Et pour réussir en tant que professeur — être embauché, obtenir une promotion —, il faut être cité par ses pairs. C’est pour ça que les magazines scientifiques peuvent se permettre de facturer une fortune en abonnements aux bibliothèques universitaires.

Les éditeurs scientifiques obtiennent pourtant leurs articles tout à fait gratuitement : les chercheurs ne sont pas payés par les magazines pour publier leurs travaux. Ça fait partie de leur tâche de professeur. Et les articles sont révisés bénévolement par des pairs. Plus troublant encore, un nombre croissant de revues scientifiques imposent des frais de 3000 $ ou 5000 $, par exemple, aux professeurs qui veulent que leurs articles soient en libre accès.

Ce modèle d’affaires des revues savantes soulève un tollé partout dans le monde, rappelle Vincent Larivière. Le biologiste Randy Schekman, de l’Université de Californie, a même appelé au boycottage des magazines ayant publié ses travaux qui lui ont valu le prix Nobel. Il a fondé en 2012 son propre journal, eLife, qui publie ses articles en libre accès.

Aux États-Unis, de puissants organismes comme la Fondation Bill Melinda Gates et les Instituts nationaux de santé (National Institutes of Health) exigent aussi que les recherches scientifiques qu’ils financent soient publiées en libre accès.

►https://www.ledevoir.com/societe/education/536595/offensive-europeenne-contre-les-geants-de-l-edition-scientifique

I predatori della scienza

Riviste che pubblicano qualsiasi studio pur di far soldi. Convegni farsa. Un’inchiesta rivela l’ampiezza di un sistema che danneggia la credibilità della ricerca

▻https://www.internazionale.it/sommario/1274

Négociations #SPRINGER : Arrêt de notre abonnement

La bibliothèque vous avait informé au mois d’avril des négociations difficiles du #consortium_Couperin avec l’éditeur #SpringerNature au sujet des revues #Springer.

Les #négociations se sont achevées la semaine dernière, et l’ENS de Lyon n’est pas satisfaite des dernières conditions proposées par l’éditeur. La #bibliothèque_Diderot de #Lyon ne renouvèlera donc pas son #abonnement aux revues Springer pour 2018-2020.

Nous sommes conscients de la difficulté qu’occasionnerait la perte des abonnements aux revues Springer pour 2018.

Néanmoins, nous conservons sur la plateforme Springer :

• L’accès jusqu’en 2017 inclus aux 39 titres de notre abonnement historique, selon les termes du contrat précédent, pendant au moins deux ans et sans frais supplémentaires.
• L’accès aux ressources acquises de manière définitive en Licences Nationales dans le cadre du projet istex : origine à 2014 pour les revues Springer.

http://www.bibliotheque-diderot.fr/medias/photo/diderot-logo_1416480589891-png#.jpg

« inciter les personnes à reprendre un poste »... comme s’il y avait du boulot solvable pour tout le monde...

cette idée que l’alternance chômage-contrats courts serait, dans certains cas, jugée plus avantageuse qu’un CDD de plusieurs mois ou même qu’un CDI.

les intérimaires, entre autres précaires apprécieront.
La source au sein de l’exécutif qui pense que cela va combattre la #précarité devrait aller s’inscrire dans les boîtes d’intérim. La majorité des chômeur·e·s indemnisé·e·s touchent autour de 1 000 €.

« “Punir les chomeurs” est surtout un signal politique envoyé par les gouvernements », Jean-Claude Barbier
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/683726

L’Etat met les partenaires sociaux au chômage, Dan Israël, Mediapart, 6 Avril 2018

La ministre du travail a présenté vendredi 6 avril la réforme de l’assurance chômage, qui arrivera en juin au Parlement. Les représentants des salariés et du patronat voient leurs marges de manœuvre fortement réduites. Le risque existe que l’État décide seul de réduire les montants accordés aux chômeurs.

Un texte qui « apporte de nouveaux droits pour tous les actifs ». Et qui permet à l’État de prendre largement les rênes de l’assurance chômage, comme jamais depuis sa mise en place dans sa forme actuelle, en 1958. La ministre du travail Muriel Pénicaud a présenté ce vendredi 6 avril le projet de loi « pour la liberté de choisir son avenir professionnel », qui remodèle en profondeur les règles régissant l’assurance chômage, mais aussi la formation professionnelle (lire notre article à ce sujet). Il devrait être présenté en conseil des ministres le 27 avril, puis examiné au Parlement à partir de juin.

L’une des promesses phares de campagne d’Emmanuel Macron ne sera pas tenue : on reste très loin de la mise en place d’une assurance chômage « universelle ». Le nouveau dispositif devrait permettre à moins de 30 000 indépendants de bénéficier des droits au chômage (sur 2,8 millions d’indépendants, dont 400 000 micro-entrepreneurs). Il devrait aussi s’ouvrir à 20 000 ou 30 000 démissionnaires au maximum (pour 400 000 salariés claquant la porte de leur entreprise tous les ans, et alors que 50 000 d’entre eux sont déjà indemnisés, car ils le font pour des motifs jugés légitimes). Le projet de loi lui-même assume ce recul, puisque le chapitre concerné ne parle dès son titre que d’« une indemnisation du chômage plus universelle ».

En revanche, un deuxième axe porté pendant la campagne présidentielle sera bien tenu : on assiste à un profond changement de philosophie sur le sujet. Désormais, les syndicats et le patronat ne géreront plus de façon indépendante l’assurance chômage ; c’est l’État qui prend la main sur ses règles et sa gestion. Et il se ménage un champ très large de possibilités d’intervention, que ce soit sur le budget accordé à Pôle emploi chaque année, sur le montant des allocations versées aux demandeurs d’emploi ou sur le profil même des Français qui y auront droit.

Premier étage de ce chamboulement historique : comme Mediapart l’a déjà détaillé, le gouvernement a engagé une baisse des cotisations sociales payées par les salariés, qui sera compensée par une hausse d’un impôt, la CSG. C’est la fin de ce qu’on nomme le modèle assurantiel : aujourd’hui, quand un salarié touche son salaire, une partie de l’argent versé par l’entreprise est déduit au nom des cotisations chômage. Et c’est à ce titre qu’il pourra toucher des droits au chômage s’il perd son emploi (à condition qu’il ait cotisé au moins quatre mois). En fait, les salariés placent une partie de leur rémunération dans une assurance, qui leur garantit des revenus en cas de chômage. Ces revenus varient en fonction du montant et de la durée des salaires perçus.

Les cotisations chômage sont donc généralement considérées, par les syndicats mais aussi par les comptables ou même la justice, comme un « salaire différé ». En taillant dans les cotisations salariales et en faisant monter en puissance l’impôt, payé par tous, dont les retraités qui ne bénéficieront jamais du chômage par définition, Emmanuel Macron met un terme à ce système.

Conséquence logique de cette transformation, et deuxième coup de boutoir porté contre le système actuel, le gouvernement s’invite à la table des négociations, entre les représentants des salariés et du patronat. Jusque-là, les partenaires sociaux négociaient jusque-là entre eux, et uniquement entre eux, les règles d’indemnisation des chômeurs et les conditions y donnant accès. C’est ce qu’on appelle le paritarisme.

Le gouvernement n’a jamais fait mystère de sa volonté de mettre à bas ce mode de gouvernance, et a longtemps laissé planer le doute sur ses intentions, qui auraient pu aller jusqu’à une disparition totale du paritarisme. La logique est simple. Demain, ce sera l’impôt des citoyens qui financera les allocations chômage, et non plus les allocations des salariés. Il est donc légitime que l’État, qui lève l’impôt et redistribue les sommes récoltées, ait un droit de regard sur les règles de l’assurance chômage. Dit plus brutalement, comme l’a glissé un membre de l’exécutif au Monde, « l’État entre au capital de l’Unédic », l’organisme qui gère les sommes allouées aux chômeurs.
Devant la levée de boucliers des syndicats, mais aussi du patronat, l’exécutif a finalement adouci son projet. Le texte de loi confirme les partenaires sociaux dans leur rôle, mais les place en quelque sorte sous tutelle : lors de leur négociation annuelle, ils devront respecter une lettre de cadrage leur dictant les sommes qu’ils auront le droit de dépenser, mais aussi, « le cas échéant, les objectifs d’évolution des règles du régime ».

Interrogée lors de la conférence de presse de ce vendredi sur ce point qu’elle s’était bien gardée de mettre en avant, Muriel Pénicaud a confirmé : « Nous avons finalement choisi de ne pas nationaliser l’AC, mais bien que l’État puisse avoir un rôle de régulateur, ce qui est le cas dans quasiment tous les pays européens », a-t-elle déclaré, estimant « logique qu’il y ait un certain encadrement » des négociations.

Les partenaires sociaux sont quant à eux loin d’être ravis. « Nous pensons qu’il faut des corps intermédiaires sur tout un tas de sujet. L’assurance chômage est un cas d’école, jugeait il y a quelques jours François Asselin, le dirigeant de la CPME, qui représente les petites entreprises. L’État s’immisce dans des prérogatives qui ne sont pas les siennes, et il le fait déjà sur le dos des partenaires sociaux. » La CPME ne cache pas son irritation, et menace de quitter la table de l’Unédic.

« Si notre rôle, c’est d’appliquer des consignes et d’être des faire-valoir, à quoi bon rester à la table des négociations ? L’État prend la main, qu’il assume », lâche François Asselin, qui assure arriver « à un point de rupture ». Le Medef, qui représente les plus grandes entreprises, est sur la même ligne, mais la ministre du travail a refusé de répondre aux questions sur ce point, bottant en touche au prétexte que l’équipe dirigeante du Medef arrive en fin de mandat cet été.

L’inquiétude est partagée par les syndicats. Denis Gravouil, le chef de file de la CGT pendant les négociations, dénonce lui aussi « une mise sous tutelle, qui était déjà actée de fait avec la suppression des cotisations des salariés ». Mais il signale que la situation est au moins clarifiée. « La laisse est courte, mais en un sens, cela a un côté moins hypocrite, juge-t-il. Cela fait longtemps que le gouvernement a un œil sur les négociations, et il est déjà fréquent que les partenaires sociaux discutent avec lui en amont de la signature de leurs accords. »

Mais ce n’est pas tout, l’État s’est ménagé d’autres possibilités de contrôler les règles de l’assurance chômage. Si en cours d’année après la négociation des partenaires sociaux, les paramètres retenus coûtent trop cher, ou « si la trajectoire financière décidée par le législateur dans le cadre des lois financières évolue significativement », le premier ministre pourra demander aux syndicats et au patronat de revoir leur copie, pour rentrer dans les clous. À notre connaissance, cette possibilité n’avait jamais été mentionnée avant la diffusion de ce texte.

Et si l’Etat réduisait le montant des allocations chômage ?

Une autre possibilité de changer les règles par décret crée une très grande méfiance de la part des syndicats. Elle concerne les modifications possibles, par décret, des conditions dans lesquelles certains demandeurs d’emploi sont indemnisés. Cette nouvelle mesure, apparue le 27 mars dans l’avant-projet de loi, s’inscrit dans les débats autour du « bonus-malus », qui pourrait être appliqué aux entreprises en fonction de leur propension à recourir à des contrats courts à répétition, plutôt qu’à des contrats stables.

Le sujet est majeur : le nombre d’embauches en CDD de moins d’un mois a presque triplé depuis le début des années 2000, et les trois quarts de ces contrats sont des embauches régulières d’un même salarié chez son employeur (notamment dans la restauration et le bâtiment).

Le gouvernement est resté très mesuré face aux employeurs, qui freinent des quatre fers devant toute régulation potentielle de cette pratique. Les branches professionnelles ont jusqu’à décembre 2018 pour réfléchir à une manière de réduire l’utilisation des contrats courts. Si les résultats obtenus sont jugés insuffisants, le gouvernement annonce alors qu’il pourra utiliser une mesure de rétorsion, en augmentant les cotisations sociales payées par les entreprises qui en abusent.

Mais en complément, l’exécutif se réserve donc la possibilité de modifier le mode d’indemnisation des demandeurs d’emploi cumulant chômage et revenus du travail, et ce « entre le 1er janvier 2019 et le 30 juin 2019 ». Ces demandeurs d’emploi fournissent une partie des bataillons des catégories B et C, qui oscillent entre salariat et Pôle emploi. D’après nos informations, la Cour des comptes travaille d’ailleurs, officiellement de sa propre initiative, sur un rapport consacré à ces travailleurs, et à leur coût pour l’Unédic.

Officiellement, ce décret qui arriverait avant la mi-2019, est censé « combattre la précarité », mais aussi supprimer certains « effets pervers » du système actuel, où dans certain cas très limités, alterner chômage et contrats courts rapporte un tout petit peu plus qu’un contrat de plusieurs mois.

Cette idée était déjà présente dans le programme de campagne d’Emmanuel Macron, détaillé ici. Elle révolte les syndicats, y compris ceux qui analysent avec le plus d’indulgence les réformes impulsées par le président. « Si une branche négocie un accord sur la taxation des contrats courts, elle pourra aussi décider de diminuer les indemnités pour les “permittents” [qui enchaînent les CDD, ndlr]…, anticipe Michel Beaugas, le négociateur en chef de FO. Une forme de contrepartie aux “bonus malus” sur les CDD, c’est en tout cas qui s’amorce. »

La numéro deux de la CFDT, Véronique Descacq, ne cache pas non plus son mécontentement, dans un article publié sur le site du syndicat. « Vouloir diminuer les droits des demandeurs d’emploi en tapant sur les plus précaires est inacceptable. Ce n’est ni ce que l’on avait négocié ni ce sur quoi le gouvernement s’était engagé », cingle-t-elle. Selon la CFDT, les chômeurs cumulant une partie de leurs allocations avec leur revenu d’activité sont aujourd’hui 854 000 personnes. Des discussions sur ce point ont eu lieu jusqu’au dernier moment entre le ministère du travail, Bercy et l’Élysée, mais la mesure a été maintenue.

La crainte des représentants des salariés est simple : en se laissant la possibilité de réduire l’indemnisation des demandeurs d’emploi qui travaillent un peu durant le mois, l’État cherche tout simplement à contenir l’enveloppe des dépenses, au moment où des démissionnaires et des indépendants pourront entrer dans le système.

Au-delà de ce simple cas, certains observateurs craignent de toute façon que l’État, qui aura désormais les mains presque libres, décide dans les mois ou années à venir de réduire les montants offerts aux demandeurs d’emploi. Puisqu’ils n’auront plus cotisé pour avoir le droit au chômage, il devient moins compliqué d’assimiler les allocations qui leur sont versées à un filet de sécurité minimal. Filet qui pourrait être égal pour tous, quelles que soient les conditions d’emploi précédentes. Et qui pourrait surtout être ajusté à la baisse, en cas de difficultés budgétaires. La CGT rappelle qu’« en Allemagne, la définition légale de l’allocation chômage est une “garantie du minimum vital pour ceux qui n’ont aucune autre ressource”, c’est-à-dire aucune épargne ».

Le syndicat trouve un allié inattendu sur ce point, à Pôle emploi. Un de ses hauts responsables avoue une certaine inquiétude, dans une période où le nombre des chômeurs de catégorie A pourrait diminuer de façon conséquente. « Avec le système actuel, ces nouveaux salariés auraient payé des cotisations qui auraient alimenté les caisses de l’Unédic, et permis de constituer des réserves. Désormais, c’est l’État qui encaissera plus de CSG, et rien ne l’obligera à redistribuer ensuite cet argent vers le système du chômage », alerte ce spécialiste.

Des craintes qu’Aurélien Taché, le député qui sera le rapporteur du projet de loi sur l’assurance chômage à l’Assemblée, ne cherche guère à dissiper. Dans un entretien à Mediapart le 28 mars, le parlementaire assumait que dans le nouveau système, « le niveau de protection est fixé chaque année dans le projet de loi de finances » et que ce sont les députés « qui fixeront le niveau » de l’enveloppe dédiée à l’assurance chômage (comme ils le font pour les dépenses de santé).

Et en cas de crise financière, lorsque l’État aura besoin de ressources et sera tenté de couper dans la protection sociale pour équilibrer son budget, comment garantir cette enveloppe ? Ce sera impossible. « Si une crise a lieu, il y a une majorité en responsabilité et qui devra faire des choix », répond Aurélien Taché. Ouvrant du même coup la porte à des inquiétudes sans fin pour les demandeurs d’emploi et ceux qui les défendent.

#crevures

Chômage : les « permittents » dans le viseur de l’exécutif, Amandine Cailhol
▻https://www.liberation.fr/france/2018/09/19/chomage-les-permittents-dans-le-viseur-de-l-executif_1679896

Pour diminuer le déficit de l’Unédic, le gouvernement veut revoir les règles d’indemnisation des personnes en « activité réduite », cumulant emploi et allocation. Il a invité syndicats et patrons, ce vendredi au ministère du Travail, pour cadrer les futures négociations.

C’est la nouvelle bête noire de ceux qui veulent faire fondre la dette de l’Unédic. Après les intermittents du spectacle, longtemps accusés de plomber le budget de l’assurance chômage, place aux « #permittents », nouvelle étiquette pour pointer une autre catégorie de #chômeurs : ceux qui sont à la fois en emploi et au Pôle Emploi. Les mêmes que l’on retrouve dans les catégories B (demandeurs d’emploi ayant travaillé moins de 78 heures dans le mois) et C (plus de 78 heures) des chiffres, désormais trimestriels, du Pôle Emploi.

Ils sont au total 1,7 million dans cette situation, en « activité réduite », selon le jargon de l’agence. Dans le lot, 865 000 bénéficient de l’allocation d’aide au retour à l’emploi (ARE), tout en percevant un salaire. Parmi eux, 280 000 sont en contrat de moins d’un mois. Des nantis ? Pas vraiment. En moyenne, leur rémunération, une fois l’addition faite, atteint 1 320 euros. Mais le gouvernement a demandé aux partenaires sociaux de revoir les règles de calcul de leur d’indemnisation. Objectif : « Faire en sorte que l’accès à l’emploi durable soit toujours plus intéressant pour tous. » Et bien sûr, « réduire substantiellement l’endettement du régime ». Invités, vendredi, à une réunion au ministère du Travail, syndicats et organisations patronales vont, dans la foulée, se voir remettre une lettre de cadrage, afin de borner leur négociation.

Qu’est-ce que l’activité réduite ?

D’abord mis en place de manière dérogatoire en 1962, avant d’être généralisé dans les années 80, le dispositif de l’activité réduite autorise les demandeurs d’emploi à reprendre une activité salariée tout en bénéficiant d’une partie de leurs allocations, et en reportant les droits non consommés dans le temps. L’idée est de permettre aux chômeurs de garder un pied dans le monde du travail, en les incitant à reprendre une activité même si celle-ci est moins bien rémunérée que la précédente. De quoi faire, aussi, baisser la courbe du chômage, du moins celle, très commentée, de la catégorie A, celle des chômeurs sans aucune activité. Concrètement, quel que soit le nouveau contrat qu’il signe (CDD, CDI…), un chômeur continue de percevoir une partie de son allocation, déterminée par un calcul spécifique.

Seule condition, le cumul ne doit pas dépasser sa rémunération passée. C’est le cas de Laurence, dont la situation est détaillée sur le site de l’Unédic. Avant d’être au chômage, elle percevait tous les mois un salaire brut de 2 100 euros. Elle a donc droit à une allocation mensuelle de 1 135 euros. Quand elle reprend une activité, quelques jours par semaine, pour un salaire de 950 euros brut par mois, le Pôle Emploi fait ses petits calculs et ne lui verse plus que 469 euros. Elle perçoit donc 1 403 euros au total. En parallèle, elle reporte 18 jours de droits au chômage, soit la part non versée de son allocation mensuelle.

Qui sont les « permittents » ?

Entre 2012 et 2017, le nombre des chômeurs en activité réduite a augmenté de 60 %. En 2017, l’institut statistique du ministère du Travail, la Dares, s’est intéressé à eux. Selon Pauline Gonthier et Klara Vinceneux, les deux auteures de cette étude, ils sont 8 % à s’inscrire durablement dans une activité réduite. Parmi eux : surtout des femmes en couple, avec enfants, qui perçoivent une faible rémunération. Ou encore des seniors. Selon l’Unédic, en 2014, ces allocataires indemnisés et relevant du régime général (hors intermittents du spectacle, donc) étaient en grande partie issus du secteur des services à la personne et à la collectivité, du commerce, de la vente et de la grande distribution, et en troisième place, des métiers de service aux entreprises. Et étaient, pour 75 % d’entre eux environ, titulaires d’un bac ou d’un niveau de formation inférieur.

Quel est l’effet de l’activité réduite sur l’emploi ?

Le bilan est mitigé, notent Pauline Gonthier et Klara Vinceneux. Les deux auteures de la Dares évoquent des « effets ambigus de l’activité réduite sur le retour à l’emploi ». Explication : « Si la pratique d’une activité réduite paraît améliorer en moyenne la vitesse de retour à l’emploi, elle enfermerait également certains individus dans des activités précaires ou sous qualifiées. » Il y a donc pour certains un risque d’« installation dans l’activité réduite qui semble plus subie que choisie ». Et de rappeler les résultats d’une enquête de l’Unédic réalisée en 2012 : 51,4 % des allocataires en activité réduite depuis huit mois déclaraient alors vouloir changer de situation.

Pourquoi a-t-elle explosé ?

C’est un peu le serpent qui se mord la queue. Certes, l’activité réduite est un dispositif créé pour répondre à une transformation du marché du travail et au développement des contrats courts. Mais pour certaines économistes, à l’instar de Pierre Cahuc et Corinne Prost, la multiplication de ces contrats précaires a pu, aussi, être favorisée par les règles de l’assurance chômage sur la « permittence ». En 2015, les deux auteurs ont tiré la sonnette d’alarme dans une note du Conseil d’analyse économique. Ils y pointent l’explosion de l’emploi de courte durée. Ainsi, notent-ils, entre 1980 et 2011, la durée moyenne d’un CDD a été divisée par trois pour atteindre cinq semaines. « Il s’agit d’une transformation profonde, les CDD longs étant remplacés par de multiples CDD courts », poursuivent-ils. Plus grave encore : « En 2011, plus de 70 % des embauches en CDD sont des réembauches chez un ancien employeur. » Parmi les facteurs ayant pu favoriser ce développement : la création, en 1990, des CDD d’usage, des contrats reconductibles autorisés dans plus d’une vingtaine de secteurs et représentant 60 % des contrats courts. Depuis, les choses ont empiré : en 2017, 30 % des CDD ne durent qu’une seule journée.

L’étude de la Dares pointe les mêmes mécanismes, tout en restant prudente : « Il est possible que certaines entreprises utilisent l’activité réduite de façon stratégique comme une subvention publique aux emplois de très courte durée ou comme une forme de chômage partiel intégralement financé par l’assurance chômage. » Pour d’autres, les règles d’indemnisation de l’activité réduite feraient la joie de quelques chômeurs suspectés d’adopter des comportements opportunistes. En résumé, ces derniers pourraient gérer leur droit à être indemnisé comme un stock qu’il s’agirait d’optimiser. « Les demandeurs d’emploi en activité réduite ne sont pas des profiteurs de la permittence. Ce sont les employeurs qui abusent des contrats courts », tranche Denis Gravouil, de la CGT. « Difficile de mettre l’opprobre sur ces chômeurs, alors qu’on ne leur offre que cela », note aussi Jean-François Foucard, du syndicat CGC, même s’il n’est pas opposé à une réflexion sur le sujet. « Beaucoup de gens préfèrent garder leurs CDD et refusent de signer un CDI », assure, côté patronal, Jean-Michel Pottier, de la CPME. Et de nuancer : « Parfois, c’est un intérêt partagé entre salarié et employeur. » Deux lectures que l’on retrouve dans le double discours de l’exécutif, tapant à la fois sur les doigts des entreprises et des salariés.

Combien coûte-t-elle ?

Les masses financières en jeu pour indemniser les personnes en activité réduite sont « modérées », selon l’Unédic, soit 5,4 milliards d’euros. C’est-à-dire 15 % de l’ensemble des dépenses annuelles d’allocation de l’assurance chômage (36 milliards d’euros). Ces dépenses devraient diminuer en 2018, puisque les règles de calcul de l’allocation qui, selon la Dares, favorisaient les chômeurs réalisant des contrats courts, ont déjà été modifiées en 2017 afin de remettre de l’équité.

Quelles sont les évolutions possibles ?

La ministre du Travail, Muriel Pénicaud, l’a promis : « Personne n’imagine supprimer » le cumul salaire et chômage. Mais les règles de calcul vont à nouveau être revues. La locataire de la rue de Grenelle a d’ailleurs fait ajouter cette possibilité dans son projet de loi parcours professionnel, se réservant le droit de « modifier les mesures d’application relatives […] à l’activité réduite » par décret, si jamais les propositions des partenaires sociaux lui apparaissaient décevantes. Une disposition que la CFDT avait essayé, sans succès, de faire sauter, jugeant les règles de l’activité réduite « indispensables » alors que « la reprise de l’activité ne se traduit pas encore en emplois de qualité ».

Le flou demeure toutefois sur les modalités privilégiées par l’exécutif. Les paramètres de calcul pourraient par exemple être changés pour réduire le montant de l’indemnité. « Mais rien n’est fait. En 2017, on a changé les règles pour que cela soit équitable. Si on va plus loin, on va créer une pénalité sur la permittence », pointe le représentant de la CPME, qui s’étonne qu’un nouveau paramétrage soit sur la table, alors « que l’on manque encore de recul » sur les dernières modifications. Autre option : comme ce fut le cas par le passé, le cumul pourrait être limité dans le temps. De quoi inquiéter les syndicats, soucieux de ne pas voir certains chômeurs tomber plus encore dans la précarité. D’autres redoutent qu’en rendant moins incitatif le cumul, des chômeurs préfèrent ne pas travailler et refusent les « petits boulots ». Quant au bonus-malus, c’est-à-dire la modulation des cotisations patronales évoquée par le gouvernement afin de pénaliser les entreprises qui abusent des contrats courts, il a la faveur des syndicats. Mais pas du patronat, qui menace de ne pas négocier si le sujet n’est pas écarté.

#emploi_précaire #revenu

#hotspot #Lampedusa #fermeture (temporaire) #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Italie #droits_humains #Italie #rénovation

La vergogna dell’hotspot di Lampedusa, concluso il trasferimento: la struttura chiude

Cambiano sede gli ultimi 47 migranti. Via ai lavori di ristrutturazione

https://www.repstatic.it/content/localirep/img/rep-palermo/2018/03/25/114156172-16f972e9-2908-4fe0-9dd9-a6f9bd1347ed.jpg

In un dossier la vita impossibile nell’hotspot di Lampedusa

Ai primi di aprile, dopo il salvataggio di quasi 300 persone in mare, 72 tunisini hanno dovuto trascorrere la notte in quello che fino a poco tempo fa era l’hotspot di Lampedusa. Eppure, dell’hospot era stata annunciata da poco la chiusura temporanea - per una “ristrutturazione” con cui il Ministero dell’Interno aveva dovuto rispondere a pesanti denunce. Ora, con testimonianze, interviste e fotografie raccolte durante alcuni sopralluoghi, il dossier presentato a Roma il 10 aprile da Asgi, Cild e Indie Watch dimostra le innumerevoli ragioni di preoccupazione sul trattamento disumano riservato a chi arriva nella struttura di Lampedusa.

▻http://openmigration.org/analisi/in-un-dossier-la-vita-impossibile-nellhotspot-di-lampedusa

Rapporto: «Scenari di frontiera: il caso Lampedusa. L’approccio hotspot e le sue possibili evoluzioni alla luce del Decreto legge n. 113/2018»

Trattenimenti informali e limitazione della libertà personale, condizioni materiali problematiche, scarsa informazione su status legale e accesso alla procedura di protezione internazionale, differenziazione arbitraria tra richiedenti asilo e cosiddetti migranti economici, applicazione parziale delle garanzie a tutela dei minori.

È quanto emerge dal monitoraggio dell’hotspot di Lampedusa realizzato nell’ambito del progetto pilota In Limine, nato nel marzo 2018 da una collaborazione che portiamo avanti con Asgi, Cild e Indiewatch, presentato nel report “Scenari di frontiera: l’approccio hotspot e le sue possibili evoluzioni alla luce del caso Lampedusa”.

Un quadro che desta ancora più preoccupazione dopo l’approvazione del Decreto 113/2018 cosiddetto “Sicurezza e immigrazione”, che disciplina per legge alcune delle prassi illegittime riscontrate, con il rischio di compromettere, in modo ancor più generalizzato, l’esercizio del diritto di asilo.

Nel corso del progetto sono state registrate - attraverso circa 60 interviste con i migranti, colloqui con associazioni, organizzazioni internazionali e istituzioni attive sull’isola e attraverso l’osservazione diretta - significative violazioni della normativa vigente.

Dal rapporto emergono poi violazioni molto rilevanti in tema di limitazione delle libertà personali e risulta che i cittadini stranieri non vengono correttamente informati sulla propria posizione, sul proprio status legale e sulla possibilità di richiedere protezione, diversamente da quanto previsto dalla legge.

Per quanto riguarda la classificazione dei migranti, il rapporto evidenzia che in molti casi lo status giuridico di richiedente asilo o di persona destinataria di provvedimento di respingimento sembra essere definito, contrariamente a quanto previsto nella normativa italiana e comunitaria, unicamente in ragione del paese di origine.

Infine, il monitoraggio ha messo in luce come all’interno degli hotspot non verrebbero applicate o verrebbero applicate solo parzialmente le garanzie previste dalla normativa per la tutela dei minori anche per ciò che riguarda, ad esempio, il diritto all’unità familiare e al ricongiungimento, la nomina di un tutore che svolga un ruolo effettivo, il diritto ad essere collocati in una struttura idonea ad accogliere e tutelare i minori.

In Limine ha messo a punto e utilizzato diversi strumenti per raggiungere obiettivi differenti: contrastare le prassi illegittime e produrre un cambiamento strutturale nell’accesso dei migranti ai diritti in frontiera. Con questo obiettivo sono stati presentati ricorsi, esposti, segnalazioni e si è data diffusione immediata alle informazioni raccolte sulle gravi violazioni rilevate. Inoltre, il progetto ha voluto esercitare una pressione costante sulle autorità attraverso il monitoraggio e la presa in carico dei migranti al fine di vigilare sull’attuazione di prassi corrette e per garantire un intervento immediato ove si fossero rilevate violazioni.

Tutto questo appare più preoccupante dopo l’approvazione del Decreto Sicurezza (Dl 113/2018), che in sostanza disciplina diverse prassi illegittime osservate a Lampedusa e negli altri hotspot.

Alcune norme sembrano infatti destinate a ridefinire il funzionamento degli hotspot e tre profili in particolare – trattenimento fino a 30 giorni per la determinazione e verifica dell’identità e della cittadinanza per i richiedenti asilo (a cui si sommano altri 180 giorni in un CPR in caso di mancata identificazione), applicazione accelerata e in frontiera delle procedure di valutazione della domanda di asilo, trattenimento in luoghi cosiddetti impropri dei cittadini stranieri destinatari dei provvedimenti di espulsione – suggeriscono un possibile sviluppo su larga scala della limitazione all’esercizio del diritto di asilo.

Il recente Decreto dunque, se non sarà oggetto di modifica parlamentare, rende ancora più urgente la necessità che le procedure che si svolgono all’interno degli hotspot siano rese visibili e trasparenti, con l’obiettivo di ridurre abusi e violazioni dei diritti delle persone.

Per questo, insieme alle altre organizzazioni che insieme a noi hanno dato vita al progetto In Limine, intensificheremo il nostro impegno, aumentando anche il raggio di azione per monitorare gli effetti delle nuove norme.

▻https://www.actionaid.it/informati/notizie/decreto-sicurezza-effetti-su-hotspot
#decreto_salvini

Plusieurs articles abordent la question du #vocabulaire. Faut-il les appeler #migrants #réfugiés #sans-papiers #demandeurs_d_asile #exilés ? Les avis sont partagés :
►https://seenthis.net/messages/414225

Police order dozens of migrants to move from Milan station

Dozens of migrants were on Tuesday ordered by police to leave a square by Milan’s train station where they had been camping out for months.

https://www.thelocal.it/userdata/images/article/ffb534ba80356a1b7d984cec81aa44d7c350684228b5efbe5e309cf3510129e6.jpg

#migrations #asile #réfugiés #Italie #bénévolat #travail_bénévole #détention_administrative #rétention #decreto_Minniti-Orando #recours #recours_effectif #expulsions #renvois

#USA #migrations #anti-réfugiés #Trump #décret #Décret_anti-immigration #islamophobie #xénophobie

▻https://seenthis.net/messages/564847

How many fatal terror attacks have refugees carried out in the US? None

No person accepted to the United States as a refugee, Syrian or otherwise, has been implicated in a major fatal terrorist attack since the Refugee Act of 1980 set up systematic procedures for accepting refugees into the United States, according to an analysis of terrorism immigration risks by the Cato Institute.

▻http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/29/us/refugee-terrorism-trnd/index.html?sr=twCNN012917us/refugee-terrorism-trnd1050PMVODtopLink&linkId=33905140
#fact-checking #préjugés

Terrorism and Immigration : A Risk Analysis

Terrorism is a hazard to human life and material prosperity that should be addressed in a sensible manner whereby the benefits of actions to contain it outweigh the costs. Foreign-born terrorists who entered the country, either as immigrants or tourists, were responsible for 88 percent (or 3,024) of the 3,432 murders caused by terrorists on U.S. soil from 1975 through the end of 2015. This paper presents the first terrorism risk analysis of the visa categories those foreign-born terrorists used to enter the United States.

▻https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/terrorism-immigration-risk-analysis

#Etats-Unis #Décret_anti-immigration #Trump #justice #résistance #manifestation #aéroport #islamophobie #xénophobie

le seul espoir qui me reste, c’est qu’on est aux EU et que ce couillard de Trump prenne une balle dans le crâne.

Ce serait les « apports positifs de la NRA » :)

indeed

#feu #xénophobie #incendie #mosquées #islamophobie #USA #Etats-Unis #Texas #Décret_anti-immigration #Trump

@gwyneth bison les agressions contre les musulmans ne date pas de Trump mais de l’ère bush après le 9/11 : assassinats, agressions verbales et physiques, menaces, et le FBI qui surveille ces citoyens plus que d’autres, laissant croire qu’ils sont des terroristes en puissance. Le Patriot-Act de BUSH et le NDAA voté par Obama ne font que rendre cette situation encore plus précaire pour les musulmans de ce pays.

#Royal_Jordanian #publicité #Etats-Unis #Décret_anti-immigration #Trump #islamophobie #xénophobie #compagnie_aérienne #it_has_begun #Décret_anti-immigration

The sole ostensible rationale for this ban — it is necessary to keep out Muslim extremists — collapses upon the most minimal scrutiny. The countries that have produced and supported the greatest number of anti-U.S. terrorists — Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, UAE — are excluded from the ban list because the tyrannical regimes that run those countries are close U.S. allies. Conversely, the countries that are included — Syria, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Iran, Sudan, and Yemen — have produced virtually no such terrorists; as the Cato Institute documented on Friday night: “Foreigners from those seven nations have killed zero Americans in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and the end of 2015.” Indeed, as of a 2015 study by the New America research center, deaths caused by terrorism from right-wing nationalists since 9/11 have significantly exceeded those from Muslim extremists.

(...) Beyond U.S. support for the world’s worst regimes, what primarily shapes Trump’s list is U.S. aggression: Five of the seven predominantly Muslim countries on Trump’s list were ones bombed by Obama, while the other two (Iran and Sudan) were punished with heavy sanctions. Thus, Trump is banning immigrants from the very countries that the U.S. government — under both Republicans and Democrats — has played a key role in destabilizing and destroying, as Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy, with surprising candor, noted this week:

▻https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/824292016976760832

We bomb your country, creating a humanitarian nightmare, then lock you inside. That’s a horror movie, not a foreign policy.
5:25 PM - 25 Jan 2017

(...) It is difficult to envision anything that helps ISIS’s overarching objective, its central narrative, more than Trump’s immigration ban aimed at Muslims while privileging Christian refugees. But it’s not impossible to imagine policies that could be worse in this regard. The danger now is that this immigration ban is merely the first step on this heinous path, not the last. That’s why it’s urgent that everything be done to denounce it, battle it, and defeat it now.

Excellent article, à compléter avec “Trump’s Muslim Ban Triggers Chaos, Heartbreak, and Resistance”
▻https://theintercept.com/2017/01/29/trumps-muslim-ban-triggers-chaos-heartbreak-and-resistance

#Muslim_Ban #impérialisme

La seule justification ostensible de cette interdiction - il faut empêcher les extrémistes musulmans - s’effondre sur le plus minime examen. Les pays qui ont produit et soutenu le plus grand nombre d’organisations anti-US. Terroristes - l’Arabie Saoudite, l’Égypte, le Qatar, les Émirats arabes unis - sont exclus de la liste d’interdiction parce que les régimes tyranniques qui dirigent ces pays sont des alliés proches des États-Unis. À l’inverse, les pays qui sont inclus - la Syrie, l’Irak, la Libye, la Somalie, l’Iran, le Soudan et le Yémen - n’ont pratiquement pas produit de tels terroristes ; "Les étrangers de ces sept pays ont tué zéro Américains dans des attaques terroristes sur le sol américain entre 1975 et la fin de 2015."En effet, à partir d’une étude réalisée en 2015 par le centre de recherche New America, les décès causés Par le terrorisme des nationalistes de droite depuis le 11 septembre ont largement dépassé ceux des extrémistes musulmans.

(...) Au-delà du soutien des États-Unis aux pires régimes du monde, ce qui forme principalement la liste de Trump est l’agression américaine : Cinq des sept pays majoritairement musulmans sur la liste de Trump étaient ceux bombardés par Obama, tandis que les deux autres (Iran et Soudan) Avec de lourdes sanctions. Ainsi, Trump interdit les immigrants des mêmes pays que le gouvernement des États-Unis - à la fois républicains et démocrates - a joué un rôle clé dans la déstabilisation et la destruction, comme le sénateur démocrate Chris Murphy, avec une candeur surprenante, a noté cette semaine :

"Nous bombardons votre pays, créant un cauchemar humanitaire, puis nous vous enfermons à l’intérieur. C’est un film d’horreur, pas une politique étrangère."

(...) Il est difficile d’imaginer quoi que ce soit qui aide l’objectif global d’ISIS, son récit central, plus que l’interdiction d’immigration deTrump visant les musulmans tout en privilégiant les réfugiés chrétiens. Mais il n’est pas impossible d’imaginer des politiques qui pourraient être pires à cet égard. Le danger est maintenant que cette interdiction d’immigration ne soit que le premier pas sur ce chemin odieux, et non pas le dernier. C’est pourquoi il est urgent que tout soit fait pour le dénoncer, pour le combattre et pour le vaincre maintenant.

v. aussi : ▻http://seen.li/c40y

#USA #Etats-Unis #islamophobie #xénophobie #islam #Décret_anti-immigration #terrorisme

Donald Trump Signs Anti-Abortion Executive Order Surrounded By Men

WASHINGTON ― On Monday, surrounded by other white men, President Donald Trump signed an anti-abortion executive order that has far-reaching consequences for women’s reproductive health access worldwide.

►http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-abortion-men_us_5886369be4b0e3a7356a7910

#patriarches

Il me semble que G.W.Bush avait fait la même chose lors de son début de mandat. Je vais voir si je retrouve l’info.

edit : c’était l’arrêt des financement des asso pour la contraception et contre le VIH. Je pense que ca englobait l’IVG mais c’est pas détaillé.

voila ce qu’en dit wikipédia
►https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

Dès son élection en 2001, il nomme John Ashcroft, connu pour ses positions pro-life, comme attorney general (Procureur général des États-Unis). Il supprime les aides fédérales à des associations étrangères favorables à l’IVG et à la contraception. Pour faire face à la levée de boucliers consécutive, il confie à sa femme Laura Bush le soin de préciser que l’IVG aux États-Unis ne sera pas remise en question.

Des fonds d’aide humanitaire octroyés à des associations étrangères encourageant l’usage du préservatif ou venant en aide à des prostituées sont supprimés en faveur d’autres prônant l’abstinence dans le cadre de la lutte contre le Sida, y compris la stratégie ABC.

Imaginez un monde où les femmes pourraient affecter la vie sexuelle et reproductive des hommes d’un coup de stylo... Absurde, non ? Bingo.
▻http://www.madmoizelle.com/domination-feminine-710789

https://static.mmzstatic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/domination-feminine.jpg

Et on interdit les soins de la prostate, les maladies, c’est naturel après tout. Je vois bien les manifs des pro-prostates en bas des hôpitaux qui osent encore aider des hommes … et les discours une prostate pour la vie …