• #États-Unis : une migrante guatémaltèque de 7 ans meurt en #détention
    https://www.romandie.com/news/tats-Unis-une-migrante-guatemalteque-de-7-ans-meurt-en-detention/979963.rom

    Une migrante guatémaltèque de 7 ans est morte quelques heures après avoir été placée en détention par la police aux frontières américaine dans l’Etat du Nouveau-Mexique, rapporte jeudi le Washington Post.

    La fillette, qui avait illégalement franchi la frontière en compagnie de son père et d’une douzaine d’autres personnes, est morte de « déshydratation et d’un état de choc », écrit le quotidien, citant le service américain des douanes et de la protection des frontières.

    Elle n’avait « pas bu d’eau ni mangé pendant plusieurs jours ». Prise de convulsions huit heures après avoir été placée en détention, elle a été transportée par hélicoptère à l’hôpital, où elle s’est éteinte, raconte le Washington Post.

    (©AFP / (14 décembre 2018 13h29)

    « #nos_valeurs »


  • Harm Reduction in Immigration Detention

    It seems to be an inexorable quality of immigration detention that it causes the individual to experience pain or injury. From a human rights perspective, is it possible to talk about “best practices”?

    This Global Detention Project Special Report systematically compares conditions and operations at detention centres in five European countries—Norway, France, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland—to identify practices that may be used to develop “harm reducing” strategies in detention. Commissioned by the Norwegian Red Cross as part of its efforts to promote reforms of Norway’s detention practices, the report addresses several key questions:

    In what ways has the Norwegian system met or exceeded internationally recognised standards? In what ways has it fallen short, especially when compared to detention practices of peer countries? And what are the key reform priorities going forward that may help reduce the harmful impact of detention?

    In Norway’s Trandum Detention Centre, multiple reports have highlighted an overzealously punitive and restrictive detention regime where detainees consider themselves to be “treated as criminals” even though they are not serving criminal prison sentences. Despite repeated recommendations from relevant experts, including the country’s Parliamentary Ombudsman, many important reforms have not been implemented.

    To complete the study, GDP researchers sought to assess Trandum in a comparative context that would highlight conditions and procedures in other European countries. The analysis of centres in Norway, France, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland reveals that Trandum has embraced a carceral model for immigration detention to a much greater extent than centres elsewhere in Europe, falling short of standards provided in international law and promoted by national and regional human rights bodies.

    The report highlights several key areas for promoting reforms, both at Trandum and in other facilities across Europe, including: placing immigration detainees in the custody of social welfare institutions rather than public security agencies; reforming operating rules on everything from food preparation to electronic communications; and shedding detention centres of carceral elements, including the aspect of guards and staff members and the internal layout and regime of detention centres. Many of these suggestions have been highlighted by the Norwegian Red Cross in a statement urging the country’s authorities to reform its immigration detention system.

    https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/harm-reduction-immigration-detention
    #détention_administrative #rétention #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Europe #rapport #Norvège #France #Suisse #Allemagne #Suède #Frambois #Trandum #Toulouse #Ingelheim #Märsta


  • Tracking China’s Muslim Gulag
    https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/muslims-camps-china

    China is accused of incarcerating hundreds of thousands of Muslims in detention camps that are rising from the desert sands in Xinjiang. A forensic analysis of satellite images of 39 of these facilities shows they are expanding at a rapid rate.

    #chine #camps_de_travail #musulman #Ouïghours #détention

    • Très belle illustration visuelle !

      La légende des différentes étapes :

      Here are the footprints of all 39 camps. Prior to April 2017, these facilities had a total of 539 buildings covering 379,000 square meters.

      By August this year, the number of buildings at these facilities had more than doubled to 1,129. The area they covered had almost tripled to more than 1 million square meters - roughly the size of 140 soccer fields.

      And the expansion continues. A further 67 buildings, covering an area of 210,000 square meters, are now under construction in these compounds, according to the most recent satellite imagery that was analyzed.

      Infographie vraiment remarquable.

      #merci @odilon


  • La #prison est « un moyen onéreux de fabriquer de la délinquance » | Public Senat
    https://www.publicsenat.fr/article/debat/la-prison-est-un-moyen-onereux-de-fabriquer-de-la-delinquance-135988

    Pour Léa Grujon, qui dirige l’association « Chantiers Passerelles », il est d’abord nécessaire de développer les peines de travail d’intérêt général. Les fameux « TIG », créés en 1983 ne représentent aujourd’hui que 7 % des peines exécutées. Une alternative qui peut s’appliquer aux individus de plus de 16 ans condamnés pour des petits délits ou des contraventions de cinquième classe. Pour cette jeune femme engagée, la prison reste « un moyen onéreux de fabriquer de la délinquance » de plus elle favorise la récidive  : 61 % après une peine de prison contre 34 % après un TIG, et coûte bien plus cher à la société qu’une peine de travail d’intérêt général. Encore faut-il qu’il y ait des places… Aujourd’hui le système montre ses limites faute de structures d’accueil, et de places suffisantes.


  • Je vais faire une mini #métaliste sur le #Decreto_Salvini ...

    1. Première liste, sur le contenu (et les critiques) du décret :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/724164

    2. Deuxième liste, sur les résistances, surtout locales, à ce décret
    #résistance :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/739544

    3. Troisième liste :
    Les #conséquences de ce décret...
    Conséquences négatives... #clandestinisation des migrants, etc.
    https://seenthis.net/messages/740377

    Autre source de clandestinisation, la chute des #expulsions (#renvois) :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/743930

    Et une conséquence positive sur les #renvois_Dublin vers l’Italie, des décisions juridiques commencent à tomber pour ne plus exécuter les renvois vers l’Italie, car il n’est pas considéré un pays sûr pour les demandeurs d’asile :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/742245
    La chute de la #protection_humanitaire :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/743282
    #statistiques #chiffres

    #sprar (fin de -) #réfugiés #accueil #migrations #asile #Italie #hébergement #hotspot #décret #détention_administrative #rétention #protection_humanitaire #politique_d'asile #hotspots #it_has_begun #decreto_Salvini #decreto_sicurezza #protection_subsidiaire

    ping @isskein


  • #Seven_doors. Stories of immigration detention

    “When they put me in detention, I remember walking through only one door at the detention center. I was in detention for three and a half years. When they let me out, I remember they walked me through SEVEN different DOORS, from my cell to the last door where they said, You are free. But how could I be free? I’m still not free.”


    https://www.7doors.org
    #détention_administrative #rétention #asile #migrations #réfugiés #photographie #témoignages #liberté #portes #architecture #Europe #USA #Etats-Unis #Malaisie #UK #Angleterre

    Chapitre sur la Malaisie :


    https://www.7doors.org/adarknesscoversyou


  • Encore une #mesure-sparadrap, cette fois-ci en lien avec l’ #OMS (#WHO) :
    he #Italian Fund for #Africa supports #healthcare for #migrants in #Libya : a 1.118.700 euro new #project in partnership with World #Health Organization - “Enhancing Diagnosis and Treatment for Migrants in detention centers in Libya”


    https://twitter.com/LuigiVignali/status/1062253367903313920
    #migrations #réfugiés #Libye #Italie #externalisation #asile #détention #centres_de_détention


  • Detainees Evacuated out of Libya but Resettlement Capacity Remains Inadequate

    According to the United Nations Refugee Agency (#UNHCR) 262 migrants detained in Libya were evacuated to Niger on November 12- the largest evacuation from Libya carried out to date. In addition to a successful airlift of 135 people in October this year, this brings the total number of people evacuated to more than 2000 since December 2017. However Amnesty International describes the resettlement process from Niger as slow and the number of pledges inadequate.

    The evacuations in October and November were the first since June when the Emergency Transit Mechanism (ETM) centre in Niger reached its full capacity of 1,536 people, which according to Amnesty was a result of a large number of people “still waiting for their permanent resettlement to a third country.”

    57,483 refugees and asylum seekers are registered by UNHCR in Libya; as of October 2018 14,349 had agreed to Voluntary Humanitarian Return. Currently 3,886 resettlement pledges have been made by 12 states, but only 1,140 have been resettled.

    14,595 people have been intercepted by the Libyan coast guard and taken back to Libya, however it has been well documented that their return is being met by detention, abuse, violence and torture. UNHCR recently declared Libya unsafe for returns amid increased violence in the capital, while Amnesty International has said that “thousands of men, women and children are trapped in Libya facing horrific abuses with no way out”.

    In this context, refugees and migrants are currently refusing to disembark in Misrata after being rescued by a cargo ship on November 12, reportedly saying “they would rather die than be returned to land”. Reuters cited one Sudanese teenager on board who stated “We agree to go to any place but not Libya.”

    UNHCR estimates that 5,413 refugees and migrants remain detained in #Directorate_for_Combatting_Illegal_Migration (#DCIM) centres and the UN Refugee Agency have repetedly called for additional resettlement opportunities for vulnerable persons of concern in Libya.

    https://www.ecre.org/detainees-evacuated-out-of-libya-but-resettlement-capacity-remains-inadequate
    #réinstallation #Niger #Libye #évacuation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #HCR #détention #centres_de_détention

    • ET DES INFORMATIONS PLUS ANCIENNES DANS LE FIL CI-DESSOUS

      Libya: evacuations to Niger resumed – returns from Niger begun

      After being temporarily suspended in March as the result of concerns from local authorities on the pace of resettlement out of Niger, UNHCR evacuations of vulnerable refugees and asylum seekers from Libya through the Emergency Transit Mechanism has been resumed and 132 vulnerable migrants flown to the country. At the same time the deportation of 132 Sudanese nationals from Niger to Libya has raised international concern.

      Niger is the main host for refugees and asylum seekers from Libya evacuated by UNHCR. Since the UN Refugee Agency began evacuations in cooperation with EU and Libyan authorities in November 2017, Niger has received 1,152 of the 1,474 people evacuated in total. While UNHCR has submitted 475 persons for resettlement a modest 108 in total have been resettled in Europe. According to UNHCR the government in Niger has now offered to host an additional 1,500 refugees from Libya through the Emergency Transit Mechanism and upon its revival and the first transfer of 132 refugees to Niger, UNHCR’s Special Envoy for the Central Mediterranean Situation, Vincent Cochetel stated: “We now urgently need to find resettlement solutions for these refugees in other countries.”

      UNHCR has confirmed the forced return by authorities in Niger of at least 132 of a group of 160 Sudanese nationals arrested in the migrant hub of Agadez, the majority after fleeing harsh conditions in Libya. Agadez is known as a major transit hub for refugees and asylum seekers seeking passage to Libya and Europe but the trend is reversed and 1,700 Sudanese nationals have fled from Libya to Niger since December 2017. In a mail to IRIN News, Human Rights Watch’s associate director for Europe and Central Asia, Judith Sunderland states: “It is inhuman and unlawful to send migrants and refugees back to Libya, where they face shocking levels of torture, sexual violence, and forced labour,” with reference to the principle of non-refoulement.

      According to a statement released by Amnesty International on May 16: “At least 7,000 migrants and refugees are languishing in Libyan detention centres where abuse is rife and food and water in short supply. This is a sharp increase from March when there were 4,400 detained migrants and refugees, according to Libyan officials.”

      https://www.ecre.org/libya-evacuations-to-niger-resumed-returns-from-niger-begun

    • Libya: return operations running but slow resettlement is jeopardizing the evacuation scheme

      According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM) 15.000 migrants have been returned from Libya to their country of origin and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has assisted in the evacuation of more than 1,300 refugees from Libya thereby fulfilling the targets announced at the AU-EU-UN Taskforce meeting in December 2017. However, a modest 25 of the more than 1000 migrants evacuated to Niger have been resettled to Europe and the slow pace is jeopardizing further evacuations.

      More than 1000 of the 1300 migrants evacuated from Libya are hosted by Niger and Karmen Sakhr, who oversees the North Africa unit at the UNHCR states to the EU Observer that the organisation: “were advised that until more people leave Niger, we will no longer be able to evacuate additional cases from Libya.”

      During a meeting on Monday 5 March with the Civil Liberties Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee MEPs, members of the Delegation for relations with Maghreb countries, Commission and External Action Service representatives on the mistreatment of migrants and refugees in Libya, and arrangements for their resettlement or return, UNHCR confirmed that pledges have been made by France, Switzerland, Italy, Norway, Sweden and Malta as well as unspecified non-EU countries but that security approvals and interviewing process of the cases is lengthy resulting in the modest number of resettlements, while also warning that the EU member states need to put more work into resettlement of refugees, and that resettlement pledges still fall short of the needs. According to UNHCR 430 pledges has been made by European countries.

      An estimated 5000 people are in government detention and an unknown number held by private militias under well documented extreme conditions.

      https://www.ecre.org/libya-return-operations-running-but-slow-resettlement-is-jeopardizing-the-evac

    • Libya: migrants and refugees out by plane and in by boat

      The joint European Union (EU), African Union (AU) and United Nations (UN) Task Force visited Tripoli last week welcoming progress made evacuating and returning migrants and refugees out of Libya. EU has announced three new programmes, for protecting migrants and refugees in Libya and along the Central Mediterranean Route, and their return and reintegration. Bundestag Research Services and NGOs raise concerns over EU and Member State support to Libyan Coast Guard.

      Representatives of the Task Force, created in November 2017, met with Libyan authorities last week and visited a detention centres for migrants and a shelter for internally displaced people in Tripoli. Whilst they commended progress on Voluntary Humanitarian Returns, they outlined a number of areas for improvement. These include: comprehensive registration of migrants at disembarkation points and detention centres; improving detention centre conditions- with a view to end the current system of arbitrary detention; decriminalizing irregular migration in Libya.

      The three new programmes announced on Monday, will be part of the European Union Emergency Trust Fund for Africa. €115 million will go towards evacuating 3,800 refugees from Libya, providing protection and voluntary humanitarian return to 15,000 migrants in Libya and will support the resettlement of 14,000 people in need of international protection from Niger, Chad, Cameroon and Burkina Faso. €20 million will be dedicated to improving access to social and protection services for vulnerable migrants in transit countries in the Sahel region and the Lake Chad basin. €15 million will go to supporting sustainable reintegration for Ethiopian citizens.

      A recent report by the Bundestag Research Services on SAR operations in the Mediterranean notes the support for the Libyan Coast Guard by EU and Member States in bringing refugees and migrants back to Libya may be violating the principle of non-refoulement as outlined in the Geneva Convention: “This cooperation must be the subject of proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights, because the people who are being forcibly returned with the assistance of the EU are being inhumanely treated, tortured or killed.” stated Andrej Hunko, European policy spokesman for the German Left Party (die Linke). A joint statement released by SAR NGO’s operating in the Mediterranean calls on the EU institutions and leaders to stop the financing and support of the Libyan Coast Guard and the readmissions to a third country which violates fundamental human rights and international law.

      According to UNHCR, there are currently 46,730 registered refugees and asylum seekers in Libya. 843 asylum seekers and refugees have been released from detention so far in 2018. According to IOM 9,379 people have been returned to their countries of origin since November 2017 and 1,211 have been evacuated to Niger since December 2017.

      https://www.ecre.org/libya-migrants-and-refugees-out-by-plane-and-in-by-boat

      Complément de Emmanuel Blanchard (via la mailing-list Migreurop):

      Selon le HCR, il y aurait actuellement environ 6000 personnes détenues dans des camps en Libye et qui seraient en attente de retour ou de protection (la distinction n’est pas toujours très claire dans la prose du HCR sur les personnes à « évacuer » vers le HCR...). Ces données statistiques sont très fragiles et a priori très sous-estimées car fondées sur les seuls camps auxquels le HCR a accès.

    • First group of refugees evacuated from new departure facility in Libya

      UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, in coordination with Libyan authorities, evacuated 133 refugees from Libya to Niger today after hosting them at a Gathering and Departure Facility (GDF) in Tripoli which opened on Tuesday.

      Most evacuees, including 81 women and children, were previously detained in Libya. After securing their release from five detention centres across Libya, including in Tripoli and areas as far as 180 kilometres from the capital, they were sheltered at the GDF until the arrangements for their evacuation were concluded.

      The GDF is the first centre of its kind in Libya and is intended to bring vulnerable refugees to a safe environment while solutions including refugee resettlement, family reunification, evacuation to emergency facilities in other countries, return to a country of previous asylum, and voluntary repatriation are sought for them.

      “The opening of this centre, in very difficult circumstances, has the potential to save lives. It offers immediate protection and safety for vulnerable refugees in need of urgent evacuation, and is an alternative to detention for hundreds of refugees currently trapped in Libya,” said UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi.

      The centre is managed by the Libyan Ministry of Interior, UNHCR and UNHCR’s partner LibAid. The initiative is one of a range of measures needed to offer viable alternatives to the dangerous boat journeys undertaken by refugees and migrants along the Central Mediterranean route.

      With an estimated 4,900 refugees and migrants held in detention centres across Libya, including 3,600 in need of international protection, the centre is a critical alternative to the detention of those most vulnerable.

      The centre, which has been supported by the EU and other donors, has a capacity to shelter up to 1,000 vulnerable refugees identified for solutions out of Libya.

      At the facility, UNHCR and partners are providing humanitarian assistance such as accommodation, food, medical care and psychosocial support. Child friendly spaces and dedicated protection staff are also available to ensure that refugees and asylum-seekers are adequately cared for.

      https://www.unhcr.org/news/press/2018/12/5c09033a4/first-group-refugees-evacuated-new-departure-facility-libya.html

    • Migration : à Niamey, des migrants rapatriés de Libye protestent contre leurs conditions de séjour

      Les manifestants protestent contre leur détention de vie qu’ils jugent « déplorables » et pour amplifier leurs mouvements, ils ont brandi des pancartes sur lesquelles ils ont écrit leurs doléances. Les migrants manifestant s’indignent également de leur séjour qui ne cesse de se prolonger, sans véritable alternatives ou visibilité sur leur situation. « Ils nous ont ramené de la Libye pour nous laisser à nous-mêmes ici », « on ne veut pas rester ici, laisser nous partir là où on veut », sont entre autres les slogans que les migrants ont scandés au cours de leur sit-in devant les locaux de l’agence onusienne. Plusieurs des protestataires sont venus à la manifestation avec leurs bagages et d’autres avec leurs différents papiers, qui attestent de leur situation de réfugiés ou demandeurs d’asiles.

      La situation, quoique déplorable, n’a pas manqué de susciter divers commentaires. Il faut dire que depuis le début de l’opération de rapatriement des migrants en détresse de Libye, ils sont des centaines à vivre dans la capitale mais aussi à Agadez où des centres d’accueil sont mis à leurs dispositions par les agences onusiennes (UNHCR, OIM), avec la collaboration des autorités nigériennes. Un certain temps, leur présence de plus en plus massive dans divers quartiers de la capitale où des villas sont mises à leur disposition, a commencé à inquiéter les habitants sur d’éventuels risques sécuritaires.

      Le gouvernement a signé plusieurs accords et adopté des lois pour lutter contre l’immigration clandestine. Il a aussi signé des engagements avec certains pays européens notamment la France et l’Italie, pour l’accueil temporaire des réfugiés en provenance de la Libye et en transit en attendant leur réinstallation dans leur pays ou en Europe pour ceux qui arrivent à obtenir le sésame pour l’entrée. Un geste de solidarité décrié par certaines ONG et que les autorités regrettent presque à demi-mot, du fait du non-respect des contreparties financières promises par les bailleurs et partenaires européens. Le pays fait face lui-même à un afflux de réfugiés nigérians et maliens sur son territoire, ainsi que des déplacés internes dans plusieurs régions, ce qui complique davantage la tâche dans cette affaire de difficile gestion de la problématique migratoire.

      Le Niger accueille plusieurs centres d’accueil pour les réfugiés et demandeurs d’asiles rapatriés de Libye. Le 10 décembre dernier, l’OFPRA français a par exemple annoncé avoir achevé une nouvelle mission au Niger avec l’UNHCR, et qui a concerné 200 personnes parmi lesquelles une centaine évacuée de Libye. En novembre dernier, le HCR a également annoncé avoir repris les évacuations de migrants depuis la Libye, avec un contingent de 132 réfugiés et demandeurs d’asiles vers le Niger.

      Depuis novembre 2017, le HCR a assuré avoir effectué vingt-trois (23) opérations d’évacuation au départ de la Libye et ce, « malgré d’importants problèmes de sécurité et les restrictions aux déplacements qui ont été imposées ». En tout, ce sont 2.476 réfugiés et demandeurs d’asile vulnérables qui ont pu être libérés et acheminés de la Libye vers le Niger (2.069), l’Italie (312) et la Roumanie (95).


      https://www.actuniger.com/societe/14640-migration-a-niamey-des-migrants-rapatries-de-libye-protestent-contr

      Je découvre ici que les évacuations se sont faites aussi vers l’#Italie et... la #Roumanie !


  • Dimenticati ai confini d’Europa

    L’obiettivo della ricerca è dare voce alle esperienze dei migranti e dei rifugiati, per rendere chiaro il nesso tra quello che hanno vissuto e le politiche europee che i governi hanno adottato.
    Il report si basa su 117 interviste qualitative realizzate nell’enclave spagnola di Melilla, in Sicilia, a Malta, in Grecia, in Romania, in Croazia e in Serbia. Ciò che emerge chiaramente è che il momento dell’ingresso in Europa, sia che esso avvenga attraverso il mare o attraverso una foresta sul confine terrestre, non è che un frammento di un viaggio molto più lungo ed estremamente traumatico. Le rotte che dall’Africa occidentale e orientale portano fino alla Libia sono notoriamente pericolose, specialmente per le donne, spesso vittime di abusi sessuali o costrette a prostituirsi per pagare i trafficanti.

    Il report mostra che alle frontiere dell’Unione Europea, e talora anche a quelle interne, c’è una vera e propria emergenza dal punto di vista della tutela dei diritti umani. L’assenza di vie legali di accesso per le persone bisognose di protezione le costringe ad affidarsi ai trafficanti su rotte che si fanno sempre più lunghe e pericolose. I tentativi dell’UE e degli Stati Membri di chiudere le principali rotte non proteggono la vita delle persone, come a volte si sostiene, ma nella maggior parte dei casi riescono a far sì che la loro sofferenza abbia sempre meno testimoni.


    http://centroastalli.it/dimenticati-ai-confini-deuropa-2
    #Europe #frontières #asile #migrations #droits_humains #rapport #réfugiés #Sicile #Italie #Malte #Grèce #Roumanie #Croatie #Serbie #UE #EU #femmes #Libye #violence #violences_sexuelles #parcours_migratoires #abus_sexuels #viol #prostitution #voies_légales #invisibilisation #invisibilité #fermeture_des_frontières #refoulement #push-back #violent_borders #Dublin #règlement_dublin #accès_aux_droits #accueil #détention #mouvements_secondaires

    Pour télécharger le rapport :
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TT9vefCRv2SEqbfsaEyucSIle5U1dNxh/view

    ping @isskein

    • Migranti, il Centro Astalli: “È emergenza diritti umani alle frontiere d’Europa”

      Assenza di vie di accesso legale ai migranti forzati, respingimenti arbitrari, detenzioni, impossibilità di accedere al diritto d’asilo: è il quadro disegnato da una nuova ricerca della sede italiana del Servizio dei gesuiti per i rifugiati.

      S’intitola “Dimenticati ai confini d’Europa” il report messo a punto dal Centro Astalli, la sede italiana del Servizio dei gesuiti per i rifugiati, che descrive, attraverso le storie dei rifugiati, le sempre più numerose violazioni di diritti fondamentali che si susseguono lungo le frontiere di diversi Paesi europei. La ricerca, presentata oggi a Roma, si basa su 117 interviste qualitative realizzate nell’enclave spagnola di Melilla, in Sicilia, a Malta, in Grecia, in Romania, in Croazia e in Serbia.

      Il report, si spiega nella ricerca, «mostra che alle frontiere dell’Unione europea, e talora anche a quelle interne, c’è una vera e propria emergenza dal punto di vista della tutela dei diritti umani». Secondo padre Camillo Ripamonti, presidente del Centro Astalli, la ricerca mette bene in luce come l’incapacità di gestire il fenomeno migratorio solitamente attribuita all’Ue, nasca anche dalla «volontà di tanti singoli Stati che non vogliono assumersi le proprie responsabilità» di fronte all’arrivo di persone bisognose di protezione alle loro frontiere, al contrario è necessario che l’Europa torni ad essere «il continente dei diritti, non dobbiamo perdere il senso della nostra umanità». «Si tratta di una sfida importante - ha detto Ripamonti - anche in vista delle prossime elezioni europee».

      A sua volta, padre Jose Ignacio Garcia, direttore del Jesuit Refugee Service Europa, ha rilevato come «gli Stati membri dell’Ue continuano ad investire le loro energie e risorse nel cercare di impedire a migranti e rifugiati di raggiungere l’Europa o, nel migliore dei casi, vorrebbero confinarli in ‘centri controllati’ ai confini esterni». «La riforma della legislazione comune in materia d’asilo, molto probabilmente – ha aggiunto - non verrà realizzata prima delle prossime elezioni europee. I politici europei sembrano pensare che se impediamo ai rifugiati di raggiungere le nostre coste, non abbiamo bisogno di un sistema comune d’asilo in Europa».

      La fotografia delle frontiere europee che esce dalla ricerca è inquietante: violazioni di ogni sorta, violenze, detenzioni arbitrarie, respingimenti disumani, aggiramento delle leggi dei singoli Paesi e del diritto internazionale. Un quadro fosco che ha pesanti ricadute sulla vita dei rifugiati già provati da difficoltà a soprusi subiti nel lungo viaggio. «Il Greek Council for Refugees – spiega la ricerca - ha denunciato, nel febbraio del 2018, un numero rilevante di casi di respingimenti illegali dalla regione del fiume Evros, al confine terrestre con la Turchia. Secondo questa organizzazione, migranti vulnerabili come donne incinte, famiglie con bambini e vittime di tortura sono stati forzatamente rimandati in Turchia, stipati in sovraffollate barche attraverso il fiume Evros, dopo essere stati arbitrariamente detenuti in stazioni di polizia in condizioni igieniche precarie». Secondo le testimonianze raccolte in Croazia e Serbia, diversi sono stati gli episodi di violenze fisiche contro rifugiati e di respingimenti immediati da parte della polizia di frontiera.

      E in effetti nel nuovo rapporto del Centro Astalli, più dei soli dati numerici e dei carenti quadri normativi ben descritti, a colpire sono i racconti degli intervistati lungo le diverse frontiere d’Europa. Un ragazzo marocchino, in Sicilia, per esempio ha raccontato «di come i trafficanti gli abbiano rubato i soldi e il cellulare e lo abbiamo tenuto prigioniero in un edificio vuoto con altre centinaia di persone per mesi». «Durante il viaggio – è ancora la sua storia – i trafficanti corrompevano gli ufficiali di polizia e trattavano brutalmente i migranti». Nel corso di un tentativo di attraversamento del Mediterraneo ricorda poi di aver sentito un trafficante dire a un altro: «Qualsiasi cosa succeda non mi interessa, li puoi anche lasciar morire».

      Ancora, una ragazza somala di 19 anni, arrivata incinta in Libia, ha raccontato di come il trafficante la minacciasse di toglierle il bambino appena nato e venderlo perché non aveva la cifra richiesta per la traversata. Alla fine il trafficante ha costretto tutti i suoi compagni di viaggio a pagare per lei ma ci sono voluti comunque diversi mesi prima che riuscissero a mettere insieme la somma richiesta. Storie che sembrano provenire da un altro mondo e sono invece cronache quotidiane lungo i confini di diversi Paesi europei.

      Infine, padre Ripamonti, in merito allo sgombero del centro Baobab di Roma che ospitava diverse centinaia di migranti, ha osservato che «la politica degli sgomberi senza alternative è inaccettabile». Il Centro Astalli «esprime inoltre preoccupazione anche per le crescenti difficoltà di accesso alla protezione in Italia: in un momento in cui molti migranti restano intrappolati in Libia in condizioni disumane e il soccorso in mare è meno efficace rispetto al passato, il nostro Paese ha scelto di adottare nuove misure che rendono più difficile la presentazione della domanda di asilo in frontiera, introducono il trattenimento ai fini dell’identificazione, abbassano gli standard dei centri di prima accoglienza».

      https://www.lastampa.it/2018/11/13/vaticaninsider/immigrazione-il-centro-astalli-c-unemergenza-diritti-umani-alle-frontiere-deuropa-v3qbnNIYRSzCCQSfsPFBHM/pagina.html


  • #ICE Detention Center Says It’s Not Responsible for Staff’s Sexual Abuse of Detainees

    All 50 states, the District of #Columbia, and the federal government impose criminal liability on correctional facility staff who have sexual contact with people in their custody. These laws recognize that any sexual activity between detainees and detention facility staff, with or without the use of force, is unlawful because of the inherent power imbalance when people are in custody. Yet, one immigration detention center is trying to avoid responsibility for sexual violence within its walls by arguing that the detainee “consented” to sexual abuse.

    https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/immigrants-rights-and-detention/ice-detention-center-says-its-not-responsible
    #rétention #détention_administrative #migrations #asile #réfugiés #abus_sexuels #viols #USA #Etats-Unis


  • No man’s land at Paris airport: Where France keeps foreigners who’ve been refused entry

    Every day, foreigners suspected of trying to enter France illegally are taken to a special area of Paris’s Charles de Gaulle airport where they are held at a facility dubbed #ZAPI. Located just a stone’s throw away from the airport’s runways, the ultra-secure area is closed to the general public. NGOs say ZAPI is just another name for a prison, where foreigner’s rights are flouted and where expulsions are fast-tracked. InfoMigrants was granted exclusive access to it.

    Audrey is pulling funny faces at the little girl she’s holding in her arms. “She’s not mine,” she says, and points to the girl’s mother who is sitting on another bench just a few metres away. “I’m just playing with her to pass the time,” she says. Twenty-eight-year-old Audrey from Gabon currently lives inside the four walls of the Charles de Gaulle airport’s “waiting zone”, or ZAPI, where people who have been refused entry onto French territory are being held while authorities decide what to do with them.

    Audrey’s laugh is barely audible. Neither is that of the little girl. The loud noise of the aircraft that just touched down some 50 metres away from them have drowned out all the surrounding sounds. “The noise, it’s hard… It prevents us from sleeping, we hear the planes all the time…,” the young woman complains without even looking at the giant aircraft whose wings are now gracing the fence of ZAPI.

    This tiny piece of no man’s land lies just next to one of the airport’s runways. “ZAPI is a bit like a protrusion of the international zone,” Alexis Marty explains, who heads up the immigration department at the French border police (PAF). In legal terms, the zone is not deemed to be a part of French territory. “It’s a zone where people end up when they’ve been refused entry into France and the Schengen area” by not having a visa, or because there are suspicions that their travel documents have been forged… Audrey, who’s been there for nearly a week, recalls how she was intercepted just as she was getting off the plane. She says she was placed at ZAPI because she didn’t have a “hotel” and “not enough money”.

    To visit France for a period lasting up to three months, foreigners need to fulfill certain conditions before being allowed to touch French ground: They need to have a valid passport, a visa (depending on the nationality), a medical insurance covering their stay, proof of lodging (hotel reservation or with family members), enough funds to cover their stay as well as a return ticket.

    Ill-prepared tourists or illegal immigrants?

    Foreigners who are stopped by customs officers because they don’t fulfill the conditions linked to their stay generally end up at ZAPI. “We don’t send everyone there,” Marty explains, however, pointing to certain nuances. “There are confused tourists who’ve just prepared their vacations really poorly, and who’ve forgotten essential documents. But there are also those who have different intentions, and who produce forged documents to try to enter European territory illegally.”

    It’s difficult to tell an ill-prepared tourist and a potential illegal immigrant apart. This is why the verification is done in several steps. “We don’t send people to ZAPI right away, we first carry out an initial check. When a suspicious person steps out of the plane, we bring them into a separate room to verify their documents, to ask them questions, listen to their replies and to verify any additional information they give us. If all goes well, we release them after a few hours,” he explains. “But if the incoherencies and the doubts persist, if the person produces fake documents or no documents at all, if a ‘migration risk’ exists for the person, we place them in ZAPI.”

    On this particular October day, the airport’s “waiting zone” houses a total of 96 people, of which one is an unaccompanied minor. The number of people changes on a daily basis. “Generally, a person spends four and a half days at ZAPI, so the rotation is pretty fast,” police commander Serge Berquier, who is the head of ZAPI, says. The maximum time a person can stay there is 20 days. Men, women and children – even minors traveling on their own – may be sent there. There is no age limit.

    After a three-week stay, a so-called “ZAPIst” is left with three options: Either they are finally granted entry into France (with a safe conduct), they are sent back to the country they traveled from, or a legal case is opened against them (for refusing to board, for forging documents, etc.). In 2016, some 7,000 people were held at the airport at some point, of which 53 percent were immediately refused entry into France.

    While “ZAPIsts” wait for their fates to be decided, they do what they can to kill time. They stroll in the outdoor space, they stay in their rooms, or they hang out in the TV room. The PAF makes a point of clarifying that the “ZAPIsts” are not “detainees” but rather “retainees”. This means that they have rights; family members can visit, they have access to catering services and can get legal and humanitarian assistance from the Red Cross which has a permanent presence at the facility.

    “It’s not a prison,” Marty says. “Here, you can keep your personal belongings, your mobile phone, you can go in and out of the rooms as much as you like. The only restriction is that you’re not allowed to exit the premises.”

    It may not be a prison, but it’s definitely a place of deprivation. Not all mobile phones are allowed, and those equipped with a camera are confiscated automatically.

    It’s 11.45am, but no one seems to be around on the ground floor. The TV is on in the communal room, but there’s no one there to watch it. No one is using the public payphones which are available to the “ZAPIsts” 24/7. On the first floor, where the rooms are located, the hallways are more or less empty. “They’re most likely downstairs, in the canteen, lunch will be served soon,” a police officer says. “Otherwise they might be outside, in the garden, talking or smoking.”

    The police presence is fairly discrete on the floor with the rooms, but every now and then the police officers can be heard calling someone through the loud-speakers that have been installed in the building. “We use it to call people who have a visit or a meeting. It helps us avoid having to run through the hallways to find them,” Berquier, the head of ZAPI, explains while showing us around the premises. “There are 67 rooms. Some are reserved for families, and others for people with reduced mobility […] There’s also an area reserved for unaccompanied minors and an area with games for them and for families.”

    La ZAPI compte au total une soixantaine de chambres Crdit InfoMigrants

    ‘Things can be improved’

    The atmosphere at ZAPI is calm, almost peaceful. Until Youssef, an Algerian who’s been held there for four days, turns up. He seems to be on his guard, and appears quite tense. “I’m still waiting for my suitcase, I don’t have any clothes to change with,” he complains and lights a cigarette. “The Red Cross is helping me out.” It can take several days for a person who’ve been placed in ZAPI to have their personal belongings returned to them. Checked-in luggage first has to be located and then controlled… During this period, the Red Cross does what it can in terms of clothing, offering T-shirts and underwear.

    Marty finds the situation with the luggage deplorable. “It’s evident that not everything is perfect, there are things that can be improved,” he admits. “To have a suitcase speedily returned to someone at ZAPI is among the things where progress can be made.”

    Returning home

    Audrey from Gabon and Youssef from Algeria, who have both found themselves blocked in this no-man’s land, have more or less the same story to tell. Both of them claim they came to France to visit family, insisting they did not intend to enter the country illegally. “But now, my situation isn’t very good,” the young woman says. Did she really come for the “tourist visit” she claims? Or did she try her chance at entering France by sneaking through the controls (customs)? It’s hard to know. The police have the same doubts when it comes to Youssef. “I came here to visit family, but I had a problem with my return ticket which didn’t match my visa,” he explains. Youssef says he wants to try to regularize his documents – “to buy a return ticket that conforms to the conditions” – in order to leave ZAPI and thereafter enter France. Audrey, on the other hand, says she has “given up”. She wants to go home now.

    The PAF sometimes comes across “people who ask to go home because they understand that their entry into France is compromised,” Marty explains. The costs of such returns are normally taken out of the pocket of the airline that flew the foreigner in question to France in the first place, and is undoubtedly a way for authorities to sanction the airlines and force them to be more vigilant when it comes to checking their passengers’ travel documents.

    The risk of failing an attempt to enter a country illegally is often higher for those who try to do so via air travel. “It’s an expensive trip, you have to pay for the ticket as well as the forged passport you need to fool the authorities, and this is before having to take the rigorous controls at the airports into account,” Marty says.

    The nationalities of migrants arriving by plane are often different from those who try to reach Europe by sea or by land. “The people at ZAPI are mainly from South America, Honduras, Brazil, and Nicaragua. Also from China and Russia. Some also come from North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa, but they are fewer in numbers.” On this particular day, the people in ZAPI’s courtyard are from Gabon, Chad, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, and South America.

    ’The aim is to deport’

    ZAPI also houses people seeking asylum. “There are people who demand protection in France as soon as they step off the plane,” Marty explains. “They tell border police […] Everything has been organized so that they know they have the right to demand asylum and that we’re ready to help them in their attempt to do so.”

    Charlene Cuartero-Saez works for Anafé, an association that helps foreigners who have been blocked between borders, and which has an office at ZAPI. She almost chokes when she hears the “model” description of the facility that Marty has given, saying it is far from the benevolent place he has been talking about.

    Cuartero-Saez has her desk in room 38 of the building, which has been converted into an Anafé office, Cuartero-Saez lists the different dysfunctions of the place: the poor ventilation, the restricted outdoor access, cameras in the communal areas, no laundry room… “It’s true that here, the material conditions are less difficult than elsewhere. Charles de Gaulle’s ZAPI is a bit like the display window for other ‘waiting zones’ in France. But that doesn’t prevent people from having their rights flouted, especially here.”

    ’Some are sent back just a few hours after their arrival in France’

    “[Police] say that people are informed of their rights in their native language, but in my opinion that is not always true. Many [officers] work on the principle that if the migrants speaks a few words of English, he or she doesn’t need an interpreter.”

    Anafé is also alarmed over the fast-speed returns of “ZAPIsts” – despite the existence of a “clear day” which normally gives a person 24 hours of respite at ZAPI. “This ‘clear day’ exists, yes, but you only get it if you ask for it! Many people don’t even know what it is,” Cuartero-Saez says. “There have been cases where people have been sent back to their countries just a few hours after arriving in France.”

    The law stipulates that asylum request can be filed at any moment – and thereby suspending an imminent deportation. In those cases, an Ofpra official comes to ZAPI to carry out a pre-assessment of the person’s request. The interview doesn’t decide on the asylum application itself, but evaluates the pertinence of the demand. A decision should be made within 20 days. If the demand is rejected, a deportation is imminent. A person filing a demand for asylum while at ZAPI can therefore receive a definite response within just a few days, whereas the average waiting time in France is between two and eight months or even more, depending on the case.

    Ces trois jeunes Sri-Lankais ont dpos une demande dasile aux frontires Crdit InfoMigrants

    “The aim of keeping [people in] this waiting area is to be able deport them, Cuartero-Saez states, and gives three asylum-seeking Sri Lankans who are currently staying at ZAPI as an example. The three men – all under the age of 30 – are in the courtyard and explain how they fear for their lives because they’re members of the separatist Tamil Tigers (LTTE) movement. All three have just been notified that their demands for asylum have been rejected.

    They show their rejection letters while seated on a bench in the sunshine. They speak neither French nor English and they don’t seem to know what to do next. They’ve been there for two weeks now. “We told them that they can appeal the decision. They didn’t know they could do that, no one had informed them of that,” Cuartero-Saez says.

    The three Tamils appear to be quite lost. They don’t seem to understand that they could face imminent deportation. In five days’ time, their retention at ZAPI will expire. “We don’t want to go back to Sri Lanka,” they say smiling. “We want to stay in France.”

    Aja, from Chad, and her two small daughters are in the same situation. They have been held at ZAPI for four days. Aja doesn’t want them to be returned to Chad, but she doesn’t want to demand asylum either. “I think I had a problem with money… That’s why they’re keeping me here. I’m here as a tourist,” she says, but adds that she “would very much like” to stay in France if it was possible. Because of this deadlock, she and her daughters also risk deportation.

    For those staying at ZAPI, the place is not synonymous with neither violence nor mistreatment but rather anxiety. At any given moment, PAF officers can try to force someone at ZAPI onboard a plane. “We have examples of people who don’t manage to register their asylum request in time,” Cuartero-Saez at Anafé says. “When the demand hasn’t been registered, the process is never launched… And so, without recourse, a person can be sent back in less than four days without even knowing his or her rights.”

    http://www.infomigrants.net/en/webdoc/146/no-man-s-land-at-paris-airport-where-france-keeps-foreigners-who-ve-be
    #Paris #aéroport #zone_de_transit #limbe #asile #migrations #réfugiés #déboutés #renvois #expulsions #détention #rétention #détention_administrative


  • « Prisonniers du passage » : une ethnographie de la #détention_frontalière en #France

    A partir des années 1980, les conditions d’entrée dans les pays européens deviennent plus restrictives. Amorçant ce qui est désormais devenu la norme en Europe quels que soient les gouvernements, les politiques publiques migratoires se caractérisent par l’arrêt de l’immigration de travail, le durcissement des critères d’attribution de l’asile politique, l’expulsion des étrangers irréguliers ou ayant reçu une condamnation pénale et les modifications du code de la nationalité. Par ailleurs, dans le processus de construction européenne, la gestion des circulations s’organise à travers un régime double et différentiel, de libre circulation des personnes à l’intérieur de l’espace européen, et de construction renforcée des frontières extérieures. Ce cadre européen met en place un espace stratifié et complexe qui saisit les acteurs de la circulation dans un quadrillage de pratiques et de normes. Cet espace est fait de superpositions, de différences nationales, selon la culture et l’histoire de chaque pays européen, et d’homogénéisations – notamment à travers les accords de Schengen en 1985 et 1990 et le règlement de Dublin1 dont la troisième mouture est en vigueur, la quatrième en préparation.
    2

    Dans ce contexte, le contrôle des voyageurs et des migrants passe couramment par leur enfermement dans des espaces plus ou moins pénitentiaires. En France, la zone d’attente est une zone extraterritoriale de détention où les étrangers refusés à la frontière sont maintenus en attente de leur admission ou de leur « refoulement » pour une période allant jusqu’à vingt jours. Les zones d’attente sont situées dans ou à proximité des zones internationales aéroportuaires, portuaires, routières ou ferroviaires. En tant qu’assistante juridique pour l’Association nationale d’assistance aux frontières pour les étrangers (Anafé), j’ai eu accès à l’intérieur de la zone d’attente, où j’ai mené une observation de 2004 à 20082 . Cette ethnographie d’une forme particulière de contrôle s’offre comme point de départ pour réfléchir sur le régime mis en place en Europe depuis quelques décennies en partant des différents espaces par lesquels ce régime procède.
    « Une frontière, c’est quoi ? Juste une ligne, rien de plus »
    3

    Comment se retrouve-t-on détenu « à la » frontière ? Que s’y passe-t-il ? Comment en sort-on ? Et qu’y a-t-il de l’autre côté ? La mise au ban dont témoignent les centres fermés aux frontières est une réalité difficile à saisir : les barrières instituées de l’illégalité, les enjeux de clandestinité, d’anonymat, d’identification font qu’en pratique, ce parcours ne se raconte pas et se dérobe face à l’observation empirique. En s’appuyant sur les expériences vécues d’enfermement et de circulation qui se tissent autour du maintien en zone d’attente, il s’agit d’approcher cette réalité en sondant les lieux par où les individus transitent et les techniques qui mettent en branle leur circulation faite de passages, d’immobilisations et de retours. Cette « errance individuelle »3 , dans la rugosité de ses parcours improbables, nous renseigne en retour sur l’évolution de l’espace public, du rapport au temps et au (non-)lieu qui fondent une modalité inédite de l’inclusion dans l’organisation politique étatique. Imaginons donc un parcours fait de multitude de parcours : un collage d’expériences qui fait surgir les nœuds du voyage et trace les possibles, suit les bifurcations, pointe les tensions. Entrons dans le dispositif.

    Kadiatou Fassi est née à Conakry en Guinée il y a seize ans. Son père était venu d’un village pour étudier dans la capitale, qu’il n’a plus quittée. Sa mère a rejoint son mari en ville après le mariage, mais « elle n’a pas duré » : elle est morte un peu après la naissance de sa fille. Le père de Kadiatou tenait un commerce, et la situation n’était pas mauvaise. Lors des grèves de 20074 , alors qu’on avait déclaré l’état de siège et le couvre-feu – Kadiatou préparait le dîner dans la cour – Monsieur Fassi est blessé par balle lors d’une émeute dans la rue commerçante où se trouve sa boutique. Il meurt.
    5

    Après l’enterrement de son père, Kadiatou rencontre un de ses anciens clients, qui lui propose de l’aider à partir du pays. Kadiatou sait qu’une cousine maternelle est en France, et elle rêve de s’appuyer sur cette cousine pour venir en France elle aussi. Elle explique son projet, pour lequel elle dispose de l’héritage laissé par son père. L’homme répond que cela tombe bien : il doit aussi se rendre en France. Il lui demande où est sa cousine. Elle ne le sait pas, mais elle a son numéro de téléphone. Kadiatou possède cinq millions de francs (CFA). Le client lui demande trois millions et fait fabriquer un passeport pour Kadiatou : il va devoir changer sa date de naissance pour qu’elle apparaisse comme majeure. Kadiatou accepte. Le client vient ensuite chercher le reste de l’argent : 2 millions. Kadiatou Fassi prend l’avion avec le client de son père, qui s’est occupé de ses papiers d’identité, de son billet d’avion, pour lequel il faut présenter un passeport et un visa, et de leur passage aux comptoirs de vérification à l’aéroport de Conakry.
    6

    Ils débarquent dans un pays dont elle n’a jamais entendu parler : l’Ukraine. Elle ne connaît personne et ne comprend pas la langue ; elle demande au client de l’emmener chez sa cousine. Il lui demande d’attendre. Il la loge à Kiev, à l’arrière d’un restaurant. Il vient la voir parfois. Deux semaines passent : Kadiatou redemande au client de l’emmener chez sa cousine, comme c’était prévu. Les visites du client s’espacent. Puis il revient, accompagné d’autres hommes. Il déclare à Kadiatou qu’elle doit payer le reste de son voyage. Un jour, il lui rend son passeport, le billet de retour et lui annonce qu’elle rentrera seule le mardi suivant. Elle lui répond qu’elle ne sait pas prendre l’avion. L’homme la fait monter dans un taxi et l’accompagne à l’aéroport : il écrit le nom de la compagnie aérienne, avec lequel Kadiatou Fassi embarque sans encombre pour le voyage du retour : Kiev-Conakri avec une escale à Paris5 .

    Jana Fadhil, son mari Iman et son fils de quatre ans sont arrivés de Damas où ils s’étaient installés après leur départ de Bagdad. Celui qui a organisé leur voyage leur demande de l’attendre à la descente de l’avion, le temps d’emmener leurs passeports et leurs formulaires de douane auprès de ses « connaissances » parmi les policiers, pour les faire tamponner. Leur voyage a coûté 13 000 euros, payables en deux fois. Ils ont avec eux 5 000 euros, la deuxième partie de la somme, qu’ils remettent comme convenu à leur accompagnateur dès leur arrivée à Roissy, et quelques centaines d’euros pour leur séjour. Au bout de quelques heures, voyant que l’homme ne revient pas, Iman part le chercher de-ci, de-là dans le terminal : perdus dans l’aéroport, ils tournent en rond et marchent. Ils restent à attendre dans le hall du terminal avant les douanes jusqu’au soir. Jana Fadhil est enceinte de sept mois. Elle et son fils s’allongent sur le sol ; son mari dort sur une chaise. Ils se nourrissent au comptoir snack du terminal : une bouteille d’eau coûte 4,5 euros, un gâteau, 1,5 euro. Le jour suivant, ils ont déjà dépensé 260 euros en nourriture et téléphone et commencent à être à court d’argent. Dans l’après-midi suivant, Jana fait un malaise et prend peur de perdre son bébé : ils se dirigent vers les postes de douane. Ils restent deux heures devant un poste en essayant de capter l’attention des officiers qui vont et viennent. Finalement, l’un d’eux se tourne vers eux ; Iman lui dit en anglais :

    - Un homme nous a laissés ici.

    - Venez avec nous.

    8

    En escale à Paris, Kadiatou Fassi ne prend pas la correspondance pour Conakry. La police l’intercepte dans le terminal : elle est emmenée au poste pour un interrogatoire. Les policiers la questionnent sur son accompagnateur, lui demandent où il se trouve à présent. Dans l’après-midi, ils la conduisent au prochain vol vers Conakry. Kadiatou refuse de monter dans l’avion : elle dit à la police qu’elle ne sait plus comment vivre chez elle : comme elle a donné son argent pour venir, elle a été délogée de sa maison. Les policiers lui demandent à nouveau de monter dans l’avion, en la menaçant de lui mettre des menottes s’il elle ne le fait pas. Elle a peur et se met à pleurer. Ils la reconduisent dans le poste de police. Kadiatou attend dans une cellule fermée à clé, une vitre donne sur le couloir du poste. Il y a un banc en ciment et un téléphone au mur qui ne marche pas. Sans trop savoir de quoi il s’agit, Kadiatou Fassi se souvient qu’en Guinée, certains disaient qu’« il y a l’asile qu’on demande pour ne pas qu’on te retourne ». Un policier ouvre la porte quelques heures plus tard : elle lui demande de « l’aider à demander l’asile ». Au comptoir du poste, un policier imprime une série de documents, lui demande d’en signer certains et lui tend la pile de ses « papiers de police ». Trois agents la conduisent, en compagnie de plusieurs autres hommes, femmes et enfants, dans le centre de Zapi 3. Une employée de la Croix-Rouge les accueille à l’étage : elle leur donne à chacun des draps et une serviette, et leur montre leur chambre. Kadiatou Fassi a une chambre seule, dans la partie réservée aux « #mineurs_isolés ».

    Djibril Ba attend dans le couloir, assis sur le rebord d’une cabine de douche. En fin de matinée, une voix lui demande en anglais de descendre avec ses papiers de police. Il se rend au bureau de la Croix-Rouge qui se trouve à quelques mètres en disant qu’il vient d’être appelé. Une médiatrice lui dit qu’il doit descendre et sonner à l’interphone dans le hall, la police lui ouvrira. En bas, un policier lui ouvre : « police papers », puis l’accompagne le long d’un couloir au plafond immense jusqu’à une double porte électrifiée qu’il ouvre à l’aide de cartes magnétiques. Il se trouve dans un hall d’attente, dans lequel la lumière du jour entre par une porte vitrée qui donne sur une deuxième salle d’attente, à l’entrée du centre. Deux policiers sont assis à une petite table et discutent entre eux. Le hall donne sur plusieurs pièces : certaines sont réservées aux visites entre les maintenus et leur famille ou leur avocat ; d’autre aux entretiens de demande d’asile avec un agent de la division asile à la frontière. Djibril Ba attend sur les chaises alignées du hall, il est seul avec les deux policiers assis devant le petit bureau. Une porte s’ouvre au fond du couloir, un des policiers appelle Djibril et le fait entrer dans le bureau de l’agent de l’Ofpra. L’homme d’une trentaine d’années est assis derrière un ordinateur, dans un bureau très clair garni d’une grande fenêtre à poignées qui donne sur des haies d’arbustes. L’agent de l’Ofpra laisse d’abord Djibril parler, puis il lui pose quelques questions factuelles. Il fait des photocopies de sa carte de militant et de photos que Djibril Ba a emmenés avec lui. L’entretien dure une heure, puis Djibril est reconduit à travers les sas et les couloirs vers le centre d’hébergement à l’étage. Dans l’après-midi, Djibril Ba entend à nouveau son nom au haut-parleur : on lui demande de descendre avec ses papiers de police. Un policier le reconduit vers les bureaux de l’Ofpra, où l’attend le même agent :

    - Avez-vous un dernier mot à ajouter ?

    - Non, tout ce que je voulais dire, je l’ai dit. Je veux avoir l‘asile, car j’ai des problèmes dans mon pays.

    - Ok. Je photocopie tous vos documents et je les mets dans votre dossier pour le ministère de l’Intérieur. Mon avis est consultatif, mais ce sont eux qui prennent les décisions.6

    Djibril Ba remonte dans sa chambre. Dix minutes plus tard, il est appelé à descendre et il est reçu encore une fois dans le bureau par l’agent qui est accompagné cette fois d’un autre officier. On lui pose de nouvelles questions : Pourquoi a-t-il fui le Mali mais est-il arrivé par la Côte d’Ivoire ? Pourquoi est-il entré dans la rébellion ? À la fin de l’entretien, on lui redemande pourquoi il demande l’asile. Il l’explique à nouveau. Les deux hommes s’interrogent du regard et le second opine : « Ce sera tout merci ». L’entretien dure quelques minutes.

    Le lendemain de son entretien, James est appelé en bas avec ses papiers de police et ses bagages. Il a peur. Il ne veut pas descendre. Il me demande plusieurs fois pourquoi il doit descendre avec son sac. James est petit et coquet, un béret beige sur la tête, des bottines en crocodiles, une valise rigide grise métallisée. Il sent la crème hydratante. Il était syndicaliste à Lagos, au Nigeria. Il a demandé l’asile et attend une réponse. Il a retranscrit son récit d’asile sur quatre feuilles qui traînent sur sa table de nuit. Très peu de Nigérians obtiennent l’asile politique : le Nigeria fait partie des « principales nationalités des déboutés » de l’asile en France entre 2003 et 20077 . Il fait calmement, minutieusement son sac. Il me demande de l’attendre : il va aller aux toilettes. Après cinq bonnes minutes, il finit de boucler sa valise, plie les feuilles et les met dans sa poche. On descend ensemble. Je veux vérifier que sa notification de refus de demande d’asile ne lui sera pas remise au moment où ils vont l’emmener pour un embarquement forcé. Si c’est le cas, il faudra se plaindre à la police, car la notification doit avoir lieu avant l’embarquement. Mais ça ne changera rien pour James. Le problème est que je ne connais pas le nom de famille de James : ça sera difficile de déposer une plainte sans pouvoir donner le nom de famille du maintenu. Je n’ai pas le temps de demander le nom de James ; on est arrivé dans le hall du rez-de-chaussée, James a sonné, un policier a ouvert et lui a demandé ses papiers de police :

    - Oui c’est bon, veuillez me suivre.

    - Excu…

    J’essaie de placer un mot, mais la porte s’est déjà refermée sur moi. Je le laisse partir, je ne peux rien dire. Légalement, il n’y a rien d’anormal à ce qui vient de se passer. Louis, un demandeur d’asile nigérian que j’ai rencontré tout à l’heure nous a suivi dans le hall :

    - Qu’est-ce qui est arrivé à mon collègue ?

    - Je ne sais pas.

    Il me le demande plusieurs fois. Un policier en tenue d’escorte8 passe devant nous. Je lui demande s’il sait « où est parti le Nigérian ». « Quel Nigérian ? Quel est son nom ? Vous avez son numéro de MZA9 ? » Il ne peut pas m’aider s’il ne connait pas son nom ; mais il sait qu’un Nigérian a eu l’asile politique aujourd’hui. C’est rare. Je me demande si c’est James. Plus tard, depuis la fenêtre du bureau, je vois James mettre sa valise grise dans une voiture de la Croix-Rouge. Elle va le conduire au kiosque d’orientation de l’aéroport de Roissy pour ceux qui ont été admis à demander l’asile en France.
    11

    Au Terminal 1 de l’aéroport, au niveau des arrivées, derrière la porte à deux battants nº 24, accessible par les escaliers réservés au personnel technique, se trouve le bureau de la Croix-Rouge où Halima Seyum a été conduite après avoir été admise à sortir de zone d’attente au titre de l’asile. Une employée de la Croix-Rouge lui a remis une feuille listant les numéros de téléphone utiles pour son parcours d’asile : France terre d’asile, pour la domiciliation, la préfecture de la Seine Saint-Denis, pour le dépôt de sa demande, la Cimade, ouverte tous les mardis matins à partir de 8 h (prévoir d’être sur place une heure avant), si elle a besoin de conseil juridique. L’employée explique à Halima que la police lui a remis un « récépissé » de demande d’asile. Elle doit absolument se présenter à la préfecture d’ici huit jours pour enregistrer sa demande (l’examen en zone d’attente est une présélection qui l’a uniquement admise à présenter sa demande d’asile : la procédure reste entièrement à faire). Elle doit d’abord disposer d’une adresse. À ce sujet, elle devra se présenter à l’association France terre d’asile, qui la domiciliera : elle passera tous les deux jours vérifier le courrier administratif qui lui sera dès lors envoyé à cette adresse. Mais il reste à trouver un hébergement. Je reçois l’appel d’une assistante sociale de la Croix-Rouge à Roissy, de la part d’Halima Seyum. En effet, oui, je la connais : je l’ai aidée à préparer son entretien de demande d’asile (je l’ai « briefée ») et je lui ai laissé mes coordonnées. Halima ne sait pas où dormir ce soir : ils n’ont pas de place pour elle, est-ce que je pourrais l’accueillir ? Je dis que c’est impossible (je loge moi-même chez un ami).

    C’est bien ce que je pensais… On va essayer de lui trouver une place à l’Aftam 93, les foyers pour demandeurs d’asile ; mais tout est plein en ce moment. Au pire, on lui trouvera une chambre d’hôtel pour ce soir.

    12

    À 6 h du matin, un groupe de maintenus est conduit de la zone d’attente vers le Tribunal de grande instance. En début d’après-midi, les maintenus sont accompagnés par une dizaine de policiers dans la salle des audiences du 35 quater, où un juge des libertés et de la détention examine la légalité de leur procédure de détention, et se prononce sur le prolongement de leur maintien en zone d’attente. Jana Fadhil a été hospitalisée le lendemain de son transfert en zone d’attente ; l’avocat commis d’office présente au juge le certificat médical établi à l’hôpital en insistant sur les problèmes de santé de Jana, enceinte, et d’Iman, diabétique. Le juge décide de ne pas prolonger le maintien de la famille. À la sortie de l’audience, Jana, Iman et leur fils se font indiquer la direction du métro vers Paris.

    La cousine de Kadiatou Fassi est venue à l’audience du 35 quater avec les documents que l’avocat lui a demandé d’apporter : un certificat de naissance pour attester de ses liens de famille avec Kadiatou ; un avis d’imposition qui prouve qu’elle a des ressources suffisantes pour s’en porter garante. Mais Kadiatou n’est pas présentée au juge ce jour-là. Sa cousine appelle la zone d’attente, où un officier lui explique que Kadiatou Fassi a « bien été réacheminée » vers Conakry la veille.

    Djibril Ba a contacté un avocat avec l’aide d’un cousin en France dont il avait les coordonnées. Celui-ci lui a demandé 900 euros d’honoraires et a exigé l’intégralité de la somme d’avance. Durant l’audience, il soulève quelques points de procédure ; le juge décide cependant de maintenir Djibril Ba (comme toutes les autres personnes qui lui sont présentées ce jour-là) en zone d’attente, « attendu que l’intéressé a formé une demande d’asile [qui] est en cours d’examen ».
    14

    Quatre jours après avoir eu un entretien d’asile, Abdi Hossein est appelé par la police. L’officier qui lui ouvre le fait entrer et l’accompagne jusqu’à un bureau. Un agent imprime deux feuilles, et lui demande de signer en bas de la seconde. Puis on le raccompagne dans le hall.

    Considérant que X… se disant M. Abdi Hossein déclare qu’il serait de nationalité somalienne, qu’il serait né et résiderait à Afgoy, qu’il serait cultivateur, qu’il serait membre du clan minoritaire Sheikhal et du sous-clan Djazira, que le clan Habar Guidir serait majoritaire à Afgoy, que par crainte pour sa sécurité il ne serait pas beaucoup sorti de son domicile, qu’en décembre 2006, son père aurait été assassiné par balle en sa présence, devant la porte de sa boutique, par un groupe armé appartenant au clan Habar Guidir qui voulait extorquer son argent ; que ces miliciens connaîtraient ce quartier, viendraient enlever des personnes et les déposséder de leur bien, que suite à cet événement et en raison de la guerre civile, il aurait décidé de quitter son pays ; qu’un ami de son père lui aurait conseillé de se rendre en France afin d’y solliciter l’asile et aurait organisé son voyage via le Kenya ;

    Considérant toutefois que le récit de l’intéressé qui prétend être de nationalité somalienne et fuir son pays afin de sauvegarder sa sécurité n’emporte pas la conviction, que ses déclarations revêtent un caractère convenu, imprécis et dénué de spontanéité, notamment en ce qui concerne les circonstances dans lesquelles son père aurait été assassiné, en sa présence, en décembre 2006, par des personnes armées appartenant au clan de Habar Guidir, que de plus il reste très évasif à propos de la politique récente à Afgoy où il affirme pourtant avoir toujours résidé et de cette zone géographique – il ignore jusqu’aux noms des principaux quartiers de sa ville, que de surcroît il n’est guère plus explicite s’agissant des conditions dans lesquelles il aurait quitté son pays, qu’enfin il n’apport aucune explication sur son départ du Kenya et se borne à indiquer qu’il aurait suivi le conseil d’un ami de son père lui recommandant de solliciter l’asile en France, que l’ensemble de ces éléments incite à penser que contrairement à ce qu’il affirme, il n’est pas originaire de Somalie, que dès lors, sa demande ne saurait aboutir ;

    Qu’en conséquence, la demande d’accès au territoire français formulée au titre de l’asile par X… se disant M. Abdi Hossein doit être regardée comme manifestement infondée.

    Considérant qu’il y a lieu en application de l’article L.213-4 du Code d’entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d’asile, de prescrire son réacheminement vers le territoire de la Somalie ou, le cas échéant, vers tout territoire où il sera légalement admissible.

    15

    Abdi Hossein se rend au bureau de la Croix-Rouge pour comprendre ce qu’il y a écrit sur le document que la police vient de lui remettre. Un employé de la Croix-Rouge lui conseille d’aller au bureau de l’Anafé, au fond du couloir. Lise Blasco, bénévole à l’Anafé, reçoit Abdi et lui explique son rejet de demande d’asile, avec l’aide d’un traducteur bénévole en somali, contacté par téléphone. Elle décide de présenter un recours juridique devant le Tribunal administratif pour contester le rejet de la demande d’asile d’Abdi. À nouveau, elle interroge longuement Abdi Hossein avec l’aide de l’interprète. Puis elle l’accompagne à l’infirmerie du centre, afin que le médecin de garde lui établisse un certificat médical attestant des impacts de balle qu’Abdi dit avoir reçu dans chaque jambe. Ensuite, Lise Blasco ferme la porte du bureau à clé et se met à rédiger le référé qu’elle faxe aux greffes du Tribunal administratif en début de soirée. Quelques heures plus tard, Abdi Hossein est appelé à descendre avec ses bagages.
    16

    Amadou Mporé arrive ému dans le bureau. Il s’assoit devant moi et sort de sa poche une boule de tissu, un débardeur déchiré, en sang, qu’il pose sur la table.

    À 10 h du matin, je suis appelé en bas avec mes bagages. Je descends avec mon sac et je sonne à l’interphone. Le policier me fait entrer dans une salle d’attente et me demande de patienter. Je reste assis deux heures. À l’appel du repas de midi, le policier me dit d’aller manger en laissant mon sac ici et me demande de revenir sonner après le repas. Il me raccompagne dans le hall où je rejoins les autres qui vont au réfectoire. À table, des gens me demandent ce que je faisais avec la police, où j’étais et pourquoi. Je ne parle pas : je ne les connais pas, et puis un policier surveille le réfectoire. Je reviens dans la salle d’attente vers 12 h 30. Deux policiers en uniforme bleu-marine, avec des Rangers aux pieds, des gants en cuir noir, une matraque à la ceinture, entrent peu après. Il me disent qu’ils vont m’emmener à l’aéroport : ‘Tout se passera bien si tu te tiens tranquille, mais si tu fais des difficultés, on va t’attacher’. Je crie, je ne veux pas qu’on m’attache. Les policiers se dirigent vers moi, ils sont au nombre de six. Ils ont été rejoints par leurs collègues en chemise bleu ciel et képi, qui étaient assis dans la salle d’attente. Ils ont commencé à m’attacher avec des bandes. Je criais : ‘Laissez-moi ! Laissez-moi !’ J’ai pleuré. J’ai enlevé ma chemise, je me suis trouvé en débardeur. Les policiers m’ont pris par le cou et m’ont renversé en avant. Je suis tombé le visage à terre, je me suis ouvert la lèvre. Ils se sont mis à frapper : ils ont piétiné ma jambe avec leurs chaussures, le tibia, le genou gauche, le pied droit. L’un d’entre eux a mis son genou sur ma joue, il a plaqué mon visage contre le sol. La bagarre a duré entre dix et vingt minutes peut-être. Une camionnette de police est venue se garer devant la porte de sortie qui relie le poste de police au parking, mais on ne m’y a pas emmené. Je suis allé m’asseoir. Certains policiers en tenue d’escorte et d’autres en chemise bleue claire ont voulu me donner un verre d’eau. J’ai dit : ‘Non, je ne veux pas d’eau’. J’ai pleuré, pleuré. Le jeune policier qui m’a donné l’eau m’a conseillé :

    - Prends un avocat.

    - Si j’avais volé, vous pouviez me faire ça. Mais je n’ai pas volé. Vous ne pouvez pas me faire ça. Je vais prendre un avocat. Je vais prendre un avocat.

    Les policiers me disent d’attendre. Je leur dis que je veux me laver. Un policier en bleu marine (un métis, costaud) m’a accompagné chez le médecin. Lui n’était pas là en même temps que les autres, il est venu plus tard avec la camionnette ; lui ne m’a pas touché. Dans le cabinet médical, une infirmière prend ma tension, un médecin m’ausculte, il me demande où j’ai mal. Il me donne un comprimé contre la douleur. Non, il ne me donne pas de certificat médical : ce qu’il a écrit, il l’a gardé pour lui. Puis je suis monté directement chez toi ici.

    Six jours après son arrivée en zone d’attente, Djibril Ba est appelé à descendre avec ses bagages. Il est menotté et escorté par trois agents de l’Unité nationale d’escorte, de soutien et d’intervention (UNESI) vers Bamako, où il est remis aux mains des officiers de la police locale.
    18

    À 23 h 15, Abdi Hossein est placé en garde à vue. Il comparaît deux jours plus tard devant la 17e chambre du Tribunal correctionnel pour « infraction d’entrée ou séjour irrégulier et soustraction à l’exécution d’une mesure de refus d’entrée en France ». Il est condamné à un mois de prison ferme et transféré à la prison de V.
    19

    Halima Seyum me rappelle depuis un foyer Emmaüs dans le 14e arrondissement de Paris. Elle y est logée pour une nuit seulement, car c’est un foyer d’urgence pour les gens sans domicile. Elle attend d’être placée dans un foyer Aftam 93. Je vais la voir dans son foyer vers 16 h. Il ressemble à une vieille école, un bâtiment qui date du début du vingtième siècle, une esthétique de lieux publique des années 1960 : linoléum gris, meubles en bois véritable dépareillés, chaises d’école aux barreaux gris vert métallisés, odeur de gras. Nous allons boire un café dans le réfectoire, sur des tables longues couvertes de nappes en plastique. Tout est propre et patiné, pas encore aligné sur les matières plastiques et les formes rondes grossières que l’on trouve partout dans le neuf aujourd’hui, et aussi en zone d’attente. Son récépissé de huit jours, dans le délai desquels elle doit faire une demande d’asile à la préfecture, expire le lendemain. Le responsable du centre dit qu’ils enverront d’ici là sa demande d’asile à la préfecture, le cachet de la poste faisant foi.
    20

    Quelques jours plus tard, le téléphone sonne. C’est un employé de l’hôtel « Première Classe » à D. qui m’appelle à la demande de Halima Seyum. Elle n’a pas eu de place au foyer Aftam, mais elle a désormais une chambre jusqu’au 30 avril dans cet l’hôtel, où l’Aftam a logé, sur le même étage, d’autres demandeurs d’asile n’ayant pas pu être hébergés en foyer. Situé à une sortie du périphérique extérieur, l’hôtel ressemble à un « Formule 1 » de luxe, avec des orchidées sur le comptoir, une salle à manger propre et avenante, des distributeurs de café, de gâteaux et toutes les commodités nécessaires à un service sans personnel. Des cars de touristes sont alignés sur le parking. Halima est inquiète pour la nourriture. À l’Aftam, on lui a donné vingt euros pour la semaine, et la semaine prochaine, on lui donnera encore vingt euros. Ce n’est pas beaucoup. Quand elle est revenue de l’Aftam, elle avait très faim, elle se sentait mal. Alors elle a acheté une part de pizza dans la rue, mais elle a dépensé quatre euros sur les vingt qu’elle possède pour la semaine ! Elle voudrait partir en Angleterre : elle parle l’anglais, mais pas un mot de français, et sa compagne de chambre lui a dit qu’on pouvait travailler là-bas. Demandeuse d’asile renvoyée de Belgique sous le règlement « Dublin II », cette dernière est en Europe depuis quelques années déjà, et connait la ville.
    21

    Il faut bien réfléchir à cette question de départ vers l’Angleterre. Halima a été admise à la frontière comme demandeuse d’asile, ce qui indique qu’elle a de bonnes chances d’obtenir l’asile – l’examen aux frontières est paradoxalement réputé plus difficile que l’examen de fond de la demande d’asile par l’Ofpra. Nous avons pris du café, nous sommes montées dans sa chambre, nous nous sommes assises sur son lit, dans une belle lumière de fin d’après-midi :

    La guerre entre l’Érythrée et la Somalie a fait beaucoup de morts. La guerre est bête. Nous vivons ici, eux vivent là-bas, et l’on décrète qu’il y a une frontière, là, et pour cette frontière, juste pour une ligne, on va s’entretuer, on va faire la guerre et tuer des milliers de gens. Pour cette ligne. Une frontière, c’est quoi ? Juste une ligne, rien de plus. La Somalie et l’Érythrée se sont disputées pour cette ligne, ils ont envoyé beaucoup de monde à la guerre, beaucoup de gens sont morts. Mes deux frères ont été envoyés à la guerre. Les deux : d’abord un, et puis ils sont venus chercher d’autres jeunes et ils ont pris le deuxième. Mes frères et sœurs avaient peur. On n’a eu aucune nouvelle. On ne savait pas où ils étaient : personne ne disait rien et les nouvelles non plus ne disaient rien. Il y a eu beaucoup de morts. Un jour, un train est arrivé, tout le monde est allé à la gare et l’on attendait les noms : ils lisaient une liste, et ceux qui étaient sur la liste, on savait qu’ils étaient morts. J’avais peur. J’ai attendu dans la peur et quand j’ai entendu le nom de mon frère, j’ai pleuré. Et je restais encore devant la liste. Et puis ils ont dit le nom de mon deuxième frère et je me suis évanouie. Les voisins m’ont ramenée à la maison. Mon père était très malade déjà à ce moment-là… Ah, ce ne sont pas des choses gaies. Excuse-moi, je t’ennuie en te racontant ces choses. Toi tu es ennuyée, mais moi ça me fait du bien, ça me soulage le cœur.

    On s’est dit au revoir en début de soirée. On s’est rappelées plus tard : je partais quelques semaines au Canada. Halima m’a souhaité bon voyage et m’a dit que si l’on ne se revoyait pas d’ici mon départ, elle me disait au revoir. Je suis passée à l’hôtel avant de partir, mais elle m’avait prévenue qu’elle ne serait sans doute pas là, parce qu’elles allaient, avec sa compagne de chambre, à l’Armée du salut pour chercher de la nourriture. Pas encore rentrée ? Déjà partie ? À mon retour du Canada en mai, j’ai appelé Pierre Gilles, du foyer Emmaüs, qui m’a amicalement donné le contact de la personne qui s’occupait de Halima à l’Aftam. Je l’ai appelé pour avoir des nouvelles ; il m’a dit un peu sèchement : « elle a disparu dans la nature ».

    #Confinement et #subjectivation

    Comment le contrôle frontalier fonctionne-t-il au quotidien ? Quelles fonctions garde-t-il dans une perspective à plus long terme de parcours dans le pays d’accueil ? Comment les gestions institutionnelles de la circulation produisent-elles de nouvelles façons de gouverner les non-nationaux, aussi bien « étrangers » qu’« apatrides » : ceux dont le lien à l’État et à la Nation est de fait suspendu ? Voici quelques questions qui se posent au regard des parcours esquissés. Chacun bien sûr entre dans ces apnées administratives avec son bagage : ses connaissances, ses résistances, ses références, ses ressources, ses peurs. Fereydoun Kian mesure deux mètres pour une centaine de kilos : il sera directement placé en garde à vue sans subir de tentative de renvoi sous escorte. Sylvie Kamanzi s’en tient fermement aux connaissances administratives qu’elle a développées au cours de dix ans d’exils successifs entre le Rwanda et la République Démocratique du Congo (RDC) : d’abord, ne pas laisser savoir que l’on est rwandaise ; ensuite, face aux extorsions et aux violences de la police, toujours refuser de se rendre à un interrogatoire et garder le silence. Ces leçons tirées de l’expérience la mèneront très vite à un malentendu indénouable avec l’administration et à son refoulement dans le premier avion du retour.
    23

    Si les personnes placées dans des centres de rétention administrative (CRA) pour les sans-papiers arrêtés sur le territoire français ont toutes fait l’expérience, quoique différente, d’une vie en France et souvent d’un parcours administratif10 , ceux qui débarquent des avions ne partagent aucune expérience commune. Il n’existe pas de seuil, même minimal, de connaissance partagée de la culture administrative nationale, de la culture matérielle globale qui prévaut dans les aéroports et les nouveaux centres aseptisés11 , des codes moraux et humanitaires de la démocratie occidentale12 ; pas de continent commun, de langue commune ni de formation politique identique. Comment comprendre l’expérience intime du maintien en zone d’attente en s’attachant à des situations et des trajets si variés, dont le vécu s’inscrit dans des grammaires culturelles, un univers symbolique, des savoirs pratiques différents ? Est-ce que le même mot de « maintenus » est suffisant pour conférer une situation commune à ce kaléidoscope d’expériences qui se croisent dans le temps court de la détention frontalière ?

    https://www.politika.io/fr/notice/prisonniers-du-passage-ethnographie-detention-frontaliere-france
    #frontières #rétention #détention_administrative #zone_d'attente #MNA #mineurs_non_accompagnés #disparitions #Guinée_Conakry #aéroport #Zapi_3 #Ofpra #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Croix-Rouge #Aftam_93 #police #violences_policières #Unité_nationale_d'escorte_de_soutien_et_d'intervention #UNESI #hébergement #logement #CRA #débouté #sans-papiers


  • Somali returned to Libya under Italian policy sets himself on fire

    A Somali man set himself on fire in a Libyan detention centre on Wednesday, according to fellow detainees and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM).

    The man, who is in his late 20s, reportedly doused himself in petrol from a generator in the centre and lit it, after telling friends he had lost hope of being relocated to a safe country.

    Sources told The Irish Times the man carried out the action after being told he had little chance of evacuation by visiting officials from the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR). The UNHCR said it was trying to verify this.

    IOM spokesman Joel Millman said the detainee had set himself on fire as an “act of protest”.

    “He was admitted into the hospital yesterday in Tripoli in the burn centre for intensive medical care. Our medical team visited him and informed the management that they are willing to support if it is needed,” he said.

    However, a fellow detainee said he believed the Somali man had died. “All refugees have [a] very bad feeling. Today [we’re] not eating at all because so many people have died.” This would be the eighth death in Triq al Sikka centre this year, according to the detainee.

    Tens of thousands of refugees and migrants have been returned to Libya since February 2017, when the country’s UN-backed government entered into a deal with Italy to prevent migration to Europe. Italian politicians have called the deal a success, because it has reduced the number of people arriving on their shores.
    Rife with abuse

    However, for the men, women and children returned to Libya, the situation is bleak. More than a dozen detainees across Tripoli contacted by phone have described detention centres rife with abuse, where they’re fed once a day at most, forced to work, and sometimes beaten or raped. Overcrowding has led to the spread of infectious diseases like tuberculosis.

    A Somali man set himself on fire in a Libyan detention centre on Wednesday, according to fellow detainees and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM).

    The man, who is in his late 20s, reportedly doused himself in petrol from a generator in the centre and lit it, after telling friends he had lost hope of being relocated to a safe country.

    Sources told The Irish Times the man carried out the action after being told he had little chance of evacuation by visiting officials from the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR). The UNHCR said it was trying to verify this.

    IOM spokesman Joel Millman said the detainee had set himself on fire as an “act of protest”.

    “He was admitted into the hospital yesterday in Tripoli in the burn centre for intensive medical care. Our medical team visited him and informed the management that they are willing to support if it is needed,” he said.

    However, a fellow detainee said he believed the Somali man had died. “All refugees have [a] very bad feeling. Today [we’re] not eating at all because so many people have died.” This would be the eighth death in #Triq_al-Sikka centre this year, according to the detainee.

    Tens of thousands of refugees and migrants have been returned to Libya since February 2017, when the country’s UN-backed government entered into a deal with Italy to prevent migration to Europe. Italian politicians have called the deal a success, because it has reduced the number of people arriving on their shores.

    Rife with abuse

    However, for the men, women and children returned to Libya, the situation is bleak. More than a dozen detainees across Tripoli contacted by phone have described detention centres rife with abuse, where they’re fed once a day at most, forced to work, and sometimes beaten or raped. Overcrowding has led to the spread of infectious diseases like tuberculosis.

    Those detained include pregnant women and children of all ages.

    Sources in #Zintan, a detention centre 180km southwest of Tripoli, said that four detainees have died there within the past month. They say the poor conditions, including a lack of sanitation, have caused or contributed to the deaths.

    In Tripoli, detainees in two centres said their families at home are being forced to send money for them to buy food because managers in the Libyan department for combating illegal immigration (DCIM)-run centres say there is no other way for them to eat.
    Cross the Mediterranean

    Many detainees’ families have already paid ransoms of more than $2,000 to smugglers who held them prisoner, regularly torturing them, before allowing them to attempt to cross the Mediterranean.

    One man said the manager in his centre withholds food depending on his mood and whims. “If the leader of the detention centre gets happy by something in his own personal situation he tries to serve us food, if [he] not get happy he tries to stop it.”

    In September, the UNHCR updated its policy to say Libya is no longer a safe country to return people to. The organisation is currently registering detainees from countries including Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan and Ethiopia, who cannot return home or are unwilling to because of conflict or fear of persecution. Many are hoping for evacuation from Libya, but the number of resettlement places currently offered by other countries is very limited.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/africa/somali-returned-to-libya-under-italian-policy-sets-himself-on-fire-1.367
    #décès #mort #asile #migrations #réfugiés #réfugiés_somaliens #Italie #expulsions #renvois Libye #détention #centre_de_détention #suicide


  • Scirocco : A Case Against Deportations

    EU governments are implementing security-oriented policies to govern migration. Higher walls, more controls, detention, expulsion. Deporting migrants to their country of origin will not tackle nor change people’s needs to migrate. Tunisians re-migrate to Italy short after being deported, as the uncertainty of travel is preferred to the certainty of unemployment and poverty.

    This animation tells the story of one to show the movement of many.
    Deportation is no deterrent to migration.

    https://vimeo.com/278007474


    #tunisie #migrations #vidéo #film #film_d'animation #remittances #fermeture_des_frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #smuggling #smugglers #mourir_en_mer #décès #morts #travail_au_noir #travail #économie #CIE #Italie #détention_administrative #renvois #expulsions #dissuasion #sans-papiers
    ping @_kg_

    • Deportation is no deterrent to migration - témoignage d’un migrant sfaxien rencontré à Briancon en janvier 2018 : « J’ai traversé la mer sept fois. Au début j’ai été renvoyé encore et encore. La septième fois le policier italien m’a dit ’Toi encore ? Vas-y ! On ne veut plus te voir ici’ et il m’a laissé rentrer en Italie »


  • Austria Immigration Detention

    Austria has sharply increased the number of people it places in immigration detention after years of declining detainee populations. While it continues the controversial practice of placing immigration detainees in “Police Detention Centres,” the country opened a new dedicated immigration detention centre in 2014, which is partly operated by the multinational security company #G4S. The country has also announced plans to significantly boost removals, focusing mainly on people from the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa.

    https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/countries/europe/austria?platform=hootsuite
    #autriche #détention_administrative #rétention #statistiques #chiffes #migrations #asile #réfugiés #privatisation


  • Turkey: Refugees at the Border Faced with Choice Between Detention and Return, Report Finds*

    A recent report from The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/oct/16/syrian-refugees-deported-from-turkey-back-to-war?CMP=share_btn_tw) documents increasing barriers to access to Turkish territory for Syrian refugees. People arriving at the border province of Hatay are pressured into signing “voluntary return” documents, advised by authorities that they are either to waive their right to seek protection or face indefinite detention.

    The Turkish Directorate General for Migration Management (DGMM) has stated to The Guardian that 250,000 Syrians have opted for voluntary return until now and that, in line with the principle of non-refoulement, no deportations of Syrians have been carried out. However human rights organisations have documented cases of arbitrary detention and deportation of Syrians from Hatay, as well as Iraqis from Van, and Afghans from Erzurum and Osmaniye, in the past two years. The reports corroborate allegations of coercion into signing voluntary return documents.

    According to the report, stricter controls on the movement of refugees within the country’s territory have resulted in Syrians being placed in Removal Centres such as Oğuzeli, in Gaziantep, with a view to deportation. So far this year, UNHCR has been contacted by 117 people detained in Gaziantep have been scheduled for deportation to Syria. Refugees detained in Removal Centres such as Gaziantep and Hatay face substandard living conditions, while various obstacles hinder lawyers’ access to them.

    Pre-removal detention is a persisting problem in Turkey, as judicial review of detention orders remains ineffective. A significant majority of magistrates’ court rulings on detention review continue to uphold DGMM detention orders without rigorous assessment, while courts often refrain from performing periodic reviews in accordance with the law.

    https://www.ecre.org/turkey-refugees-at-the-border-faced-with-choice-between-detention-and-return-r
    #réfugiés #refoulement #refoulements #asile #migrations #frontières #push-back #détention #Syrie #Turquie #réfugiés_syriens


  • L’équation des #refoulements en Libye : depuis le début #2018 près de 15000 boat-people ont été reconduits en #Libye où sont enregistrés plus de 56000 réfugiés et demandeurs d’asile. Parmi eux, en un an, 900 ont été réinstallés. Que deviennent les autres ?

    https://twitter.com/Migreurop/status/1053981625321771008

    #push-back #refoulement #statistiques #chiffres #Méditerranée #pull-back #réinstallation

    Source :
    Flash update Libya (UNHCR)

    Population Movements
    As of 11 October, the Libyan Coast Guard (LCG) rescued/intercepted 14,156 refugees and migrants (9,801 men, 2,126 women and 1,373 children) at sea during 108 operations. So far in 2018, the LCG recovered 99 bodies from the sea. The number of individualsdis embarked in Libya has gradually increased over the past weeks when compared to the month of August (552 individuals in August, 1,265 individuals in September and 884 individuals so far in October). An increase in disembarkations may be expected as the sea iscurrently very calm.
    During the reporting period, 174 refugees and migrants (163 men, eight women and three children) disembarked in #Alkhums (97 km southwest of Tripoli) and #Zawia (45 km west of Tripoli). The group was comprised mainly of Bangladeshi and Sudanese nationals. UNHCR and its partner International Medical Corps (IMC) provided core-relief items (CRIs) and vital medical assistance both at the disembarkation points and in the detention centres to which individuals were subsequently transferred by the authorities. So far in 2018, UNHCR has registered 11,401 refugees and asylum-seekers, bringing the total of individuals registered to 56,045.

    UNHCR Response
    On 9 October, #UNHCR in coordination with the municipality of Benghazi, distributed water tanks, medical waste disposal bins and wheel chairs to 14 hospitals and clinics in Benghazi. This was part of UNHCR’s quick-impact projects (#QIPs). QIPs are small, rapidly implemented projects intended to help create conditions for peaceful coexistence between displaced persons and their hosting communities. QIPs also strengthen the resilience of these communities. So far in 2018, UNHCR implemented 83 QIPs across Libya.
    On 8 October, UNHC partner #CESVI began a three-day school bag distribution campaign at its social centre in Tripoli. The aim is to reach 1,000 children with bags in preparation for the new school year. Due to the liquidity crisis in Libya, the price of school materials has increased over the past years. With this distribution, UNHCR hopes to mitigate the financial impact that the start of the school year has on refugee families.
    UNHCR estimates that 5,893 individuals are detained in Libya, of whom 3,964 are of concern to UNHCR. On 7 October, UNHCR visited #Abu-Slim detention centre to deliver humanitarian assistance and address the concerns of refugees and asylum-seekers held in the facility. UNHCR distributed non-food items including blankets, hygiene kits, dignity kits, sleeping mats and water to all detained individuals. UNHCR carried out a Q&A session with refugees and migrants to discuss UNHCR’s activities and possible solutions for persons of concern. Security permitting, UNHCR will resume its registration activities in detention centres over the coming days, targeting all persons of concern.
    So far in 2018, UNHCR conducted 982 visits to detention centres and registered 3,600 refugees and asylum-seekers. As of 10 October, UNHCR distributed 15,282 core-relief items to refugees and migrants held in detention centres in Libya.
    Throughits partner #IMC, UNHCR continues to provide medical assistance in detention centres in Libya. So far in 2018, IMC provided 21,548 primary health care consultations at the detention centres and 231 medical referrals to public hospitals. As conditions in detention remain extremely dire, UNHCR continues to advocate for alternatives to detention in Libya and for solutions in third countries. Since 1 September 2017, 901 individuals have been submitted for resettlement to eight States (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland).

    http://reporting.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/UNHCR%20Libya%20Flash%20Update%20-%205-12OCT18.pdf
    #réinstallation #détention #centres_de_détention #HCR #gardes-côtes_libyens

    ping @_kg_ @isskein


  • Invitation au rassemblement contre le renvoi d’Ayop - Vendredi 19 octobre, 18h aux canons

    #Ayop_Aziz, une des nombreuses victimes de l’#incendie meurtrier des #Tattes a été arrêté dimanche 7 octobre, jugé pour séjour illégal et condamné à 6 mois de détention administrative dans l’attente de son renvoi.

    Pour s’opposer à ce nouvel acte ignoble des autorités genevoises, et dans l’espoir qu’une forte mobilisation puisse conduire à sa libération et sa régularisation, Perce-Frontières appelle à un rassemblement ce vendredi 19 octobre à 18h, au canons devant l’Hôtel de Ville.

    Voici le texte diffusé par Perce-Frontières le 15.10.2018 :
    Ni détention ni renvoi, Ayop restera !

    Les autorités genevoises s’enfoncent dans leur déni de #responsabilité, de #justice et d’humanité.
    Ayop Aziz, l’une des victimes de l’incendie meurtrier des Tattes de 2014 a été arrêté dimanche 7 octobre et condamné dans la foulée à 6 mois de détention administrative dans l’attente de son renvoi au Nigeria. Les autorités genevoises sont donc prêtes à éliminer les derniers témoins de cette tragédie dont ils portent la responsabilité, et cela alors même que l’enquête traîne depuis 5 ans et que les victimes n’ont jamais reçu la moindre reconnaissance ni indemnisation.
    Dans la nuit du 16 au 17 novembre 2014, un incendie se déclare au foyer des Tattes, le plus grand lieu d’hébergement pour requérant.e.s d’asile de Suisse. Une personne y trouve la mort et des dizaines d’autres, sont gravement blessées, et en garderont les séquelles à vie.
    Ayop Aziz est l’une de ces victimes. En se défenestrant pour échapper aux flammes, il s’est fracturé le crâne et en garde une longue cicatrice sur le front. Les conséquences de cette blessure sont notamment des céphalées très graves qui exigent un suivi médical important et l’empêchent encore totalement de travailler.
    À l’automne 2015, une première tentative de renvoi avait été évitée grâce à une forte mobilisation. Après plusieurs rassemblement en ville et à l’aéroport, Pierre Maudet avait suspendu la procédure afin qu’Ayop puisse poursuivre ses soins. Dimanche 9 octobre, Ayop a de nouveau été arrêté puis jugé jeudi, et condamé à 6 mois de détention administrative dans l’attente de son renvoi au Nigeria, alors qu’il est originaire du Tchad. Il est enfermé au centre de détention de Frambois.
    La machine à expulser prend dans ce cas un visage stratégique. Cinq ans après l’incendie, l’enquête du Ministère public n’est toujours pas parvenue à son terme, et aucune des victimes, dont de nombreuses ont déjà été expulsées, n’a reçu la moindre reconnaissance ni indemnisation. La responsabilité de l’Hospice général et de l’État a été pourtant largement démontrée.
    L’état de délabrement du foyer comme des structures d’hébergement en général ainsi que la surpopulation virant à l’entassement des habitant.e.s est largement en cause. Suite à une expertise indépendante, un rapport a été publié en mai 2017 qui confirmait la défaillance du système de protection incendie du bâtiment. Il pointait également le verrouillage des voies de secours qui ont contraint les personnes piégées par les flammes à sauter de leurs fenêtres en même temps qu’elles empêchaient l’intervention des pompiers.
    Le renvoi d’Ayop s’inscrit donc dans la suite d’un long déni de responsabilité des autorités genevoises face à cette tragédie et à ses conséquences mortelles, d’un déni de justice à l’égard des victimes, et d’un déni d’humanité dans les moyens qu’elles mettent en œuvre pour éliminer les derniers témoins du drame. Mauro Poggia, qui était en charge de l’Hospice général au moment de l’incendie et dont la responsabilité est donc directement engagée est aujourd’hui chef de la police. Il aura donc la lourde responsabilité de mettre en œuvre un renvoi ordonné par l’OCPM, toujours aux mains de Pierre Maudet, et de porter le poids de cette abjection. Seule une forte mobilisation peut maintenant faire plier les autorités, et nous sommes déterminé.e.s à la mener !
    Nous exigeons :
    – La libération immédiate d’Ayop et sa régularisation, ainsi que celle des autres victimes de l’incendie.
    – La reconnaissance par les autorités de leurs responsabilité et l’indemnisation des victimes de l’incendie des Tattes.
    Contre le mépris des autorités et leurs politiques ignobles !
    Contre tous les renvois !
    Contre les centres de détention et le futur centre fédéral !
    Ayop restera !

    #Genève #Suisse #détention_administrative #rétention #asile #migrations #réfugiés #renvoi #expulsion

    • A l’époque de l’incendie, j’avais écrit ce texte, qui a été publié sur le site de @vivre :
      Ayop se lève tôt, heureusement…

      Ayop est un lève-tôt, dit son avocat. Heureusement pour lui. Car ce n’est que grâce à cela que la police ne l’a pas trouvé, quand elle est venue le chercher tôt ce matin du 26 mars 2015.

      Mais la Déesse de la Fortune n’est à vos côtés qu’une fois, généralement. Ayop, ce n’est que ce matin très tôt que la Déesse l’a protégé. Elle n’était pas là, à ses côtés, quand la nuit du 16 au 17 novembre il a dû se défenestrer du troisième étage du centre pour demandeurs d’asile des Tattes, à Genève, pour échapper aux flammes.

      En se jetant de la fenêtre, Ayop s’est grièvement blessé. Lui comme une quarantaine d’autres personnes. Un jeune érythréen, lui, a eu moins de chance. Il y a perdu la vie. Cela ne faisait que quelques mois qu’il était en Suisse. Il a survécu à la Méditerranée. Pas à la Suisse.

      Ayop est sous traitement médical pour les suites de l’incendie.

      Ayop est entré en Europe en passant par l’Espagne. Le Règlement Dublin dit : c’est en Espagne qu’Ayop doit voir sa demande d’asile traitée. La Suisse a jusqu’à lundi prochain pour exécuter son renvoi vers l’Espagne. Elle peut aussi y renoncer, selon le règlement Dublin. Genève pourrait s’opposer à l’exécution de ce renvoi. Genève a le devoir de s’y opposer. Mais Genève a préféré le silence, la non-réponse aux 2’200 signatures de citoyennes et citoyens qui ont été choqués d’apprendre que le Département dirigé par M. Maudet voulait le renvoyer. C’est moi qui ai centralisé la récolte des signatures. J’attendais tous les jours une réponse du Conseil d’Etat. Une réponse qui n’est jamais arrivée. Car peut-être, en sourdine, on préparait la meilleure stratégie pour arrêter Ayop.

      Ayop est un demandeur d’asile dont le dossier devrait être traité par l’Espagne. Mais Ayop est aussi une victime de ce terrible incendie survenu peu avant Noël. C’est pour cela qu’à 10 heures il devait se rendre au Ministère public. Pour être entendu comme témoin. C’est là que son avocat l’attendait.

      Là où Ayop n’est jamais arrivé.

      Car Ayop, entre-temps, a été arrêté par la police. Quand la Déesse de la Fortune l’a abandonné à son sort. Ayop se lève tôt, et a très tôt quitté son lieu d’hébergement. Mais aujourd’hui il aurait dû se rendre au Ministère public. C’est pour cela qu’à 9 heures il retourne aux Tattes. Toutes les victimes ont décidé de se donner rendez-vous aux Tattes pour aller ensemble au Ministère public.

      Tous y étaient. Sauf Ayop.

      Un agent de sécurité le reconnaît, quand Ayop retourne aux Tattes. Il appelle la police. La police répond présent. Ayop est arrêté et amené dans un poste de police. Il sera interrogé, sans avocat. Son avocat, lui, est en train d’écouter les auditions au Ministère public.

      Des citoyens se mobilisent, vont à l’aéroport. Ils seront arrêtés, mais vite relâchés. Ayop, lui, sera amené jusqu’à l’avion. Il résiste. Le comandant de bord refuse de l’embarquer. Sursit. Ce n’est pas sur ce vol qu’Ayop sera envoyé en Espagne.

      Les auditions continuent au Ministère public. Ayop ne pourra pas témoigner. Pourtant, ce sont les témoignages comme celui d’Ayop qui permettront de savoir ce qui s’est réellement passé lors de l’incendie des Tattes. D’établir les responsabilités. L’Etat de Genève est aussi incriminé dans cette affaire. Car le rapport des pompiers dit clairement qu’aux Tattes “des problèmes techniques ont été constatés”, que les “fenêtres étaient condamnés par des vis” et “les exutoires de fumées sous-dimensionnés”.

      Ayop a le droit d’être entendu. A le droit de rester à Genève tant que la justice ne fait toute la lumière sur cet événement tragique. Il a aussi le droit d’être indemnisé correctement pour le tort subi. L’Etat a le devoir de s’occuper de son état de santé. Délai Dublin ou pas.

      L’avocat d’Ayop expose à la presse et aux personnes venues en nombre pour crier “Stop renvois. Ayop restera” que demain Ayop pourra être mis sur un autre avion au départ de l’Espagne. Ou alors qu’il pourra être détenu à Champ-Dollon, car il n’a pas collaboré avec les forces de l’ordre lors de son renvoi, ce qui lui vaut une sanction pénale. Ou être mis en détention administrative, en attente d’un renvoi, par vol ordinaire, ou par vol spécial.

      L’avion qui emportera Ayop en Espagne n’emportera pas seulement un jeune homme. Il emportera aussi une victime et un témoin. L’Etat de Genève pense ainsi pouvoir se décharger de toute responsabilité. Dans son aveuglement, il ne voit pas que les habitantes et habitants de Genève sont toujours plus nombreuses et nombreux à se mobiliser. Pour des conditions d’hébergement dignes. Contre les bunkers. Contre le renvoi d’Ayop.

      Si la Déesse de la Fortune devait ne plus être aux côtés d’Ayop, des citoyens en colère le seront. Pour que justice soit faite.

      https://asile.ch/2015/03/27/ayop-se-leve-tot-heureusement



  • Aldo le Gitan (Documentaire) - YouTube
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvDsHpItSYw

    Aldo le gitan est un documentaire exclusif dans l’intimité du quintuple champion de France poids lourds Cyril Léonet et de sa famille : la communauté des gens du voyage. Le rêve du boxeur ? Affronter le champion olympique Tony Yoka. Mais sur sa route, il a d’abord un combat à mener contre le jeune Raphaël Tronché, invaincu lors de ses 8 derniers combats. Réalisé par Inès Belgacem et Matthieu Bidan

    2ème partie : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBarfoLP3K8

    Excellent reportage en 2 parties, très touchant. Cyril Léonet, un grand bonhomme, grand boxeur d’anglaise. On y voit les coulisses de la boxe, le travail de proximité avec les jeunes (une séquence tellement émouvante), les conditions de vie des gens du voyage, le rapport aux coups, la fraternité, la prison… l’âpreté de ce sport loin des paillettes des medias.

    #boxe #Léonet #Yoka #Tronché #gens_du_voyage #prison #détention


  • The UK Border Regime

    Throughout history, human beings have migrated. To escape war, oppression and poverty, to make a better life, to follow their own dreams. But since the start of the 20th century, modern governments have found ever more vicious ways to stop people moving freely.

    The UK border regime includes the razor wire fences at #Calais, the limbo of the asylum system, and the open #violence of raids and deportations. Alongside the #Home_Office, it includes the companies running databases and detention centres, the media pushing hate speech, and the politicians posturing to win votes. It keeps on escalating, through Tony Blair’s war on refugees to Theresa May’s “#hostile_environment”, spreading fear and division.

    This book describes and analyses the UK’s system of immigration controls. It looks at how it has developed through recent history, the different actors involved, and how people resist. The aim is to help understand the border regime, and ask how we can fight it effectively.


    https://corporatewatch.org/new-book-the-uk-border-regime
    #livre #frontières #régime_frontalier #UK #Angleterre #limbe #barrières_frontalières #externalisation #France #renvois #expulsions #déportations #résistance #migrations #asile #réfugiés #détention_administrative #rétention #privatisation


  • New Satellite Imagery Shows Growth in Detention Camps for Children

    A satellite image taken on September 13, 2018, shows substantial growth in the tent city the US government is using to detain migrant children located in the desert in #Tornillo, #Texas.

    The tent city was originally used to house children separated from parents this summer, when the Trump administration was aggressively prosecuting parents traveling with children for illegal entry to the US. The US Department of Health and Human Services has stated that the new growth in the number of tents is necessary in order to house children who may cross the border on their own, unaccompanied by family members.

    The image from September 13, 2018 shows that since June 19th, the date of a previous satellite image, the number of tent shelters has nearly quadrupled, from 28 to 101 tents. At a reported capacity of 20 children per tent, the tent city can currently house 2,020 children, which is only half of the government’s stated goal of 3,800 beds at the Tornillo facility. In addition to the completed tents, there are numerous tents that can be seen currently under construction as well as several larger buildings that have recently been built.

    “Children should not be detained, since locking up kids harms their health and development,” said Alison Parker, US managing director of Human Rights Watch. “There are safe and viable alternatives to detaining children that the US government should put to use immediately.”


    https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/03/new-satellite-imagery-shows-growth-detention-camps-children
    #rétention #détention #camps #asile #migrations #réfugiés #enfants #enfance #images_satellitaires #USA #frontières #Etats-Unis

    • *The Ongoing, Avoidable Horror of the Trump

      Administration’s Texas Tent Camp for Migrant Kids*
      The detention camp for migrant kids in Tornillo, Texas, was supposed to be gone by now. Set up as a temporary “emergency influx shelter” in June, when the government was running out of places to put the kids it was tearing from parents at the border, the camp, located in the desert forty miles southeast of El Paso, was originally scheduled to close on July 13th. But the government kept pushing back the deadline, in thirty-day increments, until recently disclosing that the facility will remain open at least through the end of the year.

      The Times put the camp back in the news this week, reporting that the facility’s capacity was also recently increased, so that it could accommodate up to thirty-eight hundred kids—some ten times as many kids as it was housing in June. “[T]he intent is to use these temporary facilities only as long as needed,” Evelyn Stauffer, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the facility, told the Times. From the start at Tornillo, though, “as needed” has been less about outside forces than about the Administration’s own decisions and goals. The government has discussed Tornillo as if it’s a necessary response to a crisis “when it’s not a crisis,” Bob Carey, a former H.H.S. official, told me on Monday. Carey ran the Office of Refugee Resettlement, the branch of H.H.S. responsible for the care of migrant kids, during the final two years of the Obama Administration. Tornillo was, and is, “a consequence of the actions of the Administration,” he said.

      President Trump put a halt to family separations in June, in response to the enormous public outcry and the humanitarian disaster that the policy produced. Yet, while public attention moved on, the number of kids in government custody has only gone up. As the Times reported, there are now more than thirteen thousand migrant kids in government facilities, five times more than a year ago, and those kids are spending an average of fifty-nine days in custody, twice as long as a year ago. While Tornillo was set up to make room for kids who had been taken from parents, most of the kids there now crossed the border alone. This isn’t a new problem—large numbers of kids crossed the borders by themselves in the last years of the Obama Administration. In response, O.R.R. used “emergency influx shelters,” with the idea to dismantle them as soon as demand waned. The goal was to place the kids with relatives or other sponsors around the country. “These facilities, none of them were intended as long-term care facilities,” Carey said. The Tornillo camp, for instance, doesn’t offer any systemized schooling to the kids there.

      Recently, this work of processing kids out of government custody has begun to slow significantly. That’s reflected in the longer amount of time that the kids are spending in government facilities. “They’re treating these kids like criminals,” another Obama-era H.H.S. official told me. “That comes at a significant cost to the kids, to their mental health.” Part of the issue is that the government has given potential sponsors, who are often undocumented themselves, a real reason to fear coming forward to claim the kids. In June, as the Times reported, “federal authorities announced that potential sponsors and other adult members of their households would have to submit fingerprints, and that the data would be shared with immigration authorities.” Immigration and Customs Enforcement has acknowledged arresting dozens of people who came forward to be sponsors. With the way the numbers are trending, it’s hard to see how the need for the tent camp at Tornillo will end.


      https://www.newyorker.com/news/current/the-ongoing-avoidable-horror-of-the-trump-administrations-texas-tent-camp
      #tentes


  • Arrêté dans les locaux du Service de la population, #Yossief végète en prison

    Le jeune Érythréen a une fiancée qui bénéficie d’un permis B. Des citoyennes dénoncent un acharnement.

    Elle pourrait faire autre chose de ses lundis après-midi, Valérie Manera Damone. Mais la voici, comme toutes ces dernières semaines, sur le parking devant les barbelés, empêtrée dans une bise têtue qui semble avoir définitivement balayé l’été. Derrière elle se dresse la prison genevoise de #Champ-Dollon, et juste après, celle, beaucoup plus modeste, de #Favra, qui abrite notamment des étrangers en détention administrative. L’établissement soigne son entrée : juste derrière la grille automatique trônent quelques nains de jardin sur des carrés de verdure léchés.

    C’est à Favra que dort Yossief Berhe depuis le 16 juillet, date de son arrestation dans les locaux du Service vaudois de la population, où le jeune Érythréen s’était pourtant rendu pour régulariser sa situation sur demande du Secrétariat d’État aux migrations. Une « trahison », pour Valérie et l’entourage de Yossief. En vertu du règlement #Dublin, le requérant frappé de #non_entrée_en_matière par les autorités fédérales est condamné à être renvoyé vers l’#Italie, le premier pays européen dont il a foulé le sol.

    Renvoyé deux fois en Italie

    De son coffre, la visiteuse sort un énorme sac de courses, d’où dépassent des bananes et du coca : le jeune homme, qu’elle a rencontré il y a deux ans à Échallens alors qu’elle donnait des cours de français comme bénévole, ne mange presque rien en prison, s’inquiète-t-elle. Mais la Challensoise n’est pas qu’une amie en souci : elle est aussi une citoyenne nouvellement révoltée qui découvre les pratiques de la Suisse en matière d’asile sous leur jour le plus absurde. « Nous craignons que les autorités veuillent faire de lui un exemple. Il y a un acharnement dramatique. »

    D’un naturel solide et optimiste, Yossief se fragilise jour après jour en détention, explique-t-elle. Si le jeune homme de 34 ans dort en prison, c’est parce qu’il refuse de partir en Italie : il a en Suisse une fiancée, qu’il a connue en Érythrée, et qui vit en Valais avec un permis B. Elle vient de terminer un stage de huit mois dans un établissement médico-social et s’apprête à commencer un cours de la Croix-Rouge.

    Depuis son arrivée en 2016, Yossief a été renvoyé deux fois par avion vers l’aéroport de Rome, et deux fois il est revenu. Dans le jargon, on appelle les gens comme lui des « satellites ». Tout, plutôt que de laisser une nouvelle fois sa vie derrière soi. Pourquoi ne pas simplement disparaître, rejoindre la cohorte des rejetés de l’asile qui sombrent dans la clandestinité ? Au parloir de Favra, Yossief explique qu’il veut « vivre dignement, sans se cacher ». Il se tourne vers Valérie : « Échallens, c’est mon paradis. » Ça la fait sourire doucement. En prison, le jeune homme qui maîtrise bien l’anglais continue ses exercices de français. À Échallens, il s’est beaucoup impliqué pour aider à l’intégration des membres de sa communauté, explique son entourage.

    Partir ? De toute façon, l’Italie ne semble pas vouloir de lui : par deux fois, elle a prononcé son expulsion. Le 22 juin 2018, après son second renvoi, le préfet de police de Rome lui a ainsi laissé sept jours pour quitter le territoire italien, sous peine d’une amende allant de 10 000 à 20 000 euros. Dans un récent courriel, le Secrétariat d’État aux migrations (SEM) assure pourtant que l’Italie a accepté depuis de reprendre le jeune homme.

    Se battre au risque de s’épuiser

    Face à l’absurde, Valérie Manera Damone a choisi le combat, au risque de s’épuiser. Lorsqu’elle appuie sur la sonnette devant la grille de la prison, d’où Yossief l’appelle tous les jours, un vertige la saisit. Il y a quelques années encore, elle n’aurait jamais imaginé cela : rendre visite à un détenu, contacter une journaliste, écrire aux autorités…

    « J’ai commencé à donner des cours de français parce que je ne voulais pas laisser ma fille de 16 ans y aller toute seule. J’avais peur pour elle. Depuis, j’ai changé de point de vue sur mon propre pays. J’avais confiance en nos autorités, j’étais sûre que les droits de l’homme étaient respectés. » Également proche de Yossief, Carole Zimmermann a assisté à l’arrestation de ce dernier dans les locaux du Service de la population : « Le Secrétariat d’État aux migrations lui avait demandé par écrit de venir s’enregistrer pour la reprise de son séjour. On y est allé en toute confiance et on s’est fait avoir », précise celle qui a écrit au conseiller d’État Philippe Leuba, sans succès, en tant que « citoyenne incrédule ».

    Contacté, le Service de la population précise que la loi vaudoise permet d’arrêter une personne dans ses locaux si cette dernière est revenue dans le pays malgré une interdiction d’entrée en Suisse (ndlr : c’était le cas de Yossief). « Par ailleurs, une nouvelle demande d’asile n’empêche pas le Canton d’entamer les préparatifs d’un transfert, notamment quand les décisions de renvoi précédentes n’ont pas été respectées », stipule son porte-parole, Frédéric Rouyard. Julie Maillard, du Collectif R, évoque une « tromperie sur le motif » potentiellement contraire à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. Selon elle, « l’acharnement aveugle » des autorités sur Yossief Berhe n’est « de loin pas un cas à part ».

    Ce lundi 1er octobre, le jeune Érythréen a été transféré à la prison de Frambois, dans le même canton. « Si l’on cumule le salaire des policiers, les séjours en prison, les démarches administratives, etc., vous imaginez les coûts ? » s’insurge Valérie. Et de préciser encore une fois : « On ne lâche rien. » (24 heures)


    https://www.24heures.ch/vaud-regions/Arrete-dans-les-locaux-du-Service-de-la-population-Yossief-vegete-en-prison/story/21715829

    #Suisse #asile #migrations #réfugiés #réfugiés_érythréens #renvois #expulsions #renvois_dublin #rétention #détention_administrative


  • Il decreto immigrazione cancellerà lo Sprar, «sistema modello» di accoglienza

    Le scelte del governo: stretta su rifugiati e nuove cittadinanze. Vie accelerate per costruire nuovi centri per i rimpatri. Permessi umanitari cancellati. Hotspot chiusi per 30 giorni anche i richiedenti asilo.

    Permessi umanitari cancellati. Stretta su rifugiati e nuove cittadinanze. Vie accelerate per costruire nuovi centri per i rimpatri. Possibilità di chiudere negli hotspot per 30 giorni anche i richiedenti asilo. Trattenimento massimo nei centri prolungato da 90 a 180 giorni. E poi addio alla rete Sprar. I 17 articoli e 4 capi dell’ultima bozza del decreto migranti, che il governo si prepara a varare, promettono di ridisegnare il volto del «pianeta immigrazione». Soprattutto sul fronte accoglienza, abrogando di fatto un modello, quello dello Sprar, che coinvolge oggi oltre 400 comuni ed è considerato un modello in Europa.

    A denunciarlo è l’Associazione studi giuridici sull’immigrazione (Asgi): «Cancellare l’unico sistema pubblico di accoglienza che funziona appare come uno dei più folli obiettivi politici degli ultimi anni, destinato in caso di attuazione a produrre enormi conseguenze negative in tutta Italia, tanto nelle grandi città che nei piccoli centri, al Nord come al Sud».

    Ventitremila migranti accolti. «Lo Sprar - spiega a Repubblica Gianfranco Schiavone, vicepresidente dell’Asgi - è un sistema di accoglienza e protezione sia dei richiedenti asilo che dei titolari di protezione internazionale e umanitaria nato nel lontano 2002 con le modifiche al testo unico immigrazione della cosiddetta Bossi-Fini. Nei sedici anni della sua esistenza lo Sprar si è enormemente rafforzato passando da alcune decine di comuni coinvolti e meno di duemila posti di accoglienza nel 2002, ai circa ventitremila posti attuali con coinvolgimento di oltre 400 comuni».

    Un modello in Europa. «In ragione dei suoi successi nel gestire l’accoglienza dei richiedenti asilo e dei rifugiati in modo ordinato con capacità di coinvolgimento dei territori, lo Sprar è sempre stato considerato da tutti i governi di qualunque colore politico il fiore all’occhiello del sistema italiano, da presentare in Europa in tutti gli incontri istituzionali, anche per attenuare agli occhi degli interlocutori, le gravi carenze generali dell’Italia nella gestione dei migranti».

    Il ruolo centrale dei comuni. «Il presupposto giuridico su cui si fonda lo Sprar è tanto chiaro quanto aderente al nostro impianto costituzionale: nella gestione degli arrivi e dell’accoglienza dei migranti allo Stato spettano gli aspetti che richiedono una gestione unitaria (salvataggio, arrivi e prima accoglienza, piano di distribuzione, definizione di standard uniformi), ma una volta che il migrante ha formalizzato la sua domanda di asilo la gestione effettiva dei servizi di accoglienza, protezione sociale, orientamento legale e integrazione non spetta più allo Stato, che non ha le competenze e l’articolazione amministrativa per farlo in modo adeguato, ma va assicurata (con finanziamenti statali) dalle amministrazioni locali, alle quali spettano in generale tutte le funzioni amministrative in materia di servizi socio-assistenziali nei confronti tanto della popolazione italiana che di quella straniera».
    Il business dei grandi centri. «Lo Sprar (gestito oggi da Comuni di centrosinistra come di centrodestra) ha assicurato ovunque una gestione dell’accoglienza concertata con i territori, con numeri contenuti e assenza di grandi concentrazioni, secondo il principio dell’accoglienza diffusa, di buona qualità e orientata ad inserire quanto prima il richiedente asilo nel tessuto sociale. Inoltre lo Sprar ha assicurato un ferreo controllo della spesa pubblica grazie a una struttura amministrativa centrale di coordinamento e all’applicazione del principio della rendicontazione in base alla quale non sono ammessi margini di guadagno per gli enti (associazioni e cooperative) che gestiscono i servizi loro affidati. Invece, da oltre un decennio, il parallelo sistema di accoglienza a diretta gestione statale-prefettizia, salvo isolati casi virtuosi, sprofonda nel caos producendo un’accoglienza di bassa o persino bassissima qualità con costi elevati, scarsi controlli e profonde infiltrazioni della malavita organizzata che ha ben fiutato il potenziale business rappresentato dalla gestione delle grandi strutture (come caserme dismesse, ex aeroporti militari) al riparo dai fastidiosi controlli sulla spesa e sulla qualità presenti nello Sprar».

    La fine dello Sprar. «Cancellare l’unico sistema pubblico di accoglienza che funziona appare come uno dei più folli obiettivi politici degli ultimi anni. Che ne sarà di quelle piccole e funzionanti strutture di accoglienza già esistenti e delle migliaia di operatori sociali, quasi tutti giovani, che con professionalità, lavorano nello Sprar? Qualcuno potrebbe furbescamente sostenere che in fondo lo Sprar non verrebbe interamente abrogato ma trasformato in un sistema di accoglienza dei soli rifugiati e non più anche dei richiedenti asilo i quali rimarrebbero confinati nei centri governativi. È una spiegazione falsa, che omette di dire che proprio la sua caratteristica di sistema unico di accoglienza sia dei richiedenti che dei rifugiati dentro un’unica logica di gestione territoriale è ciò che ha reso lo Sprar un sistema efficiente e razionale. Senza questa unità non rimane più nulla».

    https://www.repubblica.it/solidarieta/immigrazione/2018/09/21/news/migrazioni-206997314/?ref=RHPPLF-BH-I0-C8-P2-S2.4-T1
    #sprar (fin de -) #réfugiés #accueil #migrations #asile #Italie #hébergement #hotspot #décret #détention_administrative #rétention #protection_humanitaire #politique_d'asile #hotspots #it_has_begun #decreto_Salvini

    via @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

    • 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

    • 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://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/13210/what-will-change-for-migrants-under-italy-s-new-immigration-and-securi

    • Message de Sara Prestianni, via la mailing-list Migreurop, 28.11.2018:

      Hier la Chambre des Deputé- avec un vote blindé de confiance - a approuvé le DL sécurité migration.
      Le #vote_de_confiance a permis au Gouvernement de le faire passer en toute vitesse et de balayer tout tentatif de l’opposition de faire des amendements qui pouvaient limiter les déjà tragiques dégâts.
      Nombreuses les déclaration préoccupé et les mobilisation des associations italiennes pour cette loi de la honte

      Ici le CP publié par ARCI -> Le secret loi immigration et sécurité est loi : Injustice est fait : https://www.arci.it/il-ddl-sicurezza-e-immigrazione-e-legge-ingiustizia-e-fatta

      où nous expliquons nos inquiétudes face aux dégâts sociaux d’une loi qui ne fera que créer encore plus de personnes sans documents qui seront exclu du système d’accueil en les rendant encore plus exploitables. Un énième, tragique, étape vers la violation systématique des droits de migrants et réfugiés.

      Ici les principaux changement dans le système italien (sorry only in FR) dont beaucoup intéressent les thématiques de travail du réseau :

      1- Abolition de la “#protection_humanitaire
      La protection humanitaire avait été introduit en 1998 et était attribué pour “serieux motivation de caractère humanitaire ou dérivant de obligation constitutionnels ou internationales de l’Etat Italien ; à ceux qui fuyaient des conflits, désastres naturels ou situations de particulières gravité dans les pays d’origine ou encore ceux qui ne pouvaient pas être expulsés ou encore à victime de traite ou autre type d’exploitation. En 2017 ont été présenté 130 000 demandes de protection en Italie : le 52% a été rejeté. Dans le 25% des cas a été attribué une protection humanitaire ; le 8% ont obtenu un statut de réfugié et un autre 8% la protection subsidiaire. Le 7% a obtenu un autre type de protection.
      Cela veut dire que ce permis ne sera plus donné mais aussi que ceux qui l’ont obtenu ne le pourront plus renouveler
      A sa place cette nouvelle loi a intégré un titre de séjour pour “#cas_spéciaux” : victimes de #violences_domestiques ou grave #exploitation du #travail ou pour des #raisons_médicales ou qui s’est distingué pour “actes de particulier valeur civile”. Ce permis aura une durée de deux ans et ne pourra pas être renouveler

      – Prolongation de la durée de détention dans les #CPR (centre pour le retour -> les cra italiens) -> Aujourd’hui les migrants peuvent être enfermé pour un max de 90 jours. La nouvelle loi prolonge la durée maximale de détention à 180 jours.

      – Permanence dans les #hotspot et points de frontière -> Selon l’article 3 de la nouvelle loi les demandeurs d’asile peuvent être enfermés pour une période de max 30 jours dans les hotspot et structure de “premier accueil” (#Cas et #Cara) pour l’identification. Si dans les 30 jours n’a pas été possible proceder à l’identification aussi les demandeurs d’asile pourront être enfermés dans un CPR pour 180 jours. De cette façon un demandeur d’asile pour être enfermé pour 210 jours pour vérifier et déterminer son identité. Cela sera aussi appliqué aux mineurs en famille.
      De plus est prévu que le juge de paix puisse valider la détention en “#locaux_adaptes” auprès les bureau de frontière jusqu’à’ l’expulsion pour max 48 heures.

      – Plus de fonds pour les expulsions -> A l’article 6 a été prévu un augmentation du budget pour les #expulsions : 500 000 euro en 2018 ; 1,5 million euro en 2019 et autre 1.5 millions en 2020.

      – Retrait ou refus de la protection international en cas de condamnation pour menaces ou violences à officiers public ; lésions personales graves ou vol

      – Ceux qui sont en procedure penale (meme si pas condamné en voi definitive verront leur demande d’asile analysé en procedure accelleré

      – Listes des pays sures -> La loi prévoit l’institution d’une liste de pays d’origine sure et la procedure de demande de protection internationale manifestement infondé. La liste sera stilé par le Ministere des Affaires Etrangers avec le Ministere de l’Interieur et de la Justice sur la base des info fournies par la Commissione Nationales du Droit d’Asile et les agences européennes et internationales. Les demandeurs d’asile en provenance d’un pays present dans la liste des pays sures devrait démontrer de avoir graves motivation qui justifient sa demande et elle sera analyse en procedure accellerée.

      – Restriction du système d’accueil -> Le système d’accueil pour demandeurs d’asile et réfugié (#SPRAR) - le système ordinaire géré par les mairies - sera limité à ceux qui sont déjà titulaire de protection internationales et aux mineurs isolés. Les autres demandeurs seront accueilli dans les CAS et CARA (en parallele le Gouvernement a annoncé une diminution des fonds pour demandeurs d’asile par jour de 35 à 19 euro rendent ainsi impossible donner aucun type de service - juridiques, sociale, intégration et psychologique - dans le parcours d’accueil)

      #pays_sûr #rétention #détention_administrative

    • L’Italie adopte la loi anti-migrants de Matteo Salvini

      Ce texte durcit la politique italienne en matière d’immigration, remplaçant les permis de séjour humanitaires par d’autres permis plus courts.

      L’Italie a adopté mercredi un décret-loi controversé durcissant sa politique d’immigration, voulu par Matteo Salvini, ministre de l’Intérieur et chef de la Ligue (extrême droite). La Chambre des députés a adopté le texte - après le Sénat début novembre et dans les mêmes termes - par 396 oui contre 99 non.

      Le gouvernement populiste formé par la Ligue et le Mouvement 5 Etoiles (M5S, antisystème) avait posé la question de confiance dans les deux chambres sur ce décret-loi. Quatorze députés du M5S n’ont pas pris part au vote mercredi.

      Le texte durcit la politique italienne en matière d’immigration. Il remplace en particulier les permis de séjour humanitaires, actuellement octroyés à 25% des demandeurs d’asile et d’une durée de deux ans, par divers autres permis, comme « protection spéciale », d’une durée d’un an, ou « catastrophe naturelle dans le pays d’origine », d’une durée de six mois, entre autres.
      Refus de signer le pacte de l’ONU sur les migrations

      Il prévoit une procédure d’urgence afin de pouvoir expulser tout demandeur se montrant « dangereux ». Il réorganise aussi le système d’accueil des demandeurs d’asile, qui étaient encore 146 000 fin octobre et seront regroupés dans de grands centres par mesures d’économies. Dans le volet sécurité, il généralise l’utilisation des pistolets électriques et facilite l’évacuation des bâtiments occupés.

      Le gouvernement italien a annoncé mercredi qu’il ne signerait pas le pacte de l’ONU sur les migrations (Global Compact for Migration) comme s’y était engagé en 2016 le précédent exécutif de centre-gauche dirigé à l’époque par Matteo Renzi.

      Le gouvernement ne participera pas au sommet prévu les 10 et 11 décembre à Marrakech où doit être définitivement adopté ce pacte « se réservant d’adhérer ou non au document seulement une fois que le parlement se sera prononcé », a déclaré le président du Conseil Giuseppe Conte. Non contraignant, ce texte de 25 pages, premier du genre sur ce sujet, vise à réguler les flux migratoires au plan mondial.

      https://www.letemps.ch/monde/litalie-adopte-loi-antimigrants-matteo-salvini

    • Il decreto immigrazione è legge: cambierà in peggio la vita di migliaia di persone.

      Con il voto di fiducia di ieri alla Camera, il decreto immigrazione è stato convertito in legge. Refugees Welcome Italia esprime nuovamente la propria contrarietà ad un provvedimento che cambia, in negativo, la vita di migliaia di persone, rendendole ancora più vulnerabili ed esponendole al rischio di vivere ai margini della società. Come già ribadito, lontano dal garantire “l’ordine e la sicurezza pubblica”, questo decreto va nella direzione opposta, acuendo il disagio sociale e aumentando l’insicurezza per tutta la popolazione, migrante e italiana, con pesanti ricadute anche sulla coesione sociale. Secondo alcune stime, la sola abolizione della protezione umanitaria – un permesso di soggiorno che lo Stato italiano riconosce a coloro che, pur non avendo i requisiti per ottenere la protezione internazionale, presentano comunque delle vulnerabilità tali da richiedere una forma di tutela – produrrà 60 mila nuovi irregolari nei prossimi due anni. Migliaia di nuovi senza tetto, persone senza diritti, che rischiano di diventare facile preda di sfruttamento e criminalità.
      “Un decreto di tale portata avrebbe meritato una discussione approfondita, in fase di approvazione, per tentare almeno di introdurre qualche miglioria, invece il testo è passato con la fiducia”, sottolinea Fabiana Musicco, presidente dell’associazione. “A pagare il prezzo di questo nuovo assetto normativo saranno, ad esempio, migliaia di ragazzi arrivati in Italia da minori soli che sono prossimi a compiere 18 anni. Molti di loro hanno fatto richiesta di asilo e qualora ricevessero un diniego di protezione internazionale, una volta diventati maggiorenni, non avrebbero alcun titolo per rimanere in modo regolare in Italia. Per non parlare dei tanti neo-maggiorenni che hanno già ottenuto la protezione umanitaria e che, non potendo accedere al sistema Sprar a causa del decreto, non hanno un posto dove andare. In questo ultimo mese ci sono arrivate diverse segnalazioni di ragazzi in questa situazione: diciottenni che si sono iscritti sul nostro sito per chiedere di essere ospitati in famiglia e proseguire il loro percorso di inclusione. Il rischio, per loro, è che finiscano per strada”.
      Oltre all’abolizione della protezione umanitaria, sono tante altre le misure discutibili che incideranno negativamente sull’architettura del sistema di accoglienza in Italia. Invece di potenziare l’accoglienza diffusa gestita dagli enti locali, che ha favorito, in questi anni, reali processi di inclusione per richiedenti asilo e titolari di protezione, si è scelto, con questo decreto, di rafforzare la logica emergenziale dei grandi centri che, oltre a non garantire alcuna integrazione, genera spesso, a causa dei pochi controlli, abusi e malversazioni. “Molte disposizioni del decreto, oltre a ridurre lo spazio di esercizio di alcuni diritti fondamentali, come quello all’asilo, sono contrarie al buon senso e renderanno il nostro Paese un posto meno sicuro per tutti, migranti e italiani”.

      https://refugees-welcome.it/decreto-immigrazione-legge-cambiera-peggio-la-vita-migliaia-persone

    • Azzariti: «Il Decreto sicurezza sarà bocciato dalla Consulta»

      Il costituzionalista critica il decreto Salvini votato al Senato, non celando la speranza che alla Camera venga modificato

      «Innanzitutto il provvedimento impressiona per il segno culturalmente regressivo perché appiattisce l’immigrazione ad un problema di esclusiva sicurezza pubblica: dalla legge Bossi Fini in poi c’è una progressione in questo senso di criminalizzazione del problema migratorio». Il costituzionalista Gaetano Azzariti critica il decreto Salvini votato al Senato, non celando la speranza che alla Camera venga modificato: «Così com’è è una summa di incostituzionalità, auspico si intervenga per cambiarlo in Parlamento».

      Professore, perché il decreto sicurezza sarebbe incostituzionale? Ci vuole spiegare le ragioni?
      Penso di peggio: nel testo ci sono una summa di incostituzionalità. Dallo strumento utilizzato, il decreto legge, al contenuto del provvedimento che va in conflitto coi principi della nostra Carta.

      Lei critica la formula del decreto perché dice che in questo momento non esiste un’emergenza tale da giustificare un provvedimento simile? Però posso ribattere, facendo l’avvocato del diavolo, che da anni è prassi che i nostri governi adottino la formula del decreto esautorando il Parlamento…
      C’è una sentenza della Corte Costituzionale del 2007 che ci spiega come non sia sufficiente che il governo dichiari la necessità di urgenza per emanare un decreto. Illegittimo è quindi l’uso del decreto legge per regolare fenomeni – quali le migrazioni – di natura strutturale che non rivestono alcun carattere di straordinarietà ed urgenza. In questo caso la palese mancanza dei requisiti costituzionali è dimostrata dal fatto di cui il governo si vanta di aver ridotto dell’80 per cento il problema dell’immigrazione. E allora non le sembra una contraddizione logica dichiarare l’emergenza quando lo stesso governo festeggia per i risultati ottenuti? Il governo ha pieno diritto di legiferare in materia, anche secondo il principio di contenimento dei flussi, ma tramite un disegno di legge.

      Al di là, quindi, della formula del decreto che lei reputa inopportuna, entrando nel merito, quali sono gli articoli della Costituzione che vengono violati?
      In primis, l’articolo 10 terzo comma stabilisce un diritto fondamentale che riguarda non i cittadini ma gli stranieri. A questi viene assegnato la possibilità di chiedere asilo politico allo Stato italiano. La stessa Cassazione, con diverse sentenze emesse dal 2012 al 2018, e le disposizioni internazionali ci parlano di permessi per “protezione umanitaria” come mezzi di attuazione della disposizione costituzionale. Bene, col decreto si passa all’eliminazione totale di questo status: la protezione umanitaria viene abrogata e sostituita da ipotesi specifiche. Cos’è questa se non una violazione dell’articolo 10 della nostra Carta?

      E che ne pensa della sospensione della concessione della domanda se si è sottoposti a procedimento penale?
      La presunzione di non colpevolezza è un principio di civiltà che è sancito dall’articolo 27 della nostra Costituzione. E non si fa certo differenza tra cittadini e stranieri (si riferisce in generale all’«imputato»). C’è poco altro da aggiungere: una sospensione della concessione della domanda mi sembra chiaramente violativa di questo principio.

      Si parla anche di revoca della cittadinanza in caso di condanna, anche questo aspetto secondo lei è incostituzionale?
      Si afferma per legge che qualora l’immigrato riuscisse, dopo il lungo iter burocratico, ad ottenere la cittadinanza italiana, non sarà comunque mai considerato alla pari degli altri. Come se dovesse pagare per l’eternità una pecca originaria. Questo aspetto è in contrasto con due principi: quello d’eguaglianza, introducendo nel nostro ordinamento una irragionevole discriminazione tra cittadini, e contravvenendo all’espressa indicazione di divieto della perdita della cittadinanza per motivi politici (articoli 3 e 22).

      In pratica, persone che commettono lo stesso reato avrebbero sanzioni diverse?
      Esatto, chi ha acquisito la cittadinanza è penalizzato rispetto a chi la tiene per ius sanguinis. Inoltre l’articolo 22 della Carta stabilisce che non si può perdere la cittadinanza per motivi politici. Ma se vuole continuo, gli elementi di incostituzionalità sono ancora altri.

      Ce li dica…
      Il decreto sicurezza estende la cosiddetta detenzione amministrativa cioè l’obbligo di stare in questi centri di permanenza e di rimpatrio da 90 a 180 giorni. Qui abbiamo una giurisprudenza con zone d’ombra ma che su un punto è chiarissima: la sentenza 105 del 2001 della Corte Costituzionale stabilisce che “il trattamento dello straniero presso i centri di permanenza temporanea è misura incidente sulla libertà personale”. Il governo dovrebbe dimostrare che in questi luoghi non ci sia limitazione di libertà personale, la vedo difficile.

      E sul taglio degli Sprar che ne pensa?
      È una delle parti più odiose del decreto. Si cancella quella normativa che definiva le politiche di integrazione cercando di realizzare anche un altro principio fondamentale: quello di solidarietà (articolo 2 della Costituzione).

      A questo punto, crede veramente che il testo verrà migliorato alla Camera oppure teme che Lega e M5S abbiano blindato il provvedimento con il voto di fiducia?
      La speranza è l’ultima a morire. Non posso auspicare che questa maggioranza cambi idea sull’ordine pubblico o sul nesso immigrazione-sicurezza o che faccia un provvedimento che regoli i flussi. Qui il tema di discussione non è l’indirizzo politico del governo ma il rispetto della Carta e dei limiti costituzionali. Ricordo, inoltre, che il presidente della Repubblica quando ha firmato il decreto, ha anche scritto una lettera a Conte rilevando nell’auspicio del rispetto dei principi internazionali. Il Parlamento ha l’onore di prendere in considerazione almeno questi moniti.

      E nel caso, invece, rimanga così com’è ci sarebbe l’altolà della Consulta? È un’ipotesi realistica?
      Sono certo che se dovesse essere approvato in questi termini, magari con l’aggravante della mancanza della discussione in Parlamento, tutta l’attenzione non politica ma costituzionale si riverserà sui due guardiani della Costituzione. In primo luogo sul Capo dello Stato in sede di promulgazione – che dovrà in qualche modo verificare se il Parlamento ha tenuto conto dei rilievi da lui stesso formulati – e in secondo luogo sulla Corte Costituzionale.

      La sento abbastanza convinto sulla possibilità che la Consulta bocci alcune parti del provvedimento…
      Gli elementi di incostituzionalità di questo decreto mi sembrano abbastanza evidenti.

      http://www.vita.it/it/article/2018/11/22/azzariti-il-decreto-sicurezza-sara-bocciato-dalla-consulta/149839

    • Italien verschärft seine Einwanderungsgesetze drastisch

      In Italien hat Innenminister Salvini sein Einwanderungsdekret durchgesetzt. Die Vergabe von humanitären Aufenthaltsgenehmigungen wird eingeschränkt, die Ausweisung von Migranten erleichtert.

      Drei Wochen nach dem italienischen Senat hat auch die Abgeordnetenkammer das umstrittene Einwanderungsdekret von Innenminister Matteo Salvini angenommen.

      Durch das Gesetz wird

      – die Vergabe von humanitären Aufenthaltsgenehmigungen massiv eingeschränkt und
      – die Ausweisung von Migranten erleichtert.
      – Auch die Verteilung und Unterbringung von Asylbewerbern wird neu geregelt: Die meisten sollen künftig in großen Auffangzentren untergebracht werden.
      – Als „gefährlich“ eingeschätzte Asylbewerber sollen in Eilverfahren abgeschoben werden können.
      – Migranten, die bereits die italienische Staatsbürgerschaft haben, sollen diese wieder verlieren, wenn sie in Terrorverfahren verurteilt werden.
      – Als sicherheitspolitische Neuerung ist in dem Gesetz unter anderem vorgesehen, den Einsatz von Elektroschockpistolen auszuweiten und die Räumung besetzter Gebäude zu erleichtern.

      Die Regierung hatte in beiden Parlamentskammern die Vertrauensfrage gestellt, um die Gesetzesänderung zügig durchzubringen. Einige Parlamentarier der populistischen Fünf-Sterne-Bewegung, die zusammen mit Salvinis fremdfeindlicher Lega-Partei regiert, hatten aus Protest gegen die geplanten Verschärfungen Dutzende Änderungsanträge eingereicht.

      396 Abgeordnete stimmten schließlich für die drastische Verschärfung des Einwanderungsrechts, 99 votierten dagegen. 14 Abgeordnete der Fünf-Sterne-Bewegung, die sich gegen die Pläne ausgesprochen hatten, nahmen nicht an der Abstimmung teil.

      „Ein denkwürdiger Tag“

      Salvini äußerte sich angesichts des Ergebnisses zufrieden. „Heute ist ein denkwürdiger Tag“, sagte der Innenminister, der zugleich Vizeregierungschef ist. Kritik an den Gesetzesverschärfungen wies er als Bedenken von Linken zurück, „die finden, dass illegale Einwanderung kein Problem ist“.

      Das Uno-Flüchtlingshilfswerks (UNHCR) hatte sich Anfang November besorgt zu den Gesetzesverschärfungen geäußert. Diese böten keine „angemessenen Garantien“, insbesondere für Menschen, die besonderer Fürsorge bedürften, etwa Opfer von Vergewaltigung oder Folter.

      Die italienische Regierung vertritt seit ihrem Amtsantritt im Sommer eine harte Haltung in der Flüchtlings- und Einwanderungspolitik. Schiffen mit geretteten Flüchtlingen an Bord verweigerte Salvini das Einlaufen in italienische Häfen. Der Schwerpunkt der Flüchtlingskrise im Mittelmeer hat sich seitdem stärker nach Spanien verlagert: Spanien ist in diesem Jahr zum Hauptankunftsland von Flüchtlingen in Europa geworden, weit vor Italien und Griechenland.

      http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/fluechtlinge-italien-verschaerft-seine-einwanderungsgesetze-drastisch-a-1241


  • La vie de désespoir des réfugiés relégués par l’Australie sur une île du Pacifique

    La femme du Somalien Khadar Hrisi a tenté plusieurs fois de se suicider. R, une Iranienne de 12 ans, a voulu s’immoler par le feu : à Nauru, minuscule caillou du Pacifique, des réfugiés relégués par l’Australie racontent à l’AFP une vie sans perspective, sans soins et sans espoir.

    Nauru, le plus petit pays insulaire du monde, vient d’accueillir le Forum des îles du Pacifique (Fip) mais a interdit aux journalistes l’accès aux camps de rétention où Canberra refoule les clandestins qui tentent de gagner l’Australie par la mer.

    L’AFP a toutefois réussi à y pénétrer et à rencontrer des réfugiés dont la quasi totalité ont souhaité l’anonymat pour des raisons de sécurité.

    A Nauru, près d’un millier de migrants dont une centaine d’enfants, sur 11.000 habitants, vivent dans huit camps financés par Canberra, certains depuis cinq ans, selon leurs récits.

    Dans le camp numéro 5, que l’on atteint au détour d’un chemin sous une chaleur écrasante, dans un paysage hérissé de pitons rocheux, le Somalien Hrisi veut témoigner à visage découvert.

    Il n’a plus peur, il n’a plus rien. Sa femme ne parle pas, son visage est inexpressif.

    M. Hrisi la laisse seule le moins possible, à cause de sa dépression. Elle a tenté plusieurs fois de se suicider ces derniers jours, raconte-t-il.

    « Quand je me suis réveillé, elle était en train de casser ça », dit-il en montrant des lames de rasoir jetables. « Elle allait les avaler avec de l’eau ».

    – Problèmes psychologiques -

    M. Hrisi affirme qu’ils sont allés plusieurs fois à l’hôpital de Nauru financé par l’Australie mais que celui-ci refuse de les prendre en charge. L’autre nuit, « ils ont appelé la police et nous ont mis dehors ».

    Le camp numéro 1 traite les malades, expliquent les réfugiés. Mais il n’accueille qu’une cinquantaine de personnes car l’endroit croule sous les demandes. Or beaucoup de migrants vont mal et souffrent de problèmes psychologiques liés à leur isolement sur l’île.

    Les évacuations sanitaires vers l’Australie sont rares selon eux.

    Les ONG ne cessent de dénoncer la politique d’immigration draconienne de l’Australie.

    Depuis 2013, Canberra, qui dément tout mauvais traitement, refoule systématiquement en mer tous les bateaux de clandestins, originaires pour beaucoup d’Afghanistan, du Sri Lanka et du Moyen-Orient.

    Ceux qui parviennent à passer par les mailles du filet sont envoyés dans des îles reculées du Pacifique. Même si leur demande d’asile est jugée légitime, ils ne seront jamais accueillis sur le sol australien.

    Canberra argue qu’il sauve ainsi des vies en dissuadant les migrants d’entreprendre un périlleux voyage. Les arrivées de bateaux, qui étaient quasiment quotidiennes, sont aujourd’hui rarissimes.

    Le Refugee Council of Australia et l’Asylum Seeker Resource Centre ont dénoncé récemment les ravages psychologiques de la détention indéfinie, en particulier chez les enfants.

    « Ceux qui ont vu ces souffrances disent que c’est pire que tout ce qu’ils ont vu, même dans les zones de guerre. Des enfants de sept et douze ans ont fait l’expérience de tentatives répétées de suicide, certains s’arrosent d’essence et deviennent catatoniques », écrivaient-ils.

    R, une Iranienne de 12 ans rencontrée par l’AFP, a tenté de s’immoler. Elle vit à Nauru depuis cinq ans avec ses deux parents de 42 ans et son frère de 13 ans.

    Les enfants passent leurs journées prostrés au lit. La mère a la peau couverte de plaques, elle dit souffrir et ne recevoir aucun traitement.

    – Essence et briquet -

    Le père a récemment surpris sa fille en train de s’asperger d’essence. « Elle a pris un briquet et elle a crié +Laisse-moi seule ! Laisse-moi seule ! Je veux me suicider ! Je veux mourir !+ ».

    Son fils sort lentement de son lit et confie d’une voix monocorde : « Je n’ai pas d’école, je n’ai pas de futur, je n’ai pas de vie ».

    Non loin de là, entre deux préfabriqués, une cuve est taguée du sigle « ABF » et d’une croix gammée. L’Australian Border Force est le service australien de contrôle des frontières, honni par les réfugiés.

    Ces derniers se déplacent librement sur l’île car la prison, ce sont ses 21 kilomètres carrés.

    Khadar reçoit un ami, un ancien gardien de buts professionnel camerounais qui raconte avoir secouru un voisin en train de se pendre. Son meilleur ami a été retrouvé mort, le nez et les yeux pleins de sang, sans qu’il sache la cause du décès.

    Pas de perspectives, et pas de soins. Au grand désespoir d’Ahmd Anmesharif, un Birman dont les yeux coulent en permanence. Il explique souffrir aussi du cœur et passe ses journées sur un fauteuil en mousse moisie, à regarder la route.

    Les défenseurs des droits dénoncent des conditions effroyables et font état d’accusations d’agressions sexuelles et d’abus physiques.

    Les autorités de l’île démentent. Les réfugiés « mènent leur vie normalement, comme les autres Nauruans (...) on est très heureux de vivre ensemble », assurait ainsi lors du Fip le président de Nauru, Baron Waqa.

    Mais les réfugiés soutiennent que leurs relations avec les Nauruans se détériorent.

    « Ils nous frappent toujours, ils nous lancent toujours des pierres », accuse l’adolescent iranien.

    – Economie sous perfusion -

    Un autre Iranien, un mécanicien qui a réussi à monter un petit commerce, crie sa colère. Il vient de se faire voler « la caisse, les motos, les outils ». « La police ne retrouve jamais rien quand ce sont les Nauruans qui volent les réfugiés », assène-t-il.

    Si les conditions sont vétustes dans les camps, où la plupart des logements sont des préfabriqués, beaucoup d’habitants de Nauru semblent vivre dans des conditions plus précaires encore.

    Bon nombre habitent des cabanes de tôle, les plages sont jonchées de détritus. Ils disent ne pas comprendre de quoi se plaignent les migrants.

    En attendant, les camps sont cruciaux pour l’économie de l’île, exsangue depuis l’épuisement des réserves de phosphate qui avait contribué à l’opulence du siècle dernier.

    Selon les chiffres australiens, les recettes publiques sont passées de 20 à 115 millions de dollars australiens (12 à 72 millions d’euros) entre 2010-2011 et 2015-2016, essentiellement grâce aux subventions australiennes liées aux camps.

    « Si on enlève les réfugiés, Nauru est morte : c’est pour ça que le président tient à ce que nous restions », juge le Camerounais.

    Mais tous les réfugiés rencontrés souhaitent partir, n’importe où pour certains.

    « Au XXIe siècle, les gens pensent en secondes, en instants. Le gouvernement australien a volé cinq ans de notre vie... qui s’en soucie ? », regrette le père de la petite Iranienne.


    https://actu.orange.fr/monde/la-vie-de-desespoir-des-refugies-relegues-par-l-australie-sur-une-ile-du-pacifique-CNT0000016r391/photos/un-refugie-du-sri-lanka-a-anibare-sur-l-ile-de-nauru-dans-le-pacifique-l
    #Nauru #externalisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Australie #photographie
    via @marty
    cc @reka

    • The #Nauru Experience: Zero-Tolerance Immigration and #Suicidal_Children

      A recent visit to Nauru revealed the effects of Australia’s offshore #detention_policy and its impact on #mental_health.

      The Krishnalingam family on the roof of an abandoned mansion in Ronave, Nauru. The family applied for resettlement in the #United_States after fleeing Sri Lanka and being certified as #refugees.

      CreditCreditMridula Amin

      TOPSIDE, Nauru — She was 3 years old when she arrived on Nauru, a child fleeing war in #Sri_Lanka. Now, Sajeenthana is 8.

      Her gaze is vacant. Sometimes she punches adults. And she talks about dying with ease.

      “Yesterday I cut my hand,” she said in an interview here on the remote Pacific island where she was sent by the Australian government after being caught at sea. She pointed to a scar on her arm.

      “One day I will kill myself,” she said. “Wait and see, when I find the knife. I don’t care about my body. ”

      Her father tried to calm her, but she twisted away. “It is the same as if I was in war, or here,” he said.

      Sajeenthana is one of more than 3,000 refugees and asylum seekers who have been sent to Australia’s offshore #detention_centers since 2013. No other Australian policy has been so widely condemned by the world’s human rights activists nor so strongly defended by the country’s leaders, who have long argued it saves lives by deterring smugglers and migrants.

      Now, though, the desperation has reached a new level — in part because of the United States.

      Sajeenthana and her father are among the dozens of refugees on Nauru who had been expecting to be moved as part of an Obama-era deal that President #Trump reluctantly agreed to honor, allowing resettlement for up to 1,250 refugees from Australia’s offshore camps.

      So far, according to American officials, about 430 refugees from the camps have been resettled in the United States — but at least 70 people were rejected over the past few months.

      That includes Sajeenthana and her father, Tamil refugees who fled violence at home after the Sri Lankan government crushed a Tamil insurgency.

      Sajeenthana, 8, with her father after describing her suicidal thoughts and attempts at self-harm in September.CreditMridula Amin and Lachie Hinton

      A State Department spokeswoman did not respond to questions about the #rejections, arguing the Nauru refugees are subject to the same vetting procedures as other refugees worldwide.

      Australia’s Department of Home Affairs said in a statement that Nauru has “appropriate mental health assessment and treatment in place.”

      But what’s clear, according to doctors and asylum seekers, is that the situation has been deteriorating for months. On Nauru, signs of suicidal children have been emerging since August. Dozens of organizations, including #Doctors_Without_Borders (which was ejected from Nauru on Oct. 5) have been sounding the alarm. And with the hope of American resettlement diminishing, the Australian government has been forced to relent: Last week officials said they would work toward moving all children off Nauru for treatment by Christmas.

      At least 92 children have been moved since August — Sajeenthana was evacuated soon after our interview — but as of Tuesday there were still 27 children on Nauru, hundreds of adults, and no long-term solution.

      The families sent to Australia for care are waiting to hear if they will be sent back to Nauru. Some parents, left behind as their children are being treated, fear they will never see each other again if they apply for American resettlement, while asylum seekers from countries banned by the United States — like Iran, Syria and Somalia — lack even that possibility.

      For all the asylum seekers who have called Nauru home, the psychological effects linger.
      ‘I Saw the Blood — It Was Everywhere’

      Nauru is a small island nation of about 11,000 people that takes 30 minutes by car to loop. A line of dilapidated mansions along the coast signal the island’s wealthy past; in the 1970s, it was a phosphate-rich nation with per capita income second only to Saudi Arabia.

      Now, those phosphate reserves are virtually exhausted, and the country relies heavily on Australian aid. It accounted for 25 percent of Nauru’s gross domestic product last year alone.

      Mathew Batsiua, a former Nauruan lawmaker who helped orchestrate the offshore arrangement, said it was meant to be a short-term deal. But the habit has been hard to break.

      “Our mainstay income is purely controlled by the foreign policy of another country,” he said.

      In Topside, an area of old cars and dusty brush, sits one of the two processing centers that house about 160 detainees. Hundreds of others live in community camps of modular housing. They were moved from shared tents in August, ahead of the Pacific Islands Forum, an intergovernmental meeting that Nauru hosted this year.

      Sukirtha Krishnalingam, 15, said the days are a boring loop as she and her family of five — certified refugees from Sri Lanka — wait to hear if the United States will accept them. She worries about her heart condition. And she has nightmares.

      “At night, she screams,” said her brother Mahinthan, 14.

      In the past year, talk of suicide on the island has become more common. Young men like Abdullah Khoder, a 24-year-old Lebanese refugee, says exhaustion and hopelessness have taken a toll. “I cut my hands with razors because I am tired,” he said.

      Even more alarming: Children now allude to suicide as if it were just another thunderstorm. Since 2014, 12 people have died after being detained in Australia’s offshore detention centers on Nauru and Manus Island, part of Papua New Guinea.

      Christina Sivalingam, a 10-year-old Tamil girl on Nauru spoke matter-of-factly in an interview about seeing the aftermath of one death — that of an Iranian man, Fariborz Karami, who killed himself in June.

      “We came off the school bus and I saw the blood — it was everywhere,” she said calmly. It took two days to clean up. She said her father also attempted suicide after treatment for his thyroid condition was delayed.

      Seeing some of her friends being settled in the United States while she waits on her third appeal for asylum has only made her lonelier. She said she doesn’t feel like eating anymore.

      “Why am I the only one here?” she said. “I want to go somewhere else and be happy.”

      Some observers, even on Nauru, wonder if the children are refusing to eat in a bid to leave. But medical professionals who have worked on the island said the rejections by the Americans have contributed to a rapid deterioration of people’s mental states.

      Dr. Beth O’Connor, a psychiatrist working with Doctors Without Borders, said that when she arrived last year, people clung to the hope of resettlement in the United States. In May, a batch of rejections plunged the camp into despair.

      Mr. Karami’s death further sapped morale.

      “People that just had a bit of spark in their eye still just went dull,” Dr. O’Connor said. “They felt more abandoned and left behind.”

      Many of the detainees no longer hope to settle in Australia. #New_Zealand has offered to take in 150 refugees annually from Nauru but Scott Morrison, the Australian prime minister, has said that he will only consider the proposal if a bill is passed banning those on Nauru from ever entering Australia. Opposition lawmakers say they are open to discussion.

      In the meantime, Nauru continues to draw scrutiny.
      ‘I’m Not Going Back to Nauru’

      For months, doctors say, many children on Nauru have been exhibiting symptoms of #resignation_syndrome — a mental condition in response to #trauma that involves extreme withdrawal from reality. They stopped eating, drinking and talking.

      “They’d look right through you when you tried to talk to them,” Dr. O’Connor said. “We watched their weights decline and we worried that one of them would die before they got out.”

      Lawyers with the National Justice Project, a nonprofit legal service, have been mobilizing. They have successfully argued for the #medical_evacuation of around 127 people from Nauru this year, including 44 children.

      In a quarter of the cases, the government has resisted these demands in court, said George Newhouse, the group’s principal lawyer.

      “We’ve never lost,” he said. “It is gut-wrenching to see children’s lives destroyed for political gain.”

      A broad coalition that includes doctors, clergy, lawyers and nonprofit organizations, working under the banner #kidsoffnauru, is now calling for all asylum seekers to be evacuated.

      Public opinion in Australia is turning: In one recent poll, about 80 percent of respondents supported the removal of families and children from Nauru.

      Australia’s conservative government, with an election looming, is starting to shift.

      “We’ve been going about this quietly,” Mr. Morrison said last week. “We haven’t been showboating.”

      But there are still questions about what happens next.

      Last month, Sajeenthana stopped eating. After she had spent 10 days on a saline drip in a Nauruan hospital, her father was told he had two hours to pack for Australia.

      Speaking by video from Brisbane last week (we are not using her full name because of her age and the severity of her condition), Sajeenthana beamed.

      “I feel better now that I am in Australia,” she said. “I’m not going back to Nauru.”

      But her father is less certain. The United States rejected his application for resettlement in September. There are security guards posted outside their Brisbane hotel room, he said, and though food arrives daily, they are not allowed to leave. He wonders if they have swapped one kind of limbo for another, or if they will be forced back to Nauru.

      Australia’s Home Affairs minister has said the Nauru children will not be allowed to stay.

      “Anyone who is brought here is still classified as a transitory person,” said Jana Favero, director of advocacy and campaigns at the Asylum Seeker Resource Center. “Life certainly isn’t completely rosy and cheery once they arrive in Australia.”

      On Monday, 25 more people, including eight children, left the island in six family units, she said.

      Those left behind on Nauru pass the days, worrying and waiting.

      Christina often dreams of what life would be like somewhere else, where being 10 does not mean being trapped.

      A single Iranian woman who asked not to be identified because she feared for her safety said that short of attempting suicide or changing nationality, there was no way off Nauru.

      She has been waiting two years for an answer to her application for resettlement in the United States — one that now seems hopeless given the Trump administration’s policies.

      Each night, often after the power goes out on Nauru, she and her sister talk about life and death, and whether to harm themselves to seek freedom.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/05/world/australia/nauru-island-asylum-refugees-children-suicide.html