• 24 journalistes palestiniens toujours détenus par Israël
    Middle East Monitor, le 2 septembre 2019

    Selon le JSC, les Israéliens ont arrêté quatre journalistes au mois d’août et prolongé la détention de deux autres. Le comité souligne également que cinq des 24 journalistes maintenus derrière les barreaux sont détenus par Israël dans le cadre du régime de détention administrative, sans inculpation ni jugement. Sept d’entre eux ont été condamnés et 12 autres sont détenus dans l’attente de poursuites.

    #Palestine #Prisons #Journalistes #détention_administrative

  • En #Inde, près de deux millions de citoyens, la plupart #musulmans, déchus de leur #nationalité

    La Cour suprême exclut de nombreux citoyens des registres d’état civil de l’#Etat_de_l’Assam.

    #citoyenneté #apatridie #Assam #apatrides


    En 2018, le Courrier international titrait :
    Inde. Quatre millions d’habitants de l’Assam considérés comme apatrides

    • India builds detention camps for up to 1.9m people ‘stripped of citizenship’ in Assam

      Ten centres ‘planned’ across northeastern state after national register published
      The Indian government is building mass detention camps after almost two million people were told they could be effectively stripped of citizenship.

      Around 1.9m people in the north-eastern state of Assam were excluded when India published the state’s final National Register of Citizens (NRC) list in August.

      Those excluded from the register will have to appeal to prove they are citizens. The UN and other international rights groups have expressed concern that many could be rendered stateless.

      The citizenship list is part of a drive to detect illegal immigrants in Assam.

      The Indian government claims that the migrants have arrived from neighbouring Muslim-majority Bangladesh.

      Critics say that the register has upended the lives of Muslims who have lived legally in the state for decades.

      Record keeping in parts of rural India is poor and many, including those building the camps, have been caught out by the NRC’s stringent requirements.

      “We don’t have birth certificates,” Malati Hajong, one of the labourers working at a site near the village of Goalpara, told the Reuters news agency.

      The Goalpara camp is one of at least 10 planned detention centres, according to local media reports.

      It is around the size of seven football pitches and designed to hold 3,000 people.

      Officials plan to have a school and hospital at the centre, as well as a high boundary wall and watchtowers for the security forces.

      Critics have accused the Modi administration of using the NRC to target Assam’s large Muslim community.

      But the government says it is simply complying with an order from India’s Supreme Court, which said the NRC had been delayed for too long and set a strict deadline for its completion.

      Government sources say those excluded from the list retain their rights and have 120 days to appeal at local “Foreigners Tribunals”. If that fails, they can take their cases to the High Court of Assam and ultimately the Supreme Court. What happens to those who fail at all levels of appeal is yet to be decided, they said.

      Last month the local chapter of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party expressed dismay after it became apparent that many Hindus had also been excluded from the list.

      Officials said the government may pass legislation to protect legitimate citizens.

      The government is already in the process of bringing legislation to grant citizenship to Hindu, Sikh and Buddhist immigrants from neighbouring countries.

      Muslim immigrants are not included in the law.

      The nationalist, hardline Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) group also called for genuine citizens to be included in the list after it emerged that Hindus had been affected. The RSS and BJP are closely affiliated.


      #camps_de_détention #détention

  • Lebanon : Migrant Family Detained. Longtime Residents Facing Deportation, Separation

    Lebanon’s General Security has detained a Sudanese-Sri Lankan family of seven, including four children under age 18, threatening to deport the parents to different countries for lacking residency papers, the Anti-Racism Movement (ARM), Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the Lebanese Center for Human Rights (CLDH) said today. General Security, the agency responsible for the entry and exit of foreigners, should free the family, pending the resolution of the family’s deportation proceedings, and should ensure that the family can remain together. If specific and compelling reasons exist to impose restrictions on the family, then General Security should take measures other than detention. In no case, however, should children be detained for migration-related purposes, as detention can be extremely harmful to them.

    The father of the family is Sudanese, the mother is from Sri Lanka, and their five children were born and have always lived in Lebanon. The family does not have a regular migration status in the country.

    The oldest child, 18, has been detained since February 14, 2019, at the General Security Directorate due to his irregular residency status. On July 3, General Security raided the family’s home in Beirut and detained the father, 57, his wife, 42, and their 5-year-old daughter, Beirut, whom they named due to their ties to the city. On July 4, the authorities also detained their three other sons, aged 11, 13, and 16, who had been left unattended when their parents were taken into custody.

    “Detaining children causes them significant harm and should never be used for migration-related purposes,” said Lama Fakih, acting Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “General Security should release them and their parents immediately and, if necessary, use less harmful alternatives to ensure that the family appears for proceedings.”

    Amnesty International talked to the mother, currently held in a shelter run by Caritas Lebanon with her two youngest children. The mother said that her husband and three other sons are detained at a General Security facility. ARM, which provides legal and social support to migrant workers, has documented General Security’s practice of sending detained migrant women with young children to the Caritas facility.

    “By detaining these children and threatening to split up their family the Lebanese authorities have displayed a chilling disregard for their rights. Holding children in detention centers subjects them to trauma and can cause considerable harm to their physical and psychological well-being. The protection of children’s rights and the principle of family unity must be the primary consideration for General Security,” said Lynn Maalouf, Amnesty International’s Middle East research director.

    The children have no identity documents from Sudan or Sri Lanka and only possess birth certificates from a local Lebanese official stating that they were born on Lebanese territory.

    The father told ARM that he left Sudan for Lebanon in 1995 to avoid military service there, after both his brothers were killed in the civil war. He said he was deported back to Sudan in 1998 and arrested, but was released after his father paid a bribe, and returned to Lebanon in 1999.

    The mother, a Sri Lankan former domestic worker, told Amnesty International that she fled an abusive Lebanese employer almost 20 years ago, thus losing her regular migration status in Lebanon. She said that her employer beat her, confiscated her passport, and did not pay her wages for a year. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and ARM routinely document credible reports of abuses against migrant domestic workers, including non-payment of wages, forced confinement, and verbal and physical abuse.

    The mother said that she fears retaliation by family members for converting to Islam and marrying a Muslim. There have been violent riots against Muslims in Kandy, Sri Lanka, her home town.

    Both parents previously tried to register their refugee claims with the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), but their claims were not granted.

    The father told ARM in July that General Security officials said the entire family would be deported and pressured him to sign a departure form indicating that he agreed to be returned to Sudan. The mother told ARM in August that General Security officials informed her that she would be deported to Sri Lanka, and that her children would be deported with her husband to Sudan.

    Children should never be detained, alone or with their families, for immigration purposes. UNHCR has found that even short-term detention with their families has a “profound and negative impact” on children, and concluded that “children should not be detained for immigration related purposes, irrespective of their legal/migratory status or that of their parents.”

    Because of “the harm inherent in any deprivation of liberty and the negative impact that immigration detention can have on children’s physical and mental health and on their development,” the UN committee that interprets the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Lebanon ratified in 1991, has called for any deprivation of liberty based on a child’s migration status to be “prohibited by law and its abolishment ensured in policy and practice.”

    Following the principle of family unity, authorities should not separate children from their parents unless separation is clearly in the best interests of each child. If restrictions to the liberty or freedom of movement of the parents are considered necessary in immigration cases, alternatives to detention for the entire family should be provided to respect children’s rights not to be detained while also not being separated from their parents, the UN special rapporteurs on torture and on migrants’ rights have stated.

    To comply with its international human rights obligations, General Security should free the family, unless specific and compelling reasons make restrictions to the liberty of the parents necessary. In that case, alternatives to detention should be found for this family, the organizations said. Less harmful alternatives could include requirements to report to the authorities while their case is being considered. Crucially, in line with the principles of family unity and respect for the child’s best interests, the family should not be separated by being deported to different countries.

    “Deportation may mean the permanent separation of this family, with no hope of reunification,” said Farah Salka, director of ARM. “General Security should release the family and ensure that they are not split apart by being deported to opposite ends of the world.”

    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #rétention #détention_administrative #Liban #enfants #enfance #familles

  • La #CNPT publie son #rapport sur l’accompagnement des #rapatriements sous contrainte par la voie aérienne

    Dans son rapport publié aujourd’hui, la Commission nationale de prévention de la torture (CNPT) présente les #recommandations relatives aux 33 transferts par la #police et aux 47 #rapatriements_sous_contrainte par la voie aérienne qu’elle a accompagnés entre avril 2018 et mars 2019. La Commission juge satisafaisant l’évolution en matière d’entravement préventif, mais estime inadéquates certaines pratiques policières qui persistent. Finalement, la Commission dresse un bilan général de la #détention_administrative de mineurs et présente ses principales conclusions.

    Pratiques policières jugées inadéquates

    Alors même que la Commission accueille favorablement les améliorations s’agissant notamment du recours à l’entravement préventif lors du transport et de l’organisation au sol, elle continue à observer des pratiques policières qu’elle juge problématiques, en particulier le port de la cagoule et l’utilisation de la chaise roulante. Dans son rapport, elle rappelle aux autorités de renoncer par principe à toute forme de contrainte, et de limiter une application aux cas qui présentent un danger imminent pour leur propre sécurité ou celle d’autrui. Par ailleurs, elle juge particulièrement préoccupant les entravements observés en présence d’enfants.

    Détention administrative de mineurs

    La Commission a procédé à un receuil au niveau de tous les cantons suisses relatif à la situation des mineurs migrants ayant fait l’objet d’une #mesure_de_contrainte en application du droit des étrangers entre 2017 et 2018 et présente une analyse de la pratique cantonale à la lumière des normes internationales et nationales pertinentes. La Commission relève positivement que sept cantons renoncent à toute forme de détention ou de placement de mineurs étrangers et salue par ailleurs que trois cantons (Argovie, Valais et Zurich) aient pris des mesures visant à renoncer à toute forme de détention administrative de mineurs à la suite du rapport publié en juin 2018 par la Commission de gestion du Conseil national (CdG-N). En revanche, elle juge problématique au regard du respect des droits de l’enfant que des mineurs aient été détenus durant la période examinée, dans certains cas pour des durées de séjour particulièrement longues dans des établissements qu’elle juge inadéquats pour accueillir des mineurs. Elle recommande aux autorités de renoncer à la détention administrative de mineurs accompagnés ou non-accompagnés, et de privilégier des mesures alternatives respectueuses de l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant et de l’unité familiale.

    #renvois #vol_spécial #expulsions #Suisse #migrations #réfugiés #déboutés #mineurs #rétention #rétention_de_mineurs


    Quelques extraits sélectionné par un ami/ancien collègue :

    ping @i_s_

  • Australian detention centre in #Port_Moresby is worse than Manus; worse than prison

    Refugee advocates have growing concerns regarding the conditions at the high security detention centre annexed to the Bomana prison.

    Information about the newly opened Bomana detention centre indicates that conditions at the centre are as bad as those in the first months of the opening of the Lombrum detention centre on Manus.

    The fifty-two men are being held in separate fenced compounds within the detention centre, unable to move freely between compounds. Like the early days on Manus Island, asylum seekers are forbidden to communicate between compounds. There are no phones and no means of communication with the asylum seekers being detained; they are cut off from family and any legal support.

    PNG immigration has been unable, or unwilling, to facilitate individual visits to any of the asylum seekers. They are unable to confirm that visiting is even possible.

    These conditions are worse than prison and are straight out of the Australian government’s play-book on punitive immigration detention.

    “The conditions at Bomana are intolerable. It is clear that the detention of asylum seekers in PNG is still being controlled by Australia. The Bomana detention centre is breaching the constitutional rights of asylum seekers being held there,” said Ian Rintoul, spokesperson for the Refugee Action Coalition.

    “Reports indicate that medications are being withheld, and that men who have self-harmed are being held at police lock-ups for up to 24 hours before getting medical or mental health treatment.”

    “Bomana is a return to the most barbaric detention conditions for people who have committed no crime. Many of those being held in Bomana have never even had a refugee assessment. Like Australia, the PNG government is unable to return so-called ‘negatives’ to Iran or Pakistan. They should be freed.

    “Detention at Lombrum was found to be unlawful by the PNG Supreme Court in 2016. Yet, Australia is again pushing PNG into establishing a regime of indefinite detention. The brutality has to stop.”

    For more information contact Ian Rintoul 0417 275 713

    #Australie #rétention #détention_administrative #réfugiés #asile #migrations

  • Ai caduti dei #lager (1943-1973). Non più reticolati nel mondo

    Image prise le 10.05.2019 à #Forni_Avoltri (dans la province de Udine), en #Italie.

    Petite traduction... car on en est bien loin des espoirs de 1973, quand le #monument a été érigé :
    « Plus jamais de #clôtures dans le monde », disaient ce qui ont posé la pierre...

    Evidemment, je ne peux pas ne pas penser à tous ses systèmes de surveillance (y compris des clôtures) qui entourent toutes formes de #camps pour #migrants. Et notamment, les centres de #détention_administrative, #rétention.

    Tous ces endroits que Migreurop cherche de cartographier sur le site #Close_the_camps :

    ping @isskein @reka @karine4

  • Home Office rejects Human Rights Committee’s call for a time limit to immigration detention

    The #Home_Office has rejected the UK Parliament Human Rights Committee’s recommendation to introduce a time limit on immigration detention, despite the overwhelming cross-party support.

    #rétention #asile #migrations #réfugiés #détention_administrative #UK #Angleterre #Home_Office #durée #durée_indéterminée

  • La Policía francesa expulsa a dos nigerianas del Centro de Retención de #Hendaia

    La asociación Cimade ha denunciado su expulsión a España, aunque un juez de Baiona emitiera una orden de liberación para hacer valer su derecho a la protección.
    La Policía francesa ha expulsado a España a dos mujeres nigerianas que se encontraban en el Centro de Retención de Hendaia, según ha denunciado la asociación Cimade a través de un comunicado en su página web. Se trata de dos mujeres víctimas de trata con fines de explotación sexual.

    El pasado 11 de julio fueron puestas bajo custodia policial tras el desmantelamiento de un edificio ocupado cerca de Burdeos.

    Posteriormente, el juez de libertad y detención de Baiona ordenó su liberación para que pudieran hacer valer el derecho a la protección prevista por la ley.

    Sin embargo, finalmente han sido puestas a disposición de la Policía española a pesar de que nunca habían pisado suelo español.

    La asociación Cimade ha subrayado que se trata de una expulsión forzada ilegal y arbitraria que deja a estas mujeres en una situación muy peligrosa. Señala, además, que supone un grave atentado contra el derecho de asilo y derecho a la protección como víctimas de la trata.

    Asimismo, Cimade ha pedido a las autoridades francesas para que puedan volver a Francia, sean protegidas y tengan acceso a un permiso de residencia y alojamiento.

    Por su parte, SOS Racismo ha denunciado la expulsión de las dos mujeres nigerianas que se encontraban en el Centro de Retención de Hendaia, y ha incidido en que se trata de una «práctica ilegal».

    En ese sentido, ha subrayado que estas dos mujeres estaban siendo atendidas como posibles víctimas de trata con fines de explotación sexual.

    En un comunicado, la ONG ha destacado que por este motivo «el juez de detención y libertad de Baiona ordenó su liberación para que pudieran hacer valer el derecho a la protección prevista por la ley».

    Ante estos hechos, SOS Racismo se ha adherido a la denuncia que formulan las organizaciones francesas expresando su «más enérgica protesta a una expulsión que es ilegal y arbitraria» y ha exigido al Ministerio del Interior español «una respuesta a esta flagrante violación de los derechos humanos en personas especialmente vulnerables», al tiempo que ha solicitado que «denuncie estos hechos ante las autoridades francesas».

    Asimismo, ha pedido que la Subdelegación del Gobierno español en Gipuzkoa informe a las entidades de ambos lados de la frontera que están siguiendo este caso «sobre el procedimiento seguido para la expulsión de estas personas, si fueron entregadas a la policía española, si así fue, que aclare cuál era la base legal para aceptar dicha expulsión y si tuvieron asistencia letrada, así como qué medidas se adoptaron».

    #Pyrénées #asile #migrations #réfugiés #refoulement #renvoi #expulsion #Espagne #France #CRA #détention_administrative #rétention

  • The hard facts behind deportation regimes

    Many countries have created deportation strategies that bring danger, despair and death. Why do we tolerate this? The answer is ungrounded fear of foreigners, of economic consequences and of crime. Many politicians raise our fears by painting irrational images and dehumanizing migrants and refugees. At the same time it is proven over and over that the deportation system doesn’t work. Walls, fences and even the fear of deportation don’t influence people’s mobility. War and desperate economic circumstances do. Funded by the European Research Council, anthropologist Barak Kalir studied the huge deportation systems, how they work, and the impact they have. He calls for an honest public debate about deportation in western liberal states.


    #vidéo #rétention #détention_administrative #peur #asile #migrations #réfugiés #film_d'animation #ressources_pédagogiques #renvois #expulsions #coût #pouvoir #murs #complexe_militaro-industriel #médias #journalisme #inhumanité #frontières #Equateur #alternatives #efficacité #statistiques #budget #coût #Europe #EU #UE #USA #Etats-Unis

    ping @karine4 @isskein

    • The Draconian Governance of Illegalized Migrants in Western States

      This article proposes the term #Departheid to capture the systemic oppression and spatial management of illegalized migrants in Western liberal states. As a concept, Departheid aims to move beyond the instrumentality of illegalizing migration in order to comprehend the tenacity with which oppressive measures are implemented even in the face of accumulating evidence for their futility in managing migration flows and the harm they cause to millions of people. The article highlights continuities between present oppressive migration regimes and past colonial configurations for controlling the mobility of what Hannah Arendt has called “subject races.” By drawing on similarities with Apartheid as a governing ideology based on racialization, segregation, and deportation, I argue that Departheid, too, is animated by a sense of moral superiority that is rooted in a fantasy of White supremacy.



    Aujourd’hui, #Rosa est passée devant la juge des libertés qui a confirmé le placement en centre de #rétention administrative à #Lyon, pour une durée maximale de 28 jours en vue de son #expulsion.

    On a eu droit à une application froide, mécanique de la #justice et tous les éléments qui attestaient de la conduite irréprochable de Rosa, du fait qu’elle a été violentée par son mari, de son engagement dans les activités solidaires de la communauté Emmaus ont été balayées d’un revers de la main.

    Depuis quelques temps, les 119 communautés Emmaüs de France subissent un #acharnement contre les compagnes et compagnons en attente de #régularisation.

    Que font ils de mal, ils s’investissent dans un mouvement, participent aux activités solidaires, paient des cotisations sociales et travaillent à la concrétisation de leur projet professionnel. Rien de plus normal pour tout citoyen.

    La communauté de Grenoble comme toutes les communautés et le mouvement Emmaus qui fête cette année les 70 de leur création, s’inquiètent de cet acharnement contre nos compagnes et compagnons. Rosa n’est qu’une parmi beaucoup de compagnes et compagnons pourchassés.

    Cela est peut être légal mais totalement illégitime. Au point que l’on est témoin de la gène pour ne pas dire de la honte des forces de l’ordre obligées de mener ces missions. Aujourd’hui un membre des forces de l’ordre nous a dit en guise d’au revoir : ‘ne lâchez rien’ citant l’inscription sur nos tee shirt.

    La loi est injuste changeons la loi. Nous en avons le pouvoir, car nos élus ont un mandat pour agir en notre nom, au nom des idéaux de notre pays.

    Nous allons continuer d’utiliser toutes les voies de recours pour ramener Rosa dans la communauté. Chaque minute qu’elle passe dans ce centre de rétention qui de l’extérieur ressemble à une prison, lui enlève un peu plus de joie de vivre et d’espoir. Elle est littéralement terrorisée de retourner à #Madasgascar, ou elle ne connaît plus personne (sa famille refuse de lui parler depuis son #divorce).

    Aujourd’hui des compagnons, des bénévoles, un responsable de la communauté sont montés à Lyon la soutenir dans cette épreuve. Nous avons été rejoint par Pierre Bénévole de la Fondation Abbé Pierre et par Daniela responsable de la communauté de Lyon et une administratrice de Lyon.

    Pour finir un compagnon David est entré dans le #CRA réconforter Rosa. Elle est au bord de craquer du fait de cette situation et de son « incarcération ».

    Mardi, elle était à peine arrivée que les autorités lui retiraient son téléphone portable, pour lui en proposer un autre à la vente le lendemain. Ils ne veulent pas que des films soient réalisés dans ces centres. Ont ils des choses à cacher ???

    Ce matin c’est menotté qu’elle a été emmenée au tribunal, comme une criminelle dangereuse sans doute.

    Nous ne pouvons plus tolérer ce type de situation et devons réagir.

    Nous allons réfléchir à mener des actions pour sensibiliser sur ses pratiques que nous condamnons de la hauteur de nos 70 ans d’engagement au service des plus fragiles.

    C’est à nous, citoyens de faire évoluer la société pour que cette honte ne nous entache pas devant les générations futures. Ensemble nous en avons le devoir.

    La loi est injuste, changeons la loi

    #renvoi #asile #migrations #réfugiés #France #détention_administrative #Grenoble #violence_domestique

    signalé par @karine4

  • La #police se met aux #drones pour surveiller les étrangers en rétention

    D’après nos informations, la police recourt à un drone pour surveiller des étrangers placés en rétention, au moins dans un établissement à #Rennes. Une mesure jugée disproportionnée par des associations et les « sans-papiers » eux-mêmes.

    #complexe_militaro-industriel #business #surveillance #rétention #détention_administrative #asile #migrations #réfugiés #France #CRA

    signalé par @karine4 via email

  • #BNP_Paribas financera jusqu’en 2024 un groupe américain spécialisé dans la détention des migrants

    En Europe, BNP Paribas s’enorgueillit d’aider les réfugiés. Aux États-Unis, la première banque française finance pourtant depuis 2003 le groupe GEO, numéro un des prisons privées spécialisé dans la détention des migrants, au cœur de nombreux scandales. Elle a annoncé son désengagement financier… en 2024.

    BNP Paribas, première banque française et une des plus grandes du monde, se targue d’être « la banque qui aide les réfugiés » en Europe. « Depuis 2015, BNP Paribas soutient une vingtaine d’entrepreneurs sociaux et associations engagés dans l’accueil des réfugiés, expliquait l’an dernier Le Journal du dimanche. Au total, près de 12 millions d’euros seront déboursés d’ici à 2021. »

    Sur son site, la célèbre banque au logo vert s’engage même à doubler les dons versés par ses clients à son propre fonds d’aide aux réfugiés, créé en 2012. « Le drame des réfugiés est une catastrophe humanitaire majeure, qui mobilise de nombreuses associations et bénévoles, explique le PDG de la banque, Jean-Laurent Bonafé. […] BNP Paribas est à leurs côtés. »

    Aux États-Unis, la banque est plutôt du côté de ceux qui les enferment. Selon In The Public Interest, un centre de recherche sur les privatisations situé en Californie, elle participe en effet depuis seize ans, et de manière active, au financement du groupe GEO, le géant américain des prisons privées.

    GEO, dont le siège social est en Floride, incarne l’incroyable essor du secteur du complexe pénitentiaire depuis trente ans aux États-Unis, qui comptent 2,3 millions de prisonniers – 655 pour 100 000 habitants, un record mondial.

    Un cinquième du chiffre d’affaires annuel de GEO (2,3 milliards de dollars, 2 milliards d’euros) provient de la détention des migrants au #Texas, en #Louisiane ou en #Californie, pour le compte de l’agence gouvernementale #ICE (#Immigration_and_Customs_Enforcement).

    Depuis 2003, cette activité de crédit, dont la banque ne s’est jamais trop vantée, lui a fait gagner beaucoup d’argent. « Sans doute des dizaines de millions de dollars », évalue pour Mediapart Kevin Connor, chercheur au Public Accountability Initiative de Buffalo (New York), qui a épluché les contrats souscrits par les banques avec les mastodontes de la détention privée aux États-Unis. Une estimation prudente, car les clauses des contrats de financement entre GEO et BNP Paribas restent secrètes.

    L’administration Trump, qui a criminalisé l’immigration, cherche à terroriser les migrants et à tarir les demandes d’asile. Elle enferme en continu environ 50 000 migrants, pour beaucoup originaires d’Amérique latine, un record historique.

    En 2018, 400 000 migrants au total ont été détenus par les gardes-frontières et l’agence ICE. Environ 70 % des migrants détenus par ICE le sont par des groupes privés comme GEO, #CoreCivic ou #Caliburn. Depuis deux décennies, l’industrie des prisons privées, en perte de vitesse à la fin des années 1990, a profité à plein de la criminalisation des migrants.

    « La détention des migrants aux États-Unis a été quasiment sous-traitée au privé, nous explique Lauren-Brooke Eisen, chercheuse au Brennan Center for Justice de l’université de New York, auteure de Inside Private Prisons (Columbia University Press, non traduit). En aggravant la crise à la frontière, les politiques de l’administration Trump ont soutenu cette industrie. » Sitôt élu, Trump a d’ailleurs annulé un ordre de l’administration Obama limitant le recours aux prisons privées.

    Pour ces groupes privés dépendant des contrats publics, cajoler les politiques est une nécessité. Pour la seule année 2018, GEO a dépensé 2,8 millions de dollars de #lobbying et de dons à des politiques, la plupart des républicains.

    Le groupe a également versé 250 000 dollars pour la cérémonie d’investiture de Trump, et fait un don de 225 000 dollars au comité d’action politique ayant financé la campagne de l’actuel président, un geste qualifié d’« illégal » par l’ONG Campaign Legal Center, #GEO étant un sous-traitant du gouvernement.

    L’industrie est coutumière des allers-retours entre public et privé : le groupe Caliburn, récemment épinglé par Amnesty International pour sa gestion de la prison géante pour mineurs migrants de #Homestead (Floride), a même embauché l’ancien secrétaire à la sécurité nationale #John_Kelly, qui fut directement en charge de la politique migratoire au début de la présidence Trump – et continua à la superviser lorsqu’il devint chef de cabinet du président…

    D’après un rapport publié en novembre 2016 par In The Public Interest, BNP Paribas, de concert avec de grandes banques américaines, a joué un rôle actif depuis seize ans auprès de GEO :

    « Risques immédiats » pour les migrants

    BNP a en effet participé depuis 2003 à plusieurs tours de table permettant de dégager, via des crédits renouvelables (« #revolving_credits »), des prêts à terme (« #term_loans ») ou la souscription d’obligations (« #bonds »), d’énormes lignes de crédit pour GEO – des centaines de millions de dollars à chaque fois –, ensuite utilisées par le groupe pour acheter des sociétés, accaparer de nouvelles prisons, ou financer ses activités courantes.

    À la suite d’un nouvel accord passé l’an dernier, GEO dispose désormais d’un crédit renouvelable de 900 millions de dollars avec six banques (BNP Paribas, #Bank_of_America, #Barclays, #JPMorgan_Chase, #SunTrust, #Wells_Fargo). Il a souscrit avec les mêmes établissements un prêt à terme de 800 millions de dollars.

    « Pour les prisons privées, ces prêts massifs sont un peu des cartes de crédit, explique Shahrzad Habibi, directrice de la recherche de In The Public Interest. Pour éviter de payer l’impôt sur les sociétés, les groupes comme GEO ont un statut de trust d’investissement immobilier (REIT) qui leur impose de distribuer une grande partie de leurs profits à leurs actionnaires. » Faute de cash disponible, ils dépendent donc largement des crédits extérieurs.

    Pour ce service, les établissements bancaires sont grassement rémunérés : selon des documents transmis au régulateur américain, GEO a payé l’an dernier 150 millions de dollars d’intérêts à ses différents créditeurs.

    Une partie, non connue, de cette somme est allée à #BNP, qui touche aussi des #redevances substantielles en tant qu’« agent administratif » pour certaines de ses opérations. « Ces redevances, dont on ne connaît pas les détails, se chiffrent en centaines de milliers, potentiellement en millions de dollars », explique le chercheur Kevin Connor.

    Contacté, BNP Paribas assure ne pas « communiqu[er] les informations relatives aux crédits de [ses] clients ». Mais les prêts de la banque ne constituent, selon une porte-parole, que « 3 % du total » des financements du groupe GEO, et « une part négligeable » des revenus de BNP.

    Ces derniers mois, les images de migrants entassés dans des centres de détention surpeuplés et sordides ont ému le monde entier. Pour éviter de voir leur image de marque entachée, des géants de Wall Street (JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, SunTrust, etc.), pressés depuis des années de se désengager du secteur par des activistes, ont annoncé les uns après les autres qu’ils cessaient de financer le secteur des prisons privées.
    BNP Paribas a récemment suivi leur exemple. « BNP Paribas a pris la décision, comme plusieurs banques américaines, de ne plus intervenir sur le marché du financement des #prisons_privées. Désormais la banque n’engagera plus de financement dans ce secteur », nous a confirmé la banque, à la suite d’un article paru début juillet dans le quotidien belge L’Écho.

    Elle « honorera » toutefois « son engagement contractuel vis-à-vis de GEO », c’est-à-dire les crédits en cours, qui prennent fin en 2024.

    Pendant cinq ans, BNP Paribas continuera donc de financer les investissements et les dépenses courantes d’un groupe contesté, dont le nom est entaché par de multiples scandales.

    Comme le rappelle le Miami Herald, GEO a été « poursuivi à de multiples reprises pour avoir supposément forcé des détenus à travailler pour de la nourriture », a été accusé de « torturer des détenus dans l’Arizona », est épinglé depuis des années pour le taux alarmant de décès dans certains de ses centres gérés pour le compte d’ICE, des conditions sanitaires déplorables, l’abus du recours à l’isolement, le mépris des droits élémentaires des prisonniers. Il détient aussi des familles avec enfants dans son centre texan de #Karnes, une activité décriée depuis les années Obama par les défenseurs des migrants.

    Un rapport de l’inspection générale du Département de la sécurité nationale datant de juin 2019 fait état de « risques immédiats et de violations scandaleuses des standards de détention » dans certains des centres pour migrants de GEO, notamment dans le camp d’#Adelanto (#Californie), qui accueille 2 000 migrants, tristement connu pour ses abus répétés.

    Plusieurs candidats démocrates, comme Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Beto O’Rourke ou Kamala Harris, ont indiqué souhaiter interdire les prisons privées s’ils étaient élus.

    Mais si Trump est réélu en novembre 2020, BNP Paribas, Bank of America et les autres, qui ne comptent se retirer qu’à partir de 2024, continueront de prêter à GEO de quoi fonctionner et prospérer tout au long de son deuxième mandat, au cours duquel les humiliations contre les migrants ne manqueront pas de continuer, voire de s’amplifier.

    #privatisation #business #détention_administrative #rétention #asile #migrations #réfugiés #USA #Etats-Unis #sous-traitance #hypocrisie

  • Un anarchiste américain abattu par la police en s’attaquant au système concentrationnaire US

    Le 13 juillet 2019, #Will_Van_Spronsen a été abattu par la police de #Tacoma (État de Washington) après avoir tenté d’incendier des véhicules utilisés pour la déportation des migrants enfermés au #Northwest_Detention_Center.

    Militant révolutionnaire, anticapitaliste, antifasciste, Will Van Spronsen, 69 ans, est mort en s’attaquant au #système_concentrationnaire américain. Avant d’être abattu par la #police de Tacoma, il est parvenu à incendier l’un des bus utilisés pour déporter les migrants enfermés au sein du Northwest Detention Center, un camp géré par une entreprise privée. L’attaque menée par Van Spronsen a eu lieu un an jour pour jour après le déclenchement d’une grève de la faim au sein du camp pour dénoncer les déportations et les conditions d’enfermement. Van Spronsen était armé d’un fusil d’assaut et de bombes incendiaires.

    Le Northwest Detention Center est un camp géré par une entreprise privée, GEO Group, pour le compte de la police aux frontières américaine, l’United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Avec une capacité d’internement de 1 575 prisonniers, c’est l’un des plus grands camps des États-Unis. Y ont notamment été internées des personnes qui ont été séparées de leurs enfants après leur arrestation, dans le cadre des nouvelles mesures racistes mises en œuvre par l’administration Trump.

    Dans une lettre envoyée à des camarades avant l’attaque, Will Van Spronsen écrit notamment :

    « Quand j’étais enfant, dans la Hollande et la France d’après-guerre, ma tête était remplie d’histoires sur la montée du fascisme dans les années 30. Je me suis promis que je ne serais pas de ceux qui restent sans rien faire pendant que leurs voisins sont arrachés à leurs domiciles et emprisonnés parce qu’ils sont perçus comme inférieurs. [...] Les camps de détention sont une abomination. Je ne peux pas rester sans rien faire. »

    La Resistencia, un groupe local de soutien aux détenu-es du camp et aux exilé-es, écrit dans un communiqué :

    « Son action témoigne malheureusement du niveau de désespoir que des gens à travers tout le pays ressentent vis-à-vis de la violence ignoble du gouvernement à l’encontre des immigrés, notamment via l’utilisation de camps de détention pour enfermer les migrants vivant aux États-Unis ou ceux qui tentent d’y trouver asile. Cette mort découle de l’incapacité du gouvernement fédéral à répondre à la colère et au désespoir ressenti face aux horreurs qui se déroulent à la frontière et à l’intérieur du pays. »

    Un rassemblement en hommage à Will Van Spronsen a été organisé dans la ville d’Olympia le soir de sa mort. Les camarades présent-es ont revendiqué la fin du système concentrationnaire, des contrôles aux frontières et des déportations.

    Feu aux centres de rétention et aux camps de concentration ! Rest in power, Will Van Spronsen.

    #résistance #anarchisme #USA #Etats-Unis #rétention #migrations #asile #réfugiés #assassinat #meurtre #détention_administrative #police #violences_policières

    via @isskein

  • How severe is overcrowding at some US migrant facilities? Very

    Report found that 88 men were held in a cell with a maximum capacity of 41 – or less than 0.3 sq meters of space for each man

    #surpopulation #espace #détention #rétention #détention_administrative #USA #Etats-Unis #visualisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés
    ping @reka

  • Découvrir la #France derrière des barbelés

    Chaque année, à leur descente de l’avion, du train ou du bateau qui les a menés en France, des milliers d’étrangers sont victimes de l’arbitraire de la frontière et ne sont pas autorisés à pénétrer sur le territoire. Quand ils ne sont pas renvoyés illico, on les enferme en « #zone_d’attente ».

    Tout commence lors des contrôles des passagers. Certaines personnes sont admises sur le territoire Schengen sur simple présentation de leurs documents de voyage. D’autres, en raison de leur provenance, de leur nationalité ou de leur comportement, subissent un contrôle plus poussé.

    Claudia, Lola et Sarah [1], trois amies de nationalité dominicaine, résident à Naples depuis huit ans. Elles décident de venir en France, sans avoir réservé leur billet retour, une condition nécessaire à leur entrée sur le territoire – ce qu’elles ignorent. Lorsque Claudia passe les #contrôles_frontaliers, aucune question ne lui est posée : elle est admise sur le territoire français. Ses deux amies n’ont pas la même chance et subissent un contrôle plus approfondi. Elles ont beau présenter immédiatement leurs cartes de résidence italienne, comme pour rassurer la police française : elles ne veulent pas rester, elles ont leur vie en Italie... rien n’y fait. L’entrée leur est refusée et elles sont enfermées jusqu’à leur refoulement.

    Bienvenue en « zone d’attente ». Des lieux de #privation_de_liberté [2] qui se trouvent dans les #aéroports, les #ports et les #gares desservant l’international. En France, il en existe cent une, toutes différentes. Il peut s’agir d’une salle dans l’aéroport de Toulouse, de cellules dans le sous-sol de l’aéroport de Marseille ou encore d’une chambre d’hôtel en face de l’aéroport de Nantes.

    À #Roissy, la #Zapi_3 (Zone d’attente pour personnes en instance) s’étend sur deux niveaux et peut recevoir jusqu’à 120 personnes. Placé au bord des pistes, le bâtiment est entouré de grillages surplombés de barbelés. L’intérieur n’est pas moins oppressant : présence policière constante, caméras de surveillance, fenêtres condamnées, lumière de néons blafarde et bruit incessant des haut-parleurs appelant des personnes pour un éventuel renvoi. Surnommée « l’hôtel » par la police aux frontières, la Zapi 3 est la vitrine des zones d’attente françaises.

    Lorsqu’elles ne sont pas immédiatement renvoyées vers leur pays de provenance, les personnes non-admises sur le territoire sont donc enfermées en zone d’attente, pour une durée initiale de quatre jours et une durée maximum de vingt jours, le temps pour les autorités d’organiser leur renvoi. Durant leur maintien, elles sont dépendantes de la #police_aux_frontières (#PAF) pour l’exercice de leurs droits : enregistrement d’une demande d’asile, repas, accès aux soins.

    Dina et Ehsan, un couple afghan, sont arrivés de Grèce à l’aéroport de Beauvais. Placés en zone d’attente, ils ont vécu un calvaire durant cinq jours avant d’être libérés au titre de l’asile. Dina, alors enceinte de cinq mois, souffrait de maux de ventre et de saignements abondants ; Ehsan, lui, avait une plaie au bras nécrosée et inquiétante, due à une blessure par balle. Seule une lotion vitaminée leur a été délivrée lors de leur bref passage à l’hôpital.

    Les conditions d’enfermement étaient également inhumaines : un espace extrêmement sale, des poubelles débordantes, une chaleur suffocante, l’impossibilité de se laver, pas d’accès à un espace extérieur et une nourriture en quantité et qualité insuffisantes.

    À leur arrivée, la police a refusé d’enregistrer leurs demandes d’asile, et tenté de les renvoyer à deux reprises vers la Grèce. Pendant quatre jours, le couple n’a reçu aucune explication sur ses droits, la PAF n’ayant pas fait appel à un interprète. Les agents ont refusé de leur remettre les documents administratifs relatifs au refus d’entrée et au maintien en zone d’attente.

    La procédure de demande d’asile à la frontière est un #filtre qui sert avant tout au contrôle des flux migratoires, au détriment de la protection des personnes. Elle ne tend pas à reconnaître le statut de réfugié, mais seulement à donner l’autorisation d’entrer sur le territoire français afin d’y déposer une demande d’asile. Cette première décision revient au ministère de l’Intérieur. Pour cela, le demandeur est entendu par l’Ofpra (Office français de protection des réfugiés et des apatrides) qui examinera de façon superficielle le « caractère manifestement infondé » de sa demande [3].

    Lydia est nicaraguayenne. Elle a demandé l’asile à la frontière depuis la zone d’attente de Roissy. Sur la base d’un entretien de 25 minutes avec interprète, l’Ofpra et le ministère de l’Intérieur ont considéré que sa demande était manifestement infondée, décision confirmée par le tribunal administratif qui a rejeté son recours contre la décision ministérielle. Lydia a alors subi plusieurs tentatives d’embarquement. Après vingt jours d’enfermement, elle est placée en garde à vue pour avoir refusé d’embarquer, puis directement au Centre de rétention administrative (#CRA) sur la base d’une obligation de quitter le territoire français émise à l’issue de la garde à vue. L’Ofpra lui accordera finalement le statut de réfugiée depuis le CRA.

    La situation de Lydia n’est malheureusement pas isolée. Si certaines personnes finissent par être libérées de la zone d’attente, les autres sont majoritairement refoulées ou placées en garde à vue pour leur refus d’embarquer, ce qui constitue souvent le point d’entrée d’une spirale d’enfermements successifs. Les possibilités sont nombreuses : prison, local ou centre de rétention administrative. Si le juge prononce une interdiction du territoire français, la personne est placée en rétention juste après l’audience. Si, en plus, le juge condamne la personne (le refus d’embarquer est un délit passible de trois ans de prison ferme), elle sera placée en rétention à sa sortie de prison. La police tentera de nouveau de l’éloigner et si elle persiste à refuser d’embarquer, elle pourra une nouvelle fois être placée en garde à vue et condamnée.

    Pour se protéger d’un prétendu « risque migratoire » ou d’un « afflux massif », l’enfermement est un instrument central et banalisé de gestion des populations migrantes en Europe et au-delà. Les logiques frontalières sont généralement les mêmes : rejet, #invisibilisation, opacité des pratiques, fichage, violations des droits fondamentaux. L’enfermement se double d’une dimension de « #tri à l’entrée », qui renverrait à l’idée de prévention associée à l’image de « criminels » placés derrière des barreaux. Cet enfermement crée surtout des traumatismes profonds.


    #zones_d'attente #refoulement #push-back #refoulements #refoulements #aéroport #enfermement #détention_administrative #rétention

    ping @karine4 @isskein

  • Migranti, Centri per il rimpatrio peggio del carcere: “condizioni deplorevoli”

    Una situazione ancora più critica che in passato, molto dura e preoccupante, sia dal punto di vista della vita quotidiana, che scorre senza nessuna attività, con evidenti ripercussioni sulla salute psicofisica delle persone ristrette (fino a sei mesi o anche più), sia per quanto riguarda le condizioni materiali degli ambienti, spesso danneggiati o incendiati da precedenti ospiti ma mantenuti in tali condizioni di deterioramento e di assenza di igiene. E’ la fotografia dei Cpr (#Centri_per_il_rimpatrio) in Italia secondo il Garante delle persone private della libertà #Mauro_Palma.

    A distanza di alcuni mesi dalle ultime visite il Garante, nei giorni scorsi, ha effettuato nuove visite in quattro dei sei Centri per il rimpatrio presenti sul territorio italiano. Il 6 giugno una delegazione guidata da #Daniela_de_Robert, componente del Collegio del Garante, si è recata presso il Cpr di #Ponte_Galeria, a Roma, nel quale ha visitato l’appena riaperta sezione maschile. Il 18, il 19 e il 20 giugno, una delegazione guidata dal Presidente Mauro Palma e dalla stessa de Robert, ha visitato i Cpr di #Palazzo_San_Gervasio (in provincia di #Potenza), di #Bari e di #Brindisi. “Alcune criticità appaiono persino più gravi che in passato, in primo luogo perché la possibile prolungata permanenza rende ancora più inaccettabili talune condizioni, in secondo luogo perché nuove criticità si sono prodotte nel tempo: per esempio il guasto, riscontrato in un Centro, di tutti i telefoni pubblici che, unito alla mancata disponibilità di telefoni cellulari da destinare agli ospiti, rischia di comprimere il diritto alla difesa e quello all’unità familiare - si legge nella nota del Garante -. In alcuni Cpr non esistono ambienti forniti di tavoli e gli ospiti si trovano costretti a consumare i pasti sul proprio letto. Una privazione della libertà disposta perlopiù non in conseguenza di reati ma per irregolarità amministrative non può essere simile o peggiore a quella di chi sconta una pena. Tantomeno può prevedere minori garanzie di tutela dei propri diritti: per questo il diritto al reclamo e il potere di vigilanza dell’autorità giurisdizionale devono essere introdotti per le situazioni di privazione della libertà delle persone migranti, come il Garante nazionale ha da tempo raccomandato”. Pertanto il Garante chiede al governo di valutare “l’assoluta necessità di rendere la qualità della vita in questi Centri compatibile con il recente allungamento dei tempi di trattenimento”.

    Dopo aver visitato recentemente il Porto di #Civitavecchia e le zone aeroportuali di #Fiumicino e #Malpensa, il Garante nazionale il 20 giugno ha altresì visitato il Porto di #Bari – il primo Porto d’Italia per respingimenti – e le relative pertinenze, esaminando le procedure di espulsione e di respingimento, al fine di evitare che l’Italia debba rispondere in sede internazionale per eventuali violazioni.

    #cpr #détention_administrative #rétention #Italie #asile #migrations #réfugiés #ports #aéroports #renvois #expulsions #Italie

  • https://www.mediacites.fr/lyon/solutions-lyon/2019/06/05/ces-condamnes-qui-purgent-leur-peine-a-lair-libre

    « Le placement extérieur a été mis en place pour éviter les sorties sèches de personnes précarisées, isolées, et dont les séjours en prison contribuent à les maintenir dans le cercle de la délinquance. »

    Dans l’ombre du bracelet électronique, le placement extérieur ne concerne que 600 détenus début 2019.
    #prison #détention

  • European Court Condemns Greece’s Migrant Kid Lockups

    Fresh Ruling Calls for End to Harmful Detention of Lone Migrant Children.
    This week, the European Court of Human Rights ruled for the second time in four months against Greece’s abusive practice of locking up unaccompanied migrant and asylum-seeking children in police cells under the so-called “protective custody” regime.

    The problem seems to be getting worse. As of May 31, 123 unaccompanied children were still detained in police station cells or immigrant detention centers across the country. That’s 43 more kids than were being detained at the end of March, just as the court first ruled against the practice.

    Human Rights Watch has found that detained children are forced to live in unsanitary conditions, often alongside adults they do not know, and can be abused and ill-treated by police. Detention can also have serious long-term impacts, including anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, memory loss, and harm to children’s development.

    To make things worse, because they are in detention, these kids – who may have suffered horrific experiences while escaping from war zones – are often unable to receive medical treatment, psychological counselling, or legal aid. Few even know why they’re detained or how long they will be behind bars.

    The latest ruling concerns five unaccompanied children from Afghanistan, aged between 14 and 17, who first applied to the European Court in 2016. The court ruled that the detention in police stations of three of the children violated their right to liberty, and that conditions there exposed them to degrading treatment. The court also held that the authorities had not done all that could reasonably be expected of them to provide for and protect four of the children, who had lived for a month in the makeshift Idomeni refugee camp in an environment unsuitable for adolescents.

    The Greek government should respond to the ruling by immediately transferring all kids now in police custody to open and safe accommodation. Greece should also work to increase its shelter capacity, find alternatives to detention, and implement a comprehensive foster family system introduced in 2018, which would also benefit Greek children.

    Unaccompanied kids in Greece should not have to spend another day locked up in filthy police cells.


    #CEDH #condamnation #Grèce #enfants #enfance #réfugiés #migrations #asile #rétention #détention_administrative #MNA #mineurs_non_accompagnés

  • Call immigrant detention centers what they really are: concentration camps

    If you were paying close attention last week, you might have spotted a pattern in the news. Peeking out from behind the breathless coverage of the Trump family’s tuxedoed trip to London was a spate of deaths of immigrants in U.S. custody: Johana Medina Léon, a 25-year-old transgender asylum seeker; an unnamed 33-year-old Salvadoran man; and a 40-year-old woman from Honduras.

    Photos from a Border Patrol processing center in El Paso showed people herded so tightly into cells that they had to stand on toilets to breathe. Memos surfaced by journalist Ken Klippenstein revealed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s failure to provide medical care was responsible for suicides and other deaths of detainees. These followed another report that showed that thousands of detainees are being brutally held in isolation cells just for being transgender or mentally ill.

    Also last week, the Trump administration cut funding for classes, recreation and legal aid at detention centers holding minors — which were likened to “summer camps” by a senior ICE official last year. And there was the revelation that months after being torn from their parents’ arms, 37 children were locked in vans for up to 39 hours in the parking lot of a detention center outside Port Isabel, Texas. In the last year, at least seven migrant children have died in federal custody.

    Preventing mass outrage at a system like this takes work. Certainly it helps that the news media covers these horrors intermittently rather than as snowballing proof of a racist, lawless administration. But most of all, authorities prevail when the places where people are being tortured and left to die stay hidden, misleadingly named and far from prying eyes.

    There’s a name for that kind of system. They’re called concentration camps. You might balk at my use of the term. That’s good — it’s something to be balked at.

    The goal of concentration camps has always been to be ignored. The German-Jewish political theorist Hannah Arendt, who was imprisoned by the Gestapo and interned in a French camp, wrote a few years afterward about the different levels of concentration camps. Extermination camps were the most extreme; others were just about getting “undesirable elements … out of the way.” All had one thing in common: “The human masses sealed off in them are treated as if they no longer existed, as if what happened to them were no longer of interest to anybody, as if they were already dead.”

    Euphemisms play a big role in that forgetting. The term “concentration camp” is itself a euphemism. It was invented by a Spanish official to paper over his relocation of millions of rural families into squalid garrison towns where they would starve during Cuba’s 1895 independence war. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered Japanese Americans into prisons during World War II, he initially called them concentration camps. Americans ended up using more benign names, like “Manzanar Relocation Center.”

    Even the Nazis’ camps started out small, housing criminals, Communists and opponents of the regime. It took five years to begin the mass detention of Jews. It took eight, and the outbreak of a world war, for the first extermination camps to open. Even then, the Nazis had to keep lying to distract attention, claiming Jews were merely being resettled to remote work sites. That’s what the famous signs — Arbeit Macht Frei, or “Work Sets You Free” — were about.

    Subterfuge doesn’t always work. A year ago, Americans accidentally became aware that the Trump administration had adopted (and lied about) a policy of ripping families apart at the border. The flurry of attention was thanks to the viral conflation of two separate but related stories: the family-separation order and bureaucrats’ admission that they’d been unable to locate thousands of migrant children who’d been placed with sponsors after crossing the border alone.

    Trump shoved that easily down the memory hole. He dragged his heels a bit, then agreed to a new policy: throwing whole families into camps together. Political reporters posed irrelevant questions, like whether President Obama had been just as bad, and what it meant for the midterms. Then they moved on.

    It is important to note that Trump’s aides have built this system of racist terror on something that has existed for a long time. Several camps opened under Obama, and as president he deported millions of people.

    But Trump’s game is different. It certainly isn’t about negotiating immigration reform with Congress. Trump has made it clear that he wants to stifle all non-white immigration, period. His mass arrests, iceboxes and dog cages are part of an explicitly nationalist project to put the country under the control of the right kind of white people.

    As a Republican National Committee report noted in 2013: “The nation’s demographic changes add to the urgency of recognizing how precarious our position has become.” The Trump administration’s attempt to put a citizenship question on the 2020 census was also just revealed to have been a plot to disadvantage political opponents and boost “Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites” all along.

    That’s why this isn’t just a crisis facing immigrants. When a leader puts people in camps to stay in power, history shows that he doesn’t usually stop with the first group he detains.

    There are now at least 48,000 people detained in ICE facilities, which a former official told BuzzFeed News “could swell indefinitely.” Customs and Border Protection officials apprehended more than 144,000 people on the Southwest border last month. (The New York Times dutifully reported this as evidence of a “dramatic surge in border crossings,” rather than what it was: The administration using its own surge of arrests to justify the rest of its policies.)

    If we call them what they are — a growing system of American concentration camps — we will be more likely to give them the attention they deserve. We need to know their names: Port Isabel, Dilley, Adelanto, Hutto and on and on. With constant, unrelenting attention, it is possible we might alleviate the plight of the people inside, and stop the crisis from getting worse. Maybe people won’t be able to disappear so easily into the iceboxes. Maybe it will be harder for authorities to lie about children’s deaths.

    Maybe Trump’s concentration camps will be the first thing we think of when we see him scowling on TV.

    The only other option is to leave it up to those in power to decide what’s next. That’s a calculated risk. As Andrea Pitzer, author of “One Long Night,” one of the most comprehensive books on the history of concentration camps, recently noted: “Every country has said their camps are humane and will be different. Trump is instinctively an authoritarian. He’ll take them as far as he’s allowed to.”

    #terminologie #vocabulaire #mots #camps #camps_de_concentration #centres_de_détention #détention_administrative #rétention #USA #Etats-Unis

    • ‘Some Suburb of Hell’: America’s New Concentration Camp System

      On Monday, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez referred to US border detention facilities as “concentration camps,” spurring a backlash in which critics accused her of demeaning the memory of those who died in the Holocaust. Debates raged over a label for what is happening along the southern border and grew louder as the week rolled on. But even this back-and-forth over naming the camps has been a recurrent feature in the mass detention of civilians ever since its inception, a history that long predates the Holocaust.

      At the heart of such policy is a question: What does a country owe desperate people whom it does not consider to be its citizens? The twentieth century posed this question to the world just as the shadow of global conflict threatened for the second time in less than three decades. The dominant response was silence, and the doctrine of absolute national sovereignty meant that what a state did to people under its control, within its borders, was nobody else’s business. After the harrowing toll of the Holocaust with the murder of millions, the world revisited its answer, deciding that perhaps something was owed to those in mortal danger. From the Fourth Geneva Convention protecting civilians in 1949 to the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, the international community established humanitarian obligations toward the most vulnerable that apply, at least in theory, to all nations.

      The twenty-first century is unraveling that response. Countries are rejecting existing obligations and meeting asylum seekers with walls and fences, from detainees fleeing persecution who were sent by Australia to third-party detention in the brutal offshore camps of Manus and Nauru to razor-wire barriers blocking Syrian refugees from entering Hungary. While some nations, such as Germany, wrestle with how to integrate refugees into their labor force—more and more have become resistant to letting them in at all. The latest location of this unwinding is along the southern border of the United States.

      So far, American citizens have gotten only glimpses of the conditions in the border camps that have been opened in their name. In the month of May, Customs and Border Protection reported a total of 132,887 migrants who were apprehended or turned themselves in between ports of entry along the southwest border, an increase of 34 percent from April alone. Upon apprehension, these migrants are temporarily detained by Border Patrol, and once their claims are processed, they are either released or handed over to ICE for longer-term detention. Yet Border Patrol itself is currently holding about 15,000 people, nearly four times what government officials consider to be this enforcement arm’s detention capacity.

      On June 12, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that Fort Sill, an Army post that hosted a World War II internment camp for detainees of Japanese descent, will now be repurposed to detain migrant children. In total, HHS reports that it is currently holding some 12,000 minors. Current law limits detention of minors to twenty days, though Senator Lindsey Graham has proposed expanding the court-ordered limit to 100 days. Since the post is on federal land, it will be exempt from state child welfare inspections.

      In addition to the total of detainees held by Border Patrol, an even higher number is detained at centers around the country by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency: on a typical day at the beginning of this month, ICE was detaining more than 52,500 migrants. The family separation policy outraged the public in the 2018, but despite legal challenges, it never fully ended. Less publicized have been the deaths of twenty-four adults in ICE custody since the beginning of the Trump administration; in addition, six children between the ages of two and sixteen have died in federal custody over the last several months. It’s not clear whether there have been other deaths that have gone unreported.

      Conditions for detainees have not been improving. At the end of May, a Department of Homeland Security inspector general found nearly 900 migrants at a Texas shelter built for a capacity of 125 people. On June 11, a university professor spotted at least 100 men behind chain-link fences near the Paso del Norte Bridge in El Paso, Texas. Those detainees reported sitting outside for weeks in temperatures that soared above 100 degrees. Taylor Levy, an El Paso immigration lawyer, described going into one facility and finding “a suicidal four-year-old whose face was covered in bloody, self-inflicted scratches… Another young child had to be restrained by his mother because he kept running full-speed into metal lockers. He was covered in bruises.”

      If deciding what to do about the growing numbers of adults and children seeking refuge in the US relies on complex humanitarian policies and international laws, in which most Americans don’t take a deep interest, a simpler question also presents itself: What exactly are these camps that the Trump administration has opened, and where is this program of mass detention headed?

      Even with incomplete information about what’s happening along the border today and what the government plans for these camps, history points to some conclusions about their future. Mass detention without trial earned a new name and a specific identity at the end of the nineteenth century. The labels then adopted for the practice were “reconcentración” and “concentration camps”—places of forced relocation of civilians into detention on the basis of group identity.

      Other kinds of group detention had appeared much earlier in North American history. The US government drove Native Americans from their homelands into prescribed exile, with death and detention in transit camps along the way. Some Spanish mission systems in the Americas had accomplished similar ends by seizing land and pressing indigenous people into forced labor. During the 245 years when slavery was legal in the US, detention was one of its essential features.

      Concentration camps, however, don’t typically result from the theft of land, as happened with Native Americans, or owning human beings in a system of forced labor, as in the slave trade. Exile, theft, and forced labor can come later, but in the beginning, detention itself is usually the point of concentration camps. By the end of the nineteenth century, the mass production of barbed wire and machines guns made this kind of detention possible and practical in ways it never had been before.

      Under Spanish rule in 1896, the governor-general of Cuba instituted camps in order to clear rebel-held regions during an uprising, despite his predecessor’s written refusal “as the representative of a civilized nation, to be the first to give the example of cruelty and intransigence” that such detention would represent. After women and children began dying in vast numbers behind barbed wire because there had been little planning for shelter and even less for food, US President William McKinley made his call to war before Congress. He spoke against the policy of reconcentración, calling it warfare by uncivilized means. “It was extermination,” McKinley said. “The only peace it could beget was that of the wilderness and the grave.” Without full records, the Cuban death toll can only be estimated, but a consensus puts it in the neighborhood of 150,000, more than 10 percent of the island’s prewar population.

      Today, we remember the sinking of the USS Maine as the spark that ignited the Spanish-American War. But war correspondent George Kennan (cousin of the more famous diplomat) believed that “it was the suffering of the reconcentrados, more, perhaps, than any other one thing that brought about the intervention of the United States.” On April 25, 1898, Congress declared war. Two weeks later, US Marines landed at Fisherman’s Point on the windward side of the entrance to Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. After a grim, week-long fight, the Marines took the hill. It became a naval base, and the United States has never left that patch of land.

      As part of the larger victory, the US inherited the Philippines. The world’s newest imperial power also inherited a rebellion. Following a massacre of American troops at Balangiga in September 1901, during the third year of the conflict, the US established its own concentration camp system. Detainees, mostly women and children, were forced into squalid conditions that one American soldier described in a letter to a US senator as “some suburb of hell.” In the space of only four months, more than 11,000 Filipinos are believed to have died in these noxious camps.

      Meanwhile, in southern Africa in 1900, the British had opened their own camps during their battle with descendants of Dutch settlers in the second Boer War. British soldiers filled tent cities with Boer women and children, and the military authorities called them refugee camps. Future Prime Minister David Lloyd George took offense at that name, noting in Parliament: “There is no greater delusion in the mind of any man than to apply the term ‘refugee’ to these camps. They are not refugee camps. They are camps of concentration.” Contemporary observers compared them to the Cuban camps, and criticized their deliberate cruelty. The Bishop of Hereford wrote to The Times of London in 1901, asking: “Are we reduced to such a depth of impotence that our Government can do nothing to stop such a holocaust of child-life?”

      Maggoty meat rations and polluted water supplies joined outbreaks of contagious diseases amid crowded and unhealthy conditions in the Boer camps. More than 27,000 detainees are thought to have died there, nearly 80 percent of them children. The British had opened camps for black Africans as well, in which at least 14,000 detainees died—the real number is probably much higher. Aside from protests made by some missionaries, the deaths of indigenous black Africans did not inspire much public outrage. Much of the history of the suffering in these camps has been lost.

      These early experiments with concentration camps took place on the periphery of imperial power, but accounts of them nevertheless made their way into newspapers and reports in many nations. As a result, the very idea of them came to be seen as barbaric. By the end of the first decade of the twentieth century, the first camp systems had all been closed, and concentration camps had nearly vanished as an institution. Within months of the outbreak of World War I, though, they would be resurrected—this time rising not at the margins but in the centers of power. Between 1914 and 1918, camps were constructed on an unprecedented scale across six continents. In their time, these camps were commonly called concentration camps, though today they are often referred to by the more anodyne term “internment.”

      Those World War I detainees were, for the most part, foreigners—or, in legalese, aliens—and recent anti-immigration legislation in several countries had deliberately limited their rights. The Daily Mail denounced aliens left at liberty once they had registered with their local police department, demanding, “Does signing his name take the malice out of a man?” The Scottish Field was more direct, asking, “Do Germans have souls?” That these civilian detainees were no threat to Britain did not keep them from being demonized, shouted at, and spat upon as they were paraded past hostile crowds in cities like London.

      Though a small number of people were shot in riots in these camps, and hunger became a serious issue as the conflict dragged on, World War I internment would present a new, non-lethal face for the camps, normalizing detention. Even after the war, new camps sprang up from Spain to Hungary and Cuba, providing an improvised “solution” for everything from vagrancy to anxieties over the presence of Jewish foreigners.

      Some of these camps were clearly not safe for those interned. Local camps appeared in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1921, after a white mob burned down a black neighborhood and detained African-American survivors. In Bolshevik Russia, the first concentration camps preceded the formation of the Soviet Union in 1922 and planted seeds for the brutal Gulag system that became official near the end of the USSR’s first decade. While some kinds of camps were understood to be harsher, after World War I their proliferation did not initially disturb public opinion. They had yet to take on their worst incarnations.

      In 1933, barely more than a month after Hitler was appointed chancellor, the Nazis’ first, impromptu camp opened in the town of Nohra in central Germany to hold political opponents. Detainees at Nohra were allowed to vote at a local precinct in the elections of March 5, 1933, resulting in a surge of Communist ballots in the tiny town. Locking up groups of civilians without trial had become accepted. Only the later realization of the horrors of the Nazi death camps would break the default assumption by governments and the public that concentration camps could and should be a simple way to manage populations seen as a threat.

      However, the staggering death toll of the Nazi extermination camp system—which was created mid-war and stood almost entirely separate from the concentration camps in existence since 1933—led to another result: a strange kind of erasure. In the decades that followed World War II, the term “concentration camp” came to stand only for Auschwitz and other extermination camps. It was no longer applied to the kind of extrajudicial detention it had denoted for generations. The many earlier camps that had made the rise of Auschwitz possible largely vanished from public memory.

      It is not necessary, however, to step back a full century in American history to find camps with links to what is happening on the US border today. Detention at Guantánamo began in the 1990s, when Haitian and Cuban immigrants whom the government wanted to keep out of the United States were housed there in waves over a four-year period—years before the “war on terror” and the US policy of rendition of suspected “enemy combatants” made Camps Delta, X-Ray, and Echo notorious. Tens of thousands of Haitians fleeing instability at home were picked up at sea and diverted to the Cuban base, to limit their legal right to apply for asylum. The court cases and battles over the suffering of those detainees ended up setting the stage for what Guantánamo would become after September 11, 2001.

      In one case, a federal court ruled that it did have jurisdiction over the base, but the government agreed to release the Haitians who were part of the lawsuit in exchange for keeping that ruling off the books. A ruling in a second case would assert that the courts did not have jurisdiction. Absent the prior case, the latter stood on its own as precedent. Leaving Guantánamo in this gray area made it an ideal site for extrajudicial detention and torture after the twin towers fell.

      This process of normalization, when a bad camp becomes much more dangerous, is not unusual. Today’s border camps are a crueler reflection of long-term policies—some challenged in court—that earlier presidents had enacted. Prior administrations own a share of the responsibility for today’s harsh practices, but the policies in place today are also accompanied by a shameless willingness to publicly target a vulnerable population in increasingly dangerous ways.

      I visited Guantánamo twice in 2015, sitting in the courtroom for pretrial hearings and touring the medical facility, the library, and all the old abandoned detention sites, as well as newly built ones, open to the media—from the kennel-style cages of Camp X-Ray rotting to ruin in the damp heat to the modern jailhouse facilities of Camp 6. Seeing all this in person made clear to me how vast the architecture of detention had become, how entrenched it was, and how hard it would be to close.

      Without a significant government effort to reverse direction, conditions in every camp system tend to deteriorate over time. Governments rarely make that kind of effort on behalf of people they are willing to lock up without trial in the first place. And history shows that legislatures do not close camps against the will of an executive.

      Just a few years ago there might have been more potential for change spurred by the judicial branch of our democracy, but this Supreme Court is inclined toward deference to executive power, even, it appears, if that power is abused. It seems unlikely this Court will intervene to end the new border camp system; indeed, the justices are far more likely to institutionalize it by half-measures, as happened with Guantánamo. The Korematsu case, in which the Supreme Court upheld Japanese-American internment (a ruling only rescinded last year), relied on the suppression of evidence by the solicitor general. Americans today can have little confidence that this administration would behave any more scrupulously when defending its detention policy.

      What kind of conditions can we expect to develop in these border camps? The longer a camp system stays open, the more likely it is that vital things will go wrong: detainees will contract contagious diseases and suffer from malnutrition and mental illness. We have already seen that current detention practices have resulted in children and adults succumbing to influenza, staph infections, and sepsis. The US is now poised to inflict harm on tens of thousands more, perhaps hundreds of thousands more.

      Along with such inevitable consequences, every significant camp system has introduced new horrors of its own, crises that were unforeseen when that system was opened. We have yet to discover what those will be for these American border camps. But they will happen. Every country thinks it can do detention better when it starts these projects. But no good way to conduct mass indefinite detention has yet been devised; the system always degrades.

      When, in 1940, Margarete Buber-Neumann was transferred from the Soviet Gulag at Karaganda to the camp for women at Ravensbrück (in an exchange enabled by the Nazi–Soviet Pact), she came from near-starvation conditions in the USSR and was amazed at the cleanliness and order of the Nazi camp. New arrivals were issued clothing, bedding, and silverware, and given fresh porridge, fruit, sausage, and jam to eat. Although the Nazi camps were already punitive, order-obsessed monstrosities, the wartime overcrowding that would soon overtake them had not yet made daily life a thing of constant suffering and squalor. The death camps were still two years away.

      The United States now has a vast and growing camp system. It is starting out with gruesome overcrowding and inadequate healthcare, and because of budget restrictions, has already taken steps to cut services to juvenile detainees. The US Office of Refugee Resettlement says that the mounting number of children arriving unaccompanied is forcing it to use military bases and other sites that it prefers to avoid, and that establishing these camps is a temporary measure. But without oversight from state child welfare inspectors, the possibilities for neglect and abuse are alarming. And without any knowledge of how many asylum-seekers are coming in the future, federal administrators are likely to find themselves boxed in to managing detention on military sites permanently.

      President Trump and senior White House adviser Stephen Miller appear to have purged the Department of Homeland Security of most internal opposition to their anti-immigrant policies. In doing so, that have removed even those sympathetic to the general approach taken by the White House, such as former Chief of Staff John Kelly and former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, in order to escalate the militarization of the border and expand irregular detention in more systematic and punitive ways. This kind of power struggle or purge in the early years of a camp system is typical.

      The disbanding of the Cheka, the Soviet secret police, in February 1922 and the transfer of its commander, Felix Dzerzhinsky, to head up an agency with control over only two prisons offered a hint of an alternate future in which extrajudicial detention would not play a central role in the fledgling Soviet republic. But Dzerzhinsky managed to keep control over the “special camps” in his new position, paving the way for the emergence of a camp-centered police state. In pre-war Germany in the mid-1930s, Himmler’s struggle to consolidate power from rivals eventually led him to make camps central to Nazi strategy. When the hardliners win, as they appear to have in the US, conditions tend to worsen significantly.

      Is it possible this growth in the camp system will be temporary and the improvised border camps will soon close? In theory, yes. But the longer they remain open, the less likely they are to vanish. When I visited the camps for Rohingya Muslims a year before the large-scale campaign of ethnic cleansing began, many observers appeared to be confusing the possible and the probable. It was possible that the party of Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi would sweep into office in free elections and begin making changes. It was possible that full democracy would come to all the residents of Myanmar, even though the government had stripped the Rohingya of the last vestiges of their citizenship. These hopes proved to be misplaced. Once there are concentration camps, it is always probable that things will get worse.

      The Philippines, Japanese-American internment, Guantánamo… we can consider the fine points of how the current border camps evoke past US systems, and we can see how the arc of camp history reveals the likelihood that the suffering we’re currently inflicting will be multiplied exponentially. But we can also simply look at what we’re doing right now, shoving bodies into “dog pound”-style detention pens, “iceboxes,” and standing room-only spaces. We can look at young children in custody who have become suicidal. How much more historical awareness do we really need?


    • #Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez engage le bras de fer avec la politique migratoire de Donald Trump

      L’élue de New York a qualifié les camps de rétention pour migrants érigés à la frontière sud des Etats-Unis de « camps de concentration ».


  • Communiqué n°63 Collectif des OlieuxLe 4 juin 2019
    Une expulsion pour fêter l’Aïd

    Le 5 étoiles était un lieu occupé depuis novembre 2017 par des personnes exilées, majeures et mineures ainsi que des personnes sans abri. Depuis plusieurs mois, une procédure est en cours pour exiger qu’il n’y ait pas d’expulsion sans réelle solution d’hébergement. Alors que la décision du tribunal devait être rendue ce jeudi 6 juin, le préfet, sous l’éternel prétexte de « mise à l’abri », en a ordonné l’expulsion deux jours avant.Mardi 4 juin, dès 5h45, une quarantaine de fourgons de CRS débarquent. Le quartier est totalement bouclé par des flics agressifs, armés et casqués. Une dizaine de bus aux vitres teintées attendent dans la rue.

    A 6h du mat’ l’ordre est donné d’attaquer . La charge est violente.Une partie des soutiens se poste devant l’entrée, mais sont très rapidement dégagés sans ménagement. A l’intérieur, les habitant.es et des soutiens s’organisent pour retarder l’expulsion en bloquant la grille avec les moyens du bord. Les flics gazent à tout va, scient les cadenas et forcent l’entrée. Ilsen profitent pour nasser les personnes regroupées à l’intérieur et commencent le tri. D’abord les personnes venues en soutien sont injuriées, traînées, molestées, puis extirpées du lieu. Elles sont contrôlées, prises en photos et certain.es sont emmené.es pour une garde à vue.

    Ce mardi après-midi, 16 personnes sont toujours au commissariat.Après avoir désolidarisés les soutiens des habitant.es, ces derniers décident de se lever pour partir.Les flics les repoussent violemment. La police use alors de son traditionnel discours bidon et infantilisant : « allez, asseyez vous, on va faire une belle file d’attente et on va vous donner un logement, vous sortir de la merde ».

    Le triage des exilé.es commence : suivant une pratique bien huilée les personnes sont réparties dans les bus selon leur situation administrative et embarquées de force sans savoir où elles seront amenées. Comme d’habitude, la préfecture poursuit sa logique d’invisibilisation et d’enfermement. L’expulsion avait été anticipée par le préfet en faisant de la place dans les deux CRA de la région. Une grande partie des ancien.nes habitant.es du 5 étoiles se retrouve aujourd’hui emprisonnée. La préfecture, en imposant un hébergement provisoire (entre 4 jours et 1 mois de « prise en charge »), brise leur vie, leurs envies, leurs liens avec le collectif, les associations, les écoles, les voisins et les ami.es... Jusqu’au bout le mépris sera total : personne n’est autorisé à récupérer ses affaires personnelles avant de partir. Aux dernières nouvelles, les personnes sont réparties sur les différents sites suivants:CAES Croisilles, Nedonchel, CRA Coquelles, CRA Lesquin, CAO* Amiens, CAO Beauvais,Foyer pour mineurs à Armentières. Face à l’augmentation de la répression vis à vis des personnes exilé.es comme des personnes qui se mobilisent,

    PASSONS les Frontières
    OCCUPONS les espaces vie-des

    CAES : Centre d’accueil et d’ examen des situations
    CRA : Centre de rétention administrative
    CAO : Centre d’accueil et d’orientation

    #Lille #PS #martine_aubry #expulsion #détention_administrative #expulsions #renvois #renvoi #migration #france #logement #violence #police

  • Thousands of Immigrant Children Said They Were Sexually Abused in U.S. Detention Centers, Report Says

    The federal government received more than 4,500 complaints in four years about the sexual abuse of immigrant children who were being held at government-funded detention facilities, including an increase in complaints while the Trump administration’s policy of separating migrant families at the border was in place, the Justice Department revealed this week.

    The records, which involve children who had entered the country alone or had been separated from their parents, detailed allegations that adult staff members had harassed and assaulted children, including fondling and kissing minors, watching them as they showered, and raping them. They also included cases of suspected abuse of children by other minors.

    From October 2014 to July 2018, the Office of Refugee Resettlement, a part of the Health and Human Services Department that cares for so-called unaccompanied minors, received a total of 4,556 allegations of sexual abuse or sexual harassment, 1,303 of which were referred to the Justice Department. Of those 1,303 cases deemed the most serious, 178 were accusations that adult staff members had sexually assaulted immigrant children, while the rest were allegations of minors assaulting other minors, the report said.

    “The safety of minors is our top concern when administering the UAC program,” Jonathan H. Hayes, the acting director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, said in a statement, using an abbreviation for unaccompanied children. “None of the allegations involved O.R.R. federal staff. These allegations were all fully investigated and remedial action was taken where appropriate.”

    [Read the latest edition of Crossing the Border, a limited-run newsletter about life where the United States and Mexico meet. Sign up here to receive the next issue in your inbox.]

    The records do not detail the outcome of every complaint, but they indicate that some accusations were determined to be unfounded or lacking enough evidence to prosecute. In one case, a staff member at a Chicago detention facility was accused in April 2015 of fondling and kissing a child and was later charged with a crime. The report did not state whether that person had been found guilty.

    The documents, first reported by Axios, were made public by Representative Ted Deutch, Democrat of Florida, the night before a House Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday about the Trump administration’s policy of family separations at the southern border. That policy, which was put in place last spring, resulted in more than 2,700 children being separated from their parents under President Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy of prosecuting anyone caught crossing the border illegally, including those with families seeking asylum on humanitarian grounds.

    For most of the four years covered by the report, the number of allegations made to the Office of Refugee Resettlement stayed about the same from month to month. But the number of complaints rose after the Trump administration enacted its separation policy. From March 2018 to July 2018, the agency received 859 complaints, the largest number of reports during any five-month span in the previous four years. Of those, 342 allegations were referred to the Justice Department, the report showed.

    During the hearing on Tuesday, a discussion of the records sparked a heated exchange between Mr. Deutch and Cmdr. Jonathan White of the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, who last year repeatedly warned a top official in Health and Human Services that the family separation policy could permanently traumatize young children.
    Editors’ Picks
    The Age of the Internet ‘Wife Guy’
    The Man Who Told America the Truth About D-Day
    At Work, Everyone Is in Fact Talking About You All the Time

    As Mr. Deutch read some of the report, Commander White interjected, “That is false!”

    He later apologized, claiming that a “vast majority of allegations proved to be unfounded.” He said he was unaware of any accusations against staff members that were found to have merit.

    #viol #viols #abus_sexuels #USA #Etats-Unis #rétention #détention_administrative #enfants #enfance #rapport #migrations #asile #réfugiés

    L’article date de février 2019

  • Rapport #2018 sur les centres et locaux de rétention administrative

    24 centres de rétention sont passés au crible : #statistiques précises, témoignages et spécificités locales. Analyses et #chiffres inédits pour décrypter une politique migratoire menée au détriment des #droits_fondamentaux des personnes étrangères.

    Rapport commun sur les centres de rétention administrative par ASSFAM Groupe SOS Solidarités, Forum réfugiés-Cosi, France terre d’asile, La Cimade, Ordre de Malte France et Solidarité Mayotte.

    Les six associations intervenant dans les centres de rétention administrative présentent leur neuvième rapport commun sur ces lieux anxiogènes marqués par la violence, résultat d’un durcissement de la politique d’éloignement.

    L’année 2018 a été marquée par une utilisation importante de l’#enfermement des personnes étrangères en centres de rétention administrative, y compris les plus vulnérables. Ainsi, plus de 45000 personnes ont été placées dans des lieux de rétention administrative, en métropole et en outre-mer. Le gouvernement a également décidé d’accroître très fortement la capacité de ces lieux de privation de liberté avec 480 places supplémentaires en métropole (de 1069 à 1549) par le moyen d’ouvertures de #LRA, de réouvertures de #CRA, d’extensions des centres déjà existants.

    Cette #politique_d’enfermement s’est encore renforcée à travers l’adoption de la loi du 10 septembre 2018 qui a instauré au 1er janvier 2019 le doublement de la durée maximale de rétention, passée de 45 à 90 jours. Aucun gouvernement français n’avait jusque-là proposé une telle durée de privation de liberté pour tenter d’éloigner des personnes étrangères.

    Dans ce rapport, nos associations font le constat alarmant d’une forte dégradation du respect des droits des personnes enfermées. Nos associations en appellent donc au gouvernement pour que cessent le recours prioritaire à l’enfermement dans la politique d’éloignement des personnes étrangères et la violation des droits qui s’attachent, en toute circonstance, à la privation de liberté.

    #rétention #détention_administrative #France #migrations #asile #réfugiés #rapport

    • Les centres de rétention administratives fonctionnent à plein régime

      Dans un rapport publié ce mardi, six associations dont la Cimade et France Terre d’Asile s’inquiètent du nombre élevé d’étrangers placés en rétention en 2018

      Les centres de rétention ont été « utilisés à plein régime » en 2018, indiquent six associations dans un rapport présenté ce mardi.
      Selon leurs chiffres, 45.851 personnes ont été placées en rétention l’an dernier, contre 46.800 en 2017. La durée moyenne de rétention a en revanche augmenté.
      « La grande promiscuité, conjuguée à l’enfermement de personnes en grande précarité ou affectées de troubles psychologiques pour certaines, ont abouti à des tensions très fortes », soulignent les auteurs du document.

      Elles tirent la sonnette d’alarme. Dans un rapport publié ce mardi, six associations (Assfam-Groupe SOS, Forum Réfugiés-Cosi, France Terre d’Asile, Cimade, Ordre de Malte, Solidarité Mayotte) estiment que les centres de rétention ont été « utilisés à plein régime » en 2018. Selon leurs chiffres, 45.851 personnes ont été placées en rétention l’an dernier, dont 26.614 en métropole, contre 46.800 en 2017. Mais la durée moyenne de rétention a augmenté. Elles s’inquiètent notamment d’« une détérioration des droits » des étrangers enfermés dans ces lieux dans l’attente de leur éventuelle expulsion.

      Lors d’une conférence de presse, David Rohi, en charge des questions de rétention à la Cimade, a notamment dénoncé une « une banalisation de l’enfermement qui s’est fortement aggravée depuis l’arrivée au pouvoir d’Emmanuel Macron ». Le rapport de 132 pages pointe un « usage quasi systématique de la rétention par de nombreuses préfectures ». « La France demeure le pays européen qui a le plus recours à l’enfermement des personnes étrangères en vue de les éloigner », est-il écrit.
      « Remplir davantage les CRA »

      Ces associations rappellent que le gouvernement a décidé l’an dernier « d’accroître très fortement la capacité de ces lieux de privation de liberté » avec 480 places supplémentaires en métropole (portées à 1.549). Un tel développement « n’avait plus été constaté depuis plus d’une décennie », assurent-elles. Selon elles, « les préfets ont reçu pour instruction de remplir davantage » les centres de rétention administrative (CRA) et « cet usage intensif de la rétention s’est encore accentué au second semestre et a généré des conséquences graves pour les personnes enfermées ».

      « Cette année, des révoltes inédites ont eu lieu dans les CRA : des émeutes, des feux de lits, des grèves de la faim, des automutilations et même un suicide », énumère David Rohi. Il s’agit, dit-il, « d’actes de désespoir » provoqué par un « sentiment d’injustice extrêmement fort ». Il appelle par conséquent le gouvernement « à changer de politique d’enfermement ».

      « On enferme et puis on voit ensuite »

      Par ailleurs, les auteurs du rapport remarquent que la durée moyenne de rétention a « sensiblement » augmenté l’an dernier, à 14,6 jours, et que le « nombre de personnes enfermées durant plus de 30 jours a explosé, passant de 2.468 en 2016 à 4.432 en 2018 ». Les associations redoutent une aggravation de cette tendance en 2019 avec l’entrée en vigueur, le 1er janvier, de la loi asile-immigration, qui a doublé de 45 à 90 jours la durée maximale de la rétention.

      Directeur général de France Terre d’Asile, Pierre Henry est un peu pessimiste. Le « diagnostic ne s’arrange pas », observe-t-il. « On enferme et puis on voit ensuite », complète Céline Guyot d’Assfam-Groupe SOS. Les associations s’inquiètent également du « nombre élevé de familles avec enfants enfermées en rétention » au cours de l’année 2018 : 1.221 enfants à Mayotte et 114 familles comptant 208 enfants en métropole. Pour Laetitia N’Diaye de l’Ordre de Malte, « les enfants sont traumatisés par cet univers carcéral : troubles du sommeil, angoisses fortes, mutisme, perte d’appétit… »


    • Centres de rétention pour migrants : les associations dénoncent une « #banalisation de l’enfermement »

      Les conditions de vie dans ces centres, où sont enfermés des étrangers que la France ne veut pas garder sur son territoire, se dégradent, selon le rapport annuel de plusieurs associations, dont la Cimade, présenté mardi.

      En France, plus de 45 000 migrants ont été enfermés dans des centres ou des locaux de rétention administrative en 2018. Un chiffre stable par rapport à 2017, selon le rapport annuel de plusieurs associations, dont la Cimade, présenté mardi 4 juin. Les associations dénoncent une « banalisation de l’enfermement » dans ces lieux de rétention et constatent « une forte dégradation du respect des droits des personnes enfermées ».

      En France métropolitaine, près de 40% des personnes enfermées ont ainsi été libérées par des juges, en raison du non-respect de leurs droits par les autorités. « L’usage quasi systématique de la rétention par de nombreuses préfectures s’accompagne trop souvent d’un défaut d’examen approfondi des situations personnelles », explique le rapport.
      Un « déficit » de protection des femmes

      En 2018, près de 500 places supplémentaires ont été créées en France métropolitaine. Un développement inédit depuis une décennie, qui s’accompagne d’un allongement de la durée de rétention. En moyenne, une personne enfermée dans un centre reste près de 15 jours contre 12,8 jours en 2017. Le rapport dénonce également le doublement de la durée maximale de rétention, passée de 45 à 90 jours depuis le mois de janvier, ainsi que les procédures abusives d’enfermement.

      Stress, pression, sentiment d’injustice, violences : les conditions de rétention sont de plus en plus difficiles, précise le rapport. Certains migrants enfermés ont manifesté, selon les associations, de fortes atteintes sur le plan psychologique. La rétention reste majoritairement masculine, 93% d’hommes et 7% de femmes. Les associations pointent du doigt « un déficit de protection des femmes victimes de la traite des êtres humains. » Certaines femmes ont été ou en sont victimes au moment de leur placement en rétention en centre. Quand elles manifestent « leur volonté de sortir du réseau, leur situation administrative prévaut trop souvent sur leur statut de victimes », explique le rapport.


  • U.S. is using unreliable dental exams to hold teen migrants in adult detention

    The young Bangladeshi sitting in the dentist’s chair last October thought he was getting checked for diseases.

    Dental staff examined his teeth, gave him a cleaning and sent him back to the juvenile facility where he had been held for months since illegally crossing the border in July.

    But a checkup wasn’t the real purpose of the dental work. The government wanted to figure out if “I.J.,” as the young migrant has been identified, really was 16, as he said, or an adult.

    The use of dental exams to help determine the age of migrants increased sharply in the last year, one aspect of the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration and illegal border crossings.

    The accuracy of forensic testing to help determine the age of migrants is very much a subject of the debate. And with the stakes so high, the exams are becoming another legal battleground for the government.

    Federal law prohibits the government from relying exclusively on forensic testing of bones and teeth to determine age. But a review of court records shows that in at least three cases – including I.J.’s – the government did just that, causing federal judges to later order the minors released from adult detention.

    In a case last year, a Guatemalan migrant was held in adult detention for nearly a year after a dental exam showed he was likely 18, until his attorneys fought to get his birth certificate, which proved he was 17.

    For I.J., the results had serious ramifications. Based on the development of his teeth, the analysis showed an 87.70% probability that he had turned 18.

    An immigration official reported that it was apparent to the case manager that I.J. “appeared physically older than 17 years of age,” and that he and his mother had not been able to provide a second type of identification that might prove his age.

    The next month, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents took him away in shackles and placed him in a medium-security prison that houses immigrant detainees.

    He spent about five months in adult detention and 24 of those days in segregated custody. Whenever he spoke with an officer, he would say he was a minor — unaware for more than a month that his teeth had landed him there.

    “I came to the United States with a big dream,” I.J. said. “My dream was finished.”

    But when the Arizona-based Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project took I.J.’s case to federal court, a district judge found that the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s age re-determination violated federal law and the agency’s own guidelines.

    In April, the judge ordered I.J. released back into Office of Refugee Resettlement custody, a program responsible for unaccompanied migrant children. He has since reunited with his family in New York. The Florence Project also filed another case in federal court that resulted in the government voluntarily returning a Bangladeshi minor to ORR custody and rescinding his age re-determination.

    As the government grappled with an influx of the number of families and children arriving at the border in fiscal year 2018, approvals of ORR age determination exams more than doubled.

    These handful of cases where a minor was released from adult detention is almost certainly an undercount, as most migrants held in adult detention do not have legal representation and are unlikely to fight their cases.

    It is unclear how often migrants pretend to be minors and turn out to be adults. In a call with reporters earlier this year, a Customs and Border Protection official said that from April 2018 to March 25 of this year, his agents had identified more than 3,100 individuals in family units making fraudulent claims, including those who misrepresented themselves as minors.

    Unaccompanied minors are given greater protections than adults after being apprehended. The government’s standard refers migrants to adult custody if a dental exam analysis shows at least a 75% probability that they are 18 or older. But other evidence is supposed to be considered.

    Dr. David Senn, the director of the Center for Education and Research in Forensics at UT Health San Antonio, has handled more than 2,000 age cases since 1998.

    A program that Senn helped develop estimates the mean age of a person and the probability that he or she is at least 18. In addition to looking at dental X-rays, he has also looked at skeletal X-rays and analyzed bone development in the hand and wrist area.

    He handled a larger number of cases in the early 2000s, but last year he saw his caseload triple — rising to 168. There appears to be a slowdown this calendar year for Senn, one of a few dentists the government uses for these analyses.

    He said making an exact age determination is not possible.

    “We can only tell you what the statistics say,” Senn said. “I think the really important thing to note is that most people who do this work are not trying to be policemen or to be Border Patrol agents or immigration …. what we’re trying to do is help. What we’re trying to do is protect children.”

    In 2007 and again in 2008, the House Appropriations Committee called on the Department of Homeland Security to stop relying on forensic testing of bones and teeth. But it was the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 that declared age determinations should take into account “multiple forms of evidence, including the non-exclusive use of radiographs.”

    In a Washington state case, an X-ray analysis by Senn showed a 92.55% probability that Bilal, a Somali migrant, already had reached 18 years of age. ICE removed him from his foster home and held him in an adult detention center.

    “Not only were they trying to save themselves money, which they paid to the foster family, but they were wrecking this kid’s life,” said Matt Adams, legal director for the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, which represented Bilal. “They were just rolling the dice.”

    In 2016, a federal judge found that the Office of Refugee Resettlement relied exclusively on the dental exam and overturned the age determination for the young Somali.

    Last year, in the case of an Eritrean migrant who said he was 17, Senn’s analysis of dental X-rays showed a 92.55% probability that he had turned 18, and provided a range of possible ages between 17.10 and 23.70.

    It was enough to prompt his removal from a juvenile facility and placement into an adult one.

    Again, a district judge found that the government had relied exclusively on the dental exam to determine his age and ordered the migrant released back into ORR custody.

    Danielle Bennett, an ICE spokeswoman, said the agency “does not track” information on such reversals.

    “We should never be used as the only method to determine age,” Senn said. “If those agencies are not following their own rules, they should have their feet held to the fire.”

    Similar concerns over medical age assessments have sprung up in other countries, including the United Kingdom and Sweden.

    The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ guidance about how adolescent migrants’ ages should be analyzed says that if countries use scientific procedures to determine age, that they should allow for margins of error. Michael Bochenek, an attorney specializing in children’s rights at Human Rights Watch, said that for adolescents, the margin of error in scientific tests is “so big that it doesn’t tell you anything.”

    An influx of Bangladeshi migrants claiming to be minors has contributed to the government’s recent use of dental exams. From October through March 8, more than 150 Bangladeshis who claimed to be minors and were determined to be adults were transferred from the Office of Refugee Resettlement to ICE custody, according to the agency.

    In fiscal year 2018, Border Patrol apprehensions of Bangladeshi migrants went up 109% over the year before, rising to 1,203. Similarly, the number of Bangladeshi minors in ORR custody increased about 221% between fiscal 2017 and fiscal 2018, reaching 392.

    Ali Riaz, a professor at Illinois State University, said Bangladeshis are leaving the country for reasons including high population density, high unemployment among the young, a deteriorating political environment and the “quest for a better life.”

    In October, Myriam Hillin, an ORR federal field specialist, was told that ICE had information showing that a number of Bangladeshi migrants in their custody claiming to be underage had passports with different birth dates than on their birth certificates.

    Bochenek said it’s common for migrant children to travel with fake passports that make them appear older, because in some countries minors are more likely to be intercepted or questioned by immigration agents.

    While I.J. was able to regain status as a minor, three Bangladeshi migrants who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally in the San Diego area in October 2018 are still trying to convince the government they are underage.

    Their passports didn’t match their birth certificates. Dental exams ordered by immigration officials found that each of them had about an 89% likelihood of being adults.

    “Both subjects were adamant that the passports were given to them by the ‘agent’ (smuggler), however, there is little reason to lie to any of the countries they flew into,” wrote one Border Patrol agent, describing the arrest of two of the migrants. “Also, it is extremely difficult to fake a passport, especially for no reason. I have seen [unaccompanied children] fly into each of the countries (except for Panama and Costa Rica) and pass through with no problem. This is a recent trend with Bangladeshis. They do it in order to be released from DHS custody faster.”

    During interviews, the young migrants, Shahadat, Shahriar and Tareq, told asylum officers that smugglers had given them the passports, according to records from the interviews.

    When asked why they had been given those birth dates, they said it had something to do with smugglers’ plans for their travel.

    “I don’t have that much idea,” Shahadat told an asylum officer, according to the officer’s notes in a summary-style transcript. “When I asked why, they told me that if I don’t give this [date of birth] there will be problems with travel.”

    Shahriar told the officer that the smuggler became aggressive when questioned.

    The migrants have submitted copies of birth certificates, school documents and signed statements from their parents attesting to their claimed birth dates. An online database of birth records maintained by the government of Bangladesh appears to confirm their date of birth claims.

    Shahriar also provided his parents’ birth certificates. If he were as old as immigration officials believe him to be, his mother would have been 12 years old when she had him.

    In each case, immigration officials stood by the passport dates.

    Shahadat and Shahriar are being held in Otay Mesa Detention Center. Tareq was held at the facility for months before being released on a $7,500 bond. All three are moving through the immigration system as adults, with asylum proceedings their only option to stay in the U.S..

    At least one of the migrants, Shahadat, was placed in administrative segregation, a version of solitary confinement in immigration detention, when his age came into question, according to documents provided by their attorney.

    A judge ordered him deported.

    #tests_osseux #os #âge #USA #Etats-Unis #mineurs #enfants #enfance #rétention #détention_administrative #dents #migrations #asile #réfugiés #USA #Etats-Unis

  • Counter-mapping: cartography that lets the powerless speak | Science | The Guardian

    Sara is a 32-year-old mother of four from Honduras. After leaving her children in the care of relatives, she travelled across three state borders on her way to the US, where she hoped to find work and send money home to her family. She was kidnapped in Mexico and held captive for three months, and was finally released when her family paid a ransom of $190.

    Her story is not uncommon. The UN estimates that there are 258 million migrants in the world. In Mexico alone, 1,600 migrants are thought to be kidnapped every month. What is unusual is that Sara’s story has been documented in a recent academic paper that includes a map of her journey that she herself drew. Her map appears alongside four others – also drawn by migrants. These maps include legends and scales not found on orthodox maps – unnamed river crossings, locations of kidnapping and places of refuge such as a “casa de emigrante” where officials cannot enter. Since 2011, such shelters have been identified by Mexican law as “spaces of exception”.

    #cartographie_radicale #contre_cartographie #cartographie_participative #cartoexperiment