• Inside #Lehman_Brothers. Une enquête inédite sur la chute d’une banque au-dessus de tout soupçon

    Dix ans après la faillite de la banque Lehman Brothers, #Jennifer_Deschamps met en lumière les mécanismes de sa chute. Une enquête rigoureuse, étayée par le témoignage de lanceurs d’alerte.

    Le 15 septembre 2008, Lehman Brothers est officiellement déclarée en faillite. Lâchée par le gouvernement et sans repreneur, la vénérable banque d’investissement, fondée à New York en 1850, disparaît en laissant à ses créanciers une dette de plusieurs centaines de milliards de dollars. Lancée depuis plusieurs années dans une course folle au profit, cette grande institution financière, dirigée par Richard Fuld, a développé des prêts hypothécaires à risques, rapidement devenus emprunts toxiques. Accordés à des ménages modestes voire sans revenus, ces subprimes ont permis à des centaines de milliers d’Américains de devenir propriétaires de leur logement. Mais en 2007, lorsque la bulle immobilière éclate, la remontée de taux d’intérêts gonfle les traites que les emprunteurs ne peuvent plus rembourser. Une vague de saisies s’abat sur les États-Unis, et notamment sur la Californie…

    Autopsie méthodique
    Spécialisée dans les produits financiers, Lehman Brothers a voulu « faire de l’argent par tous les moyens ». Naviguant en « zone grise » – là où, au minimum, tout ce qui n’est pas illégal peut être considéré comme légal –, la banque et ses filiales ont maquillé les bilans, poussé les équipes commerciales à truquer leurs dossiers pour atteindre des objectifs de plus en plus exigeants, et engranger des dollars par milliards. Le tout grâce à la complicité, l’incompétence ou l’aveuglement des organismes de contrôle et des agences de notation. Pour raconter, dix ans plus tard, un cataclysme dont les répercussions ont ébranlé les places boursières et les économies du monde entier, Jennifer Deschamps se place à hauteur d’hommes. Enrichie d’archives, son enquête, documentée et rigoureuse, réunit les témoignages inédits d’anciens collaborateurs de Lehman, qui ont tous eu un accès privilégié aux mécanismes délirants ayant mené au désastre : trois ex-employées de la BNC, une filiale spécialisée dans les prêts immobiliers, et « lanceuses d’alerte » (Linda Weekes, Sylvia Vega-Sutfin et Cheryl McNeil), et leur avocat (Gary Gwilliam) ; un ancien vice-président de Lehman (Matthew Lee), licencié après avoir refusé de cautionner une manœuvre comptable frauduleuse ; un ancien juriste de la banque (Oliver Budde) ainsi que l’ancien procureur de l’Illinois (Anton Valukas), mandaté en 2008 par le gouvernement américain pour enquêter sur les causes de la faillite. Autopsie méthodique d’un système malade, Inside Lehman Brothers se fait aussi mise en garde contre une déflagration qui pourrait bien, dans un futur proche, se rééditer.


    https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/080155-000-A/inside-lehman-brothers
    #banque #finance #économie #subprimes #marché_immobilier #cupidité #argent #fraude #effondrement #crise_financière #prêts_hypothécaires #film #documentaire #Wall_Street #bulle_immobilière #lanceurs_d'alerte #culture_du_silence #travail #burn-out #faillite #banques_d'investissement #limites_juridiques #légalité #illégalité #courtiers #Richard_Fuld #harcèlement_sexuel #intimidation #femmes #BNC #SDF #sans-abris #Repo_105 #prêts_alternatifs #prêts_non-conventionnels



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    via @isskein

    • Publié sur la page FB de Filippo Furri :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Cosa prevede il decreto Salvini su immigrazione e sicurezza

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Italy: The security decree that makes everyone more insecure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Anche Bologna sospende il decreto Salvini

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      1.1 The abrogation of ‘humanitarian protection’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      1.2 Making returns more effective

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

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

      2. Provisions on international protection

      2.1 Provisions on asylum seekers who committed serious crimes

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

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

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

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

      2.2 Provisions on subsequent applications and border procedures

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

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

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

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

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

      2.3 Reception conditions for asylum seekers

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

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

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

      Final remarks

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

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

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

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

    • Decreto immigrazione, le brutte novità nascoste sotto la fiducia

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

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

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

      Schiavone ha il testo del maxi emendamento del governo sotto mano e scorre alle introdotte “Disposizioni in materia di Paesi di origine sicuri e manifesta infondatezza della domanda di protezione internazionale”.
      Il primo punto riguarda i “Paesi di origine sicuri”, il caso cioè di uno “Stato non appartenente all’Unione europea” che stando al nuovo articolato potrà “essere considerato Paese di origine sicuro se, sulla base del suo ordinamento giuridico, dell’applicazione della legge all’interno di un sistema democratico e della situazione politica generale, si può dimostrare che, in via generale e costante, non sussistono atti di persecuzione […] né tortura o altre forme di pena o trattamento inumano o degradante, né pericolo a causa di violenza indiscriminata in situazioni di conflitto armato interno o internazionale. La designazione di un Paese di origine sicuro può essere fatta con l’eccezione di parti del territorio o di categorie di persone”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Revoking refugee status

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

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

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

      Jubilation and condemnation

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

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

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

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


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


  • Une immersion dans le quotidien des #graffeurs afin de tenter de comprendre la complexité et l’originalité de leur démarche. Art ou crime ? Un film-recherche en coopération avec #CNRS_Images.

    http://sms.hypotheses.org/9764

    #graffiti, #tag, #art, #rue, #hip-hop, #art_de_rue, #sociologie, #anthropologie, #pratique, #illégalité, #street_art, #symbole, #dessin, #aérosol, #peinture


  • Je ne peux qu’applaudir la vaillance de la presse à retrouver l’auteur de violences inadmissibles contre de jeunes manifestants le premier mai dernier, je suis admiratif des moyens et de l’intelligence sans doute déployées pour retrouver cette aiguille pourrie dans un meute, ce serait même de nature à infléchir la sévérité de mon jugement quant aux méfaits de la reconnaissance faciale. Bref je trouve ce premier résultat encourageant, chapeau messieurs-dames les journalistes, quel brillant début, votre opiniâtreté a payé !

    Il vous reste désormais à passer au peigne fin le reste de toutes les autres meules de foin, à savoir toutes ces innombrables vidéos de violences policières ces soixante-dix dernières années.

    Hardi ! Pendant que le fer est chaud


  • For an open migration policy to end the deaths and crises in the Mediterranean

    The current crisis surrounding migration is not one of numbers – migrants’ crossings of the sea are at their lowest since 2013 – but of policies. The drive towards closure and the politicisation of migration are so strong after years of tension that the frail bodies of a few thousand migrants arriving on European shores are triggering a major political crisis throughout the EU.

    One epicentre of this crisis is in Italy, where Matteo Salvini, the country’s new far-right Interior Minister, is preventing NGOs from disembarking rescued migrants. Such was the case with the 629 people on board the Aquarius.

    Another is Germany, where the governing coalition led by Angela Merkel is at risk as the hardline Interior Minister Horst Seehofer has threatened to turn back refugees at the German borders. The European Council summit on 28 June 2018 promises to be rife with tensions. As EU member states will most probably continue to prove unable to offer a common response to migrants once they have arrived on European shores, they will reinforce the policy they have implemented since 2015: preventing migrants from crossing the sea by outsourcing border control to non-European countries.
    The consensus of closure

    This policy of closure has had horrendous consequences for migrants – such as the subjection to torture of those who are intercepted at sea by the Libyan coast guard, which has been equipped, trained and coordinated by Italy and the EU. Despite this, it has gathered growing consensus. Faced with the politicisation of migration which has fuelled the rise of far-right populist parties across Europe and threatens the EU itself with disintegration, even humanists of the centre left and right ask whether these inhumane policies are not a necessary evil.

    Would it not be better for migrants to “stay home” rather then reach a Europe which has turned its back on them and which they threaten in turn? Whispering or shouting, reluctantly or aggressively, European citizens increasingly wish migrants would simply disappear.

    Powerful forces driving migration, failed policies

    This consensus towards closure is delusional. Policies of closure that are completely at odds with the dynamics of migration systematically fail in their aim of ending the arrivals of illegalised migrants, as the record of the last 30 years demonstrates.

    Ever since the European states consolidated freedom of movement for European citizens in the 1990s all the while denying access to most non-European populations, the arrival of “undesirable” migrants has not stopped, but only been pushed underground. This is because as long as there are strong “push factors” – such as wars and economic crisis, and “pull factors” – such as work and welfare opportunities as well as respect for human rights, and that these continue to be connected by migrants’ transnational networks, state policies have little chance of succeeding in durably stemming the migration they aim to restrict.

    Over the last 30 years, for every route states have succeeded in closing, it has only been a matter of time before migrants opened several new ones. Forced to use precarious means of travel – often controlled by criminal networks, migrants’ lives were put at growing risk. More than 30,000 migrants are recorded to have died at sea since the beginning of the 1990s. A sea which has connected civilisations for millennia has become a mass grave.

    Fear breeds more fear: the vicious cycle

    These policies of closure, often implemented by centre governments allegedly in the aim of preventing the further rise of anti-immigrant sentiments, ultimately contributed to them. Despite the spectacular military means deployed by states to police borders, illegalised migration continued, giving European populations a sense that their states had “lost control” – a feeling that has only been heightened in the wake of the Arab uprisings.

    Migrants’ illegalisation has led to unjustifiable status inequality within European societies, allowing employers to pull salaries down in the sectors in which precaritized migrants are employed. This has lent to working classes the impression that migrants constitute an unfair competition.

    Policies of closure and discrimination thus only generate more fear and rejection of migrants. The parties which have mobilised voters on the basis of this fear have left unaddressed – and in fact diverted attention from – the rising unemployment, social insecurity, and inequality amongst Europe’s “losers of globalisation”, whose resentment has served as a fertile ground for anti-immigrant sentiments.

    In this way, we have become trapped in a vicious cycle that has fuelled the rise of the far-right.
    Towards an open migration policy, de-escalate the mobility conflict

    Over the years, the Mediterranean has become the main frontline of a mobility conflict, which has intensified in the wake of the 2011 Arab uprisings and European debt crisis. Since then, both the factors spurring migrants’ movement towards Europe and those leading to the drive to exclude them have been heightened.

    The lack of solidarity within the EU to respond to arrivals in so-called “frontline states” in southern and eastern Europe have further fuelled it. As long as the same policies continue to be applied, there is no end in sight to the political tensions and violence surrounding migration and the worrying political trends they are nurturing.

    A fundamental paradigm shift is necessary to end this vicious cycle. European citizens and policy makers alike must realise that the question is not whether migrants will exercise their freedom to cross borders, but at what human and political cost.

    State policies can only create a legal frame for human movement to unfold and thereby partly organise it, they cannot block it. Only a more open policy would allow migration to unfold in a way that threatens neither migrants themselves nor European citizens.

    With legal access to Europe, migrants would no longer need to resort to smugglers and risk their lives crossing the sea. No longer policed through military means, migration could appear as a normal process that does not generate fear. States could better detect individuals that might pause a threat among migrants as they would not be pushed underground. Migrants’ legal status would no longer allow employers to push working conditions down.

    Such a policy is however far from being on the European agenda. For its implementation to be even faintly imaginable in the medium term, the deep and entangled roots of the mobility conflict must addressed.
    Beyond the EU’s incoherent and one-sided “global approach”

    Today, the EU claims to address one side of the mobility conflict. Using development aid within its so-called “global approach to migration”, it claims to tackle the “root causes” that spur migration towards Europe. Researchers however have shown that development does not automatically lead to less migration. This policy will further have little effect as long as the EU’s unfair trade policies with the global south are perpetuated – for example concerning agriculture and fishing in Africa.

    In effect, the EU’s policy has mostly resulted in the use of development aid to impose policies of migration control on countries of the global south. In the process, the EU is lending support to authoritarian regimes – such as Turkey, Egypt, Sudan – which migrants are fleeing.

    Finally, when it has not worsened conflicts through its own military intervention as in Libya, the EU has proven unable of acting as a stabilizing force in the face of internationalised civil conflicts. These are bound to multiply in a time of intense competition for global hegemony. A true commitment to global justice and conflict resolution is necessary if Europe wishes to limit the factors forcing too many people onto the harsh paths of exile from their countries and regions, a small share of whom reach European shores.
    Tackling the drivers of migrant exclusion

    Beyond its lack of coherence, the EU’s so-called “global approach” suffers from one-sidedness, focused as it is on migration as “the problem”.

    As a result, it fails to see migration as a normal social process. Furthermore, it does not address the conditions that lead to the social and political drive to exclude them. The fact that today the arrival of a few thousand migrants is enough to put the EU into crisis clearly shows the limits of this approach.

    It is urgent for policy makers – at the national and local levels, but also researchers, cultural producers and social movements – to not only morally condemn racism and xenophobia, but to tackle the deep forces that shape them.

    What is needed is a more inclusive and fair economic system to decrease the resentment of European populations. In addition, a positive vision for living in common in diverse societies must be affirmed, so that the tensions that arise from the encounter between different people and cultures can be overcome.

    Crucially, we must emphasise the commonality of fate that binds European citizens to migrants. Greater equality and solidarity between migrants and European citizens is one of the conditions to defend all workers’ conditions.

    All in the same boat

    Addressing the entangled roots of the mobility conflict is a challenging agenda, one which emerges from the realisation that the tensions surrounding migration cannot be resolved through migration policies only – and by policy makers on their own for that matter.

    It charts a path worth following collectively as it points in the direction of a more open migration policy, but also a more just society. These are necessary to bring an end to the unbearable deaths of migrants at sea and end the vicious cycle of closure, violence, and politicisation of migration.

    Policies of closure have failed to end illegalised migration and only fuelled the rise of the far-right and the disintegration of Europe. If Europe is to stop sinking, it must end the policies that lead to migrants’ mass drowning in the Mediterranean. The NGOs being criminalised and prevented from disembarking migrants in Italy are not only saving migrants, but rescuing Europe against itself. Whether we like it or not, we are all in the same boat.

    https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/charles-heller/for-open-migration-policy-to-end-deaths-and-crises-in-mediterranea

    #tribune #Charles_Heller #solution #alternatives #migrations #asile #frontières #fermeture_des_frontières #fermeture #ouverture_des_frontières #décès #morts #mourir_en_mer

    • Une politique migratoire plus ouverte pour moins de morts en Méditerranée

      La fermeture des frontières a coûté la vie à plus de 30 000 migrants qui tentaient de parvenir en Europe. Cette vision politique a favorisé la montée de l’extrême droite qu’elle prétendait combattre. Il est donc temps de changer de paradigme et d’adopter une nouvelle approche.

      Le sommet du Conseil européen du 28 juin n’aura que confirmé ce que tous savaient déjà. Face à la montée des partis d’extrême droite et à la menace de désintégration d’une Union européenne (UE) incapable d’offrir un accueil solidaire aux migrants arrivés sur le sol européen, la seule solution envisageable semble être de les empêcher à tout prix de pouvoir y mettre pied en externalisant le contrôle des migrations (1). Malgré la documentation de nombreux cas de tortures parmi les migrants interceptés par les gardes-côtes libyens financés, équipés, et coordonnés par l’Italie et l’Union européenne, ce soutien a été réitéré (2). Des ONG, qui ont courageusement déployé leurs bateaux pour combler le vide mortel laissé par le retrait des secours étatiques, sont sommées de laisser les Libyens faire le sale boulot, criminalisées, et interdites d’accès aux ports italiens. Chaque jour, la mer charrie son lot de corps sans vie.

      Il serait illusoire de penser que cette énième crise pourra être résolue par les mêmes politiques de fermetures qui échouent depuis plus de trente ans. Celles-ci n’ont pas mis un terme aux arrivées des migrants désignés comme indésirables, mais les ont seulement illégalisées. Tant qu’existeront des facteurs qui poussent les populations du Sud global sur les chemins de l’exil - guerres, crises économiques - et des facteurs d’attraction vers l’Europe - travail, Etat social, respect des droits humains - et que les réseaux transnationaux de migrants relient les continents, les politiques de fermetures ne parviendront pas à réduire durablement les migrations (3). Pour chaque route que les Etats ferment, plusieurs nouvelles voies seront bientôt ouvertes. La liste répertoriant plus de 30 000 migrants morts en mer depuis le début des années 90 ne cessera de s’allonger (4).

      Ces politiques de fermeture, souvent mises en œuvre par des gouvernements prétendant lutter contre la montée de sentiments anti-immigrants, n’ont fait que les renforcer. En dépit des moyens militaires spectaculaires déployés par les Etats pour contrôler les frontières, la migration illégale s’est poursuivie, confortant chez les populations européennes le sentiment que leurs gouvernements avaient « perdu le contrôle ». L’illégalisation des migrants permet aux employeurs de baisser les salaires dans les secteurs où sont employés des migrants précarisés, et des ouvriers en ont tiré la conclusion que les migrants sont une concurrence déloyale. Les partis, qui ont mobilisé les votants sur la base de sentiments anti-immigrés, n’ont offert aucune réponse à la hausse du chômage, de l’insécurité sociale et des inégalités qui ont généré un profond ressentiment parmi les « perdants de la globalisation » en Europe (5). Ceux-ci ont été d’autant plus réceptifs aux discours haineux. Nous sommes ainsi prisonniers d’un cercle vicieux qui a encouragé la montée de l’extrême droite et qui a perpétué les politiques de fermetures.

      Au fil des ans, la Méditerranée est devenue la principale ligne de front d’un conflit de mobilités qui s’est intensifié à la suite des « printemps arabes » de 2011 et de la crise de la dette européenne. Depuis, tant les facteurs qui amènent les migrants à venir vers l’Europe que ceux qui poussent à leur exclusion se sont intensifiés. Le manque de solidarité entre Etats européens a attisé le rejet des migrants. Tant qu’on appliquera les mêmes politiques de fermeture, il n’y aura pas d’issue aux tensions politiques et à la violence qui entourent les migrations, et aux inquiétantes tendances politiques qu’elles nourrissent. Le seul horizon de sortie de cette crise permanente est une politique migratoire ouverte (5).

      Citoyens et dirigeants européens doivent se rendre compte que la question n’est pas de savoir si les migrants vont exercer leur liberté de mouvement en franchissant les frontières, mais quel en sera le coût humain et politique. Les politiques des Etats ne peuvent que créer le cadre légal pour les mouvements humains, donc les organiser en partie, mais en aucun cas les bloquer. S’il existait des voies d’accès légales à l’Europe, les migrants n’auraient plus besoin de recourir aux passeurs et de risquer leur vie. En l’absence d’une gestion militarisée, la migration apparaîtrait pour ce qu’elle est : un processus normal qui n’engendre aucune peur. Les migrants disposant d’un statut légal, les employeurs n’auraient plus les mains libres pour dégrader les conditions de travail. Une telle politique est bien loin d’être à l’agenda européen, et suscite de nombreuses peurs. Pour qu’à moyen terme sa mise en place soit envisageable, il faut s’attaquer aux racines profondes et enchevêtrées du conflit de mobilité.

      Si l’Europe veut limiter les raisons qui poussent de trop nombreux êtres humains sur les chemins de l’exil, elle doit s’engager fermement en faveur d’une justice globale et de la résolution des conflits. C’est-à-dire réformer complètement la prétendue « approche globale de la migration » (6) de l’Union européenne qui, prétextant s’attaquer aux « causes profondes » des migrations, a surtout imposé aux pays du Sud l’externalisation des contrôles migratoires en leur faisant miroiter l’aide au développement. Bien plus, obsédée par la migration comme « problème », elle n’apporte aucune réponse aux conditions qui mènent à l’exclusion des migrants par l’Europe. Un système économique plus juste et inclusif permettrait de désamorcer le ressentiment des populations européennes. Une vision positive de la vie en commun dans des sociétés marquées par la diversité, de vaincre les tensions nées de la rencontre entre peuples et cultures. Il est vital d’insister sur la communauté de destin qui lie les citoyens européens aux migrants : plus d’égalité et de solidarité entre eux est l’une des conditions pour défendre les droits de tous les travailleurs.

      Une politique migratoire ouverte ne suffira ainsi pas à elle seule à surmonter les tensions entourant les migrations, elle devra être accompagnée d’une transformation profonde de notre monde. Mais pour se sauver du naufrage, l’Europe doit urgemment abandonner les politiques de fermeture qui sont la cause des dizaines de milliers de noyades en Méditerranée et ont attisé la montée de l’extrême droite. Les ONG aujourd’hui criminalisées font bien plus que sauver des migrants, elles sauvent l’Europe d’elle-même. Que nous le voulions ou non, nous sommes tous dans le même bateau.

      http://www.liberation.fr/debats/2018/07/03/une-politique-migratoire-plus-ouverte-pour-moins-de-morts-en-mediterranee
      #économie #illégalisation #extrême_droite #populisme #politique_migratoire #capitalisme #libéralisme #fermeture_des_frontières #ouverture_des_frontières #Charles_Heller


  • NEM-NEE

    Après être revenu sur les fondements historiques et conceptuels du droit d’asile et des étrangers, après avoir retracé l’évolution juridique actuelle, il documente les conditions de (sur)vie des personnes dont la demande d’asile a été frappée d’une décision de non-entrée en matière (NEM).


    https://vimeo.com/128189652

    –-> Un #film de 2005, réalisé par le jeune #Charles_Heller (c’est probablement son premier film). Je mets ici pour archivage

    #documentaire #NEM #non-entrée_en_matière #Suisse #survie #aide_d'urgence #SDF #sans-abris #asile #migrations #réfugiés #déboutés #disparitions #droit_d'asile #catégorisation #abus #profit #délit_de_solidarité #Soleure #illégalisation #clandestinisation #droits_humains #attractivité #Suisse

    Quelques citations que Heller utilise dans son film (notamment de #Arendt et #Agamben) :


    #camps

    Interview de Dominque Boillat, directeur de l’Office fédéral des migrations, à partir de la minute 5’50 :

    « La Suisse a une politique de migration qui est basée sur le marché du travail. Cela signifie qu’elle a fait une priorité aux compétences professionnelles, pour permettre aux étrangers qui viennent s’établir dans notre pays de s’introduire plus facilement sur le marché du travail, en fonction des besoins de notre économie. Par contre, la migration de l’asile est une migration clandestine, ce sont des gens qui viennent de la misère, souvent peu formés, de beaucoup plus loin, donc ils ont beaucoup plus de difficultés à s’intégrer dans notre société, des mœurs différents, parfois de religion différente. Ces gens-là, les Etats qui ont signé la convention de Genève, et la Suisse en est, doivent leur donner une protection. Ici on est dans un autre domaine. C’est pas de la migration souhaitée du point de vue de l’économie, c’est une migration qui est entre guillemets »"tolérée" parce que ces gens ont besoin d’une protection. Si quelqu’un vient dans ce système et veut en profiter pour immigrer alors qu’il n’a ni les compétences professionnelles, ni le droit de séjourner ni le droit d’avoir l’asile, il est considéré comme un étranger en séjour irrégulier. Cela dit, un certain nombre reste quand même, ils s’accrochent. Ils n’ont plus de travail, ils sont là, ils sont à la charge des autorités, parce qu’on ne peut pas les mettre à la rue non plus. Et il y a donc un bras de fer entre ces personnes qui se sentent exclues, mais qui ne veulent tout de même pas rentrer."

    Voix off Charles, à partir de la minute 7’70, en commentaire de cette citation de Arendt :


    « Hannah Arendt montre la logique de la politique adoptée par les Etats européens face aux réfugiés durant la Deuxième guerre mondiale.
    Le refus d’intégrer et l’impossibilité de renvoyer les réfugiés ne pouvait que mener aux camps.
    Nous retrouvons aujourd’hui à l’œuvre cette même logique, en Suisse comme partout en Europe. Et l’analyse d’Hannah Arendt garde toute sa pertinence, particulièrement si, à l’instar de Giorgio Agamben, on définit le camp non par les horreurs qui sont commises, une topographie spécifique, mais comme un espace d’exception au sein duquel le sujet ayant perdu toute protection juridique, est réduit à la vie nue. C’est bel et bien un tel espace que les autorités helvétiques allaient ouvrir en développant sciemment, méticuleusement, des moyens juridiques de faire disparaître ces personnes désignées comme indésirables ».

    Interview de Françoise Kopf, à partir de la minute 8’40 :
    "Les débuts de l’histoire remontent à l’entrée en vigueur de la loi sur l’asile. La première loi sur l’asile que la Suisse a formulée. Peter Hess, qui était à l’époque le responsable de la police étrangère, qui était en charge de l’asile, avait trouvé que l’aide sociale pouvait être utilisée comme instrument dans la politique d’asile, et donc en réduisant l’aide sociale on allait probablement réduire l’attractivité et l’attrait de la Suisse. Cette idée a fait son chemin, mais au même temps il y a eu une espèce de changement qui s’est mis en place dans les années 1990. A ce moment-là, réduire l’attractivité a changé de sens, ça a voulu plus dire réduire la durée de séjour, c’est-à-dire pousser les gens à disparaître, à les dissuader de rester plutôt que de réduire l’attractivité pour les potentiels arrivants. L’aboutissement de ces mesures se lit dans le « rapport Fuhrer/Gerber », un rapport de travail qui a été co-piloté par la conseillère d’Etat Rita Fuhrer, UDC, et l’ancien chef de l’Office fédéral des réfugiés, Jean-Daniel Gerber, qui était destiné à trouver de nouvelles mesures pour faire des économies dans le domaine de l’asile. Au moment où le rapport a été écrit, le Conseil fédéral, dans ces messages, avait constater qu’on avait réduit à un tel minimum les prestations d’assistance qu’on ne pouvait pas descendre plus bas et qu’il fallait donc changer de système. Comment faire pour faire des économies sans pouvoir descendre plus bas dans les normes de dignité ? L’idée est née d’exclure certains groupes, tout simplement, de l’assistance, et on les incitent à disparaître. Le rapport dit clairement que cette disparition est un des moyens de réduire les coûts, et table là-dessus, c’est-à-dire que les gens disparaissent dans la clandestinité, ici ou ailleurs. Ce qui est encore plus fou, c’est qu’en réalité les cantons, qui sont quand même tenus de mettre une aide d’urgence en place, sont, par ce rapport, incités aussi à ne pas en faire trop. Ils le disent très clairement : si toutes les personnes renvoyées dans l’anonymat, ces personnes qui n’existent plus, sans identité, faisaient recours à cette forme d’hébergement, l’hébergement d’urgence, des conséquences de ces mesures pourraient être négatives. « Toutefois, à juger par les expériences faites ces dernières années, seule une minorité des individus concernés et susceptibles de recourir systématiquement et pour une longue durée aux services et aux biens accessibles dans les centres d’urgence. La grande majorité d’entre eux disparaîtrait et chercherait de nouvelles opportunités dans la clandestinité ou au-delà des frontières. »



  • ‘Boys for Sale’ : le monde obscur de la #prostitution #gay au #Japon.
    ‘Boys for Sale’ : the dark world of gay prostitution in #Japan.

    Cet article de Julian Riall traite du documentaire « Boys For Sale » produit par Ian Thomas Ash.
    http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/society/article/2127079/boys-sale-dark-world-japans-gay-prostitution
    Publié le 07/01/2018
    Vu le 03/06/2018

    C’est à “#Tokyo #2-chome gay district” que se localisent ces activités #occultes et plus précisément dans les clubs de danse, les #sex shops, les #bars gays et les « salon d’#urisen » (l’équivalent gay des « #hostess-clubs » japonais.) Certains hommes politiques fréquentent ces lieux qui sont ainsi à la fois reconnus et inscrits dans la ville tout en étant #tabous. De plus, la loi du pays à propos de la #prostitution ne prend en compte que les relations hétérosexuelles ce qui ne rend pas ces affaires #illégales, malgré l’âge de certains des hommes de moins de 20 ans. La plupart d’entre eux proviennent de régions japonaises frappées de catastrophes naturelles (tsunami ; tremblement de terre ; accident de Fukushima en 2011).

    When we think about vulnerable communities affected by war or natural disaster, we tend to think about young women being forced to work in this sector but it never previously occurred to me that this would be happening in Japan after Fukushima.

    https://melmagazine.com/the-straight-male-sex-workers-of-japan-who-sell-their-services-to-gay-m
    _Publié le 19/07/2017
    Vu le 03/06/2018

    L’article de C. Brian Smith à propos du même sujet nous apporte des précisons. En premier lieu, même s’il est difficile de recenser un nombre de prostitués car la plupart procèdent par Internet, on estime le nombre de bars à #Shinjuku 2-chome comportant des garçons "à la carte" de 10 ou 12. D’autre part, les bars sont pour eux un lieu de vie avec des dortoirs où ils dorment à huit, ce qui fait vraiment de ces lieux un univers hors de la société japonaise et qu’elle préfère ignorer malgré les #conditions_de_vie #inacceptables de la « #communauté » de jeunes hommes.

    So we took him to a cheap family restaurant. He looked at the menu and said, “I can have anything I want? Oh, they have ice cream!” After dinner, he got an ice cream cone and was eating it like a 5-year-old kid in heaven. The whole time I was thinking, Now I’m going to bring him back to the bar so some 70- or 80-year old guy can try to rape him. That was as horrible as it was memorable.


  • Israeli Settler Shot and Killed in Drive-By Shooting
    IMEMC News | January 10, 2018 9:37 AM
    http://imemc.org/article/israeli-settler-rabbi-shot-and-killed-in-drive-by-shooting

    An Israeli settler, identified as 35-year old Rabbi Raziel Shevach, was shot and killed Tuesday while driving on an Israeli settler-only road near a colonial outpost in the northern part of the West Bank, near Nablus.

    update 9:40 am January 10th 2018:

    Israeli Education Minister, Naftali Bennett, the head of the ‘Jewish Home’ right-wing party, called for legalizing Havat Gilad outpost, and for conducting massive construction and expansion of Israeli colonies, in the occupied West Bank.

    “It is not enough to apprehend the shooters, we need to take direct action by building and expanding the settlements,” he said, “Mahmoud Abbas needs to understand the heavy price the Palestinians will pay because of these attacks.”

    Israeli Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked also called for harsh measures, and said that Israel needs to expel the families of Palestinian attackers, and demolish their homes.(...)

    • Territoires palestiniens : Israël recherche l’assassin d’un colon illégal
      Par RFI | Publié le 10-01-2018 | Avec notre correspondante à Ramallah, Marine Vlahovic
      http://www.rfi.fr/moyen-orient/20180110-territoires-palestiniens-israel-recherche-assassin-colon-illegal

      Dans les Territoires Palestiniens, une véritable chasse à l’homme a commencé mardi 9 janvier, après le meurtre d’un colon israélien, près de l’avant-poste israélien de Havat Gilad à côté de Naplouse en Cisjordanie.
      L’armée israélienne a partiellement bouclé le nord de la Cisjordanie, au matin du 10 janvier. A l’entrée de Naplouse, l’une des plus grandes villes des Territoires Palestiniens et dans les villages aux alentours, les forces de sécurité israéliennes empêchent les habitants de circuler librement.
      Israël cherche ainsi à retrouver les auteurs de l’attaque qui a coûté la vie à un colon israélien de l’avant-poste illégal de Havat Gilad à côté de Naplouse, la veille au soir.
      Attaque pas revendiquée
      Raziel Shebach était au volant de sa voiture lorsqu’il a été atteint de tirs d’arme automatique. Si les Brigades al-Qassam, la branche armée du Hamas, se sont félicitées de cette attaque, celle-ci n’a toujours pas été revendiquée.


  • #MoiAussi : légitime car illégal

    La campagne de libération de parole #MeToo a marqué cette année 2017. Tristan Boursier y voit un acte nécessaire de désobéissance civile, légitime justement parce qu’illégal, dans un contexte patriarcal où l’État de droit n’est pas toujours respecté en pratique.


    http://www.jetdencre.ch/moiaussi-legitime-car-illegal
    #moi_aussi #metoo #légitimité #légalité #illégalité #injustice #justice #patriarcat #domination #émancipation #Etat_de_droit #harcèlement_sexuel #inceste #viol #culture_du_viol #dénonciation #domination_systématique #délation #désobéissance_civile #démocratie


  • Criminalisation de la migration irrégulière | Des effets contre-productifs sur les droits humains
    https://asile.ch/2017/12/13/criminalisation-de-migration-irreguliere-effets-contre-productifs-droits-humai

    La « migration irrégulière » est un concept employé pour décrire une série de phénomènes différents mettant en jeu des personnes qui entrent ou demeurent dans un pays dont ils ne sont pas citoyens, en violation des lois nationales. L’irrégularité peut résulter d’une multitude de situations. La majorité des migrants irréguliers entrent dans un Etat légalement, munis […]


  • Voilà comment NE PAS parler de migrations... Le Figaro dans toute sa splendeur :

    Les forces de l’ordre face à une nouvelle *vague migratoire à la frontière italienne*

    REPORTAGE - Plus de 43.000 illégaux ont été arrêtés depuis janvier dans les Alpes-Maritimes. À la gare de Menton-Garavan, les policiers de la PAF appuyés par les CRS contrôlent systématiquement les trains en provenance d’Italie.

    http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2017/11/19/01016-20171119ARTFIG00124-immigration-nice-s-erige-en-verrou-de-la-frontier
    #vocabulaire #invasion #préjugés #afflux #illégal #asile #migrations #réfugiés #terminologie #vague #frontières


  • Les #paradis_fiscaux : un problème systémique | Alternatives Economiques
    https://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/paradis-fiscaux-un-probleme-systemique/00081468

    Les paradis fiscaux multiplient les transactions fictives entre #multinationales et entre leurs propres filiales, ce qui a trois conséquences : ils contribuent à une surestimation de la #mondialisation ; ils dressent une #géographie erronée des flux d’investissements étrangers ; ils servent à contourner les lois (fiscales et réglementaires).

    • Ces intermédiaires servent en effet à trois choses : faire disparaître l’argent, ne pas être pris, faire fructifier l’argent.

      [...]

      Enfin, l’argent « dissimulé » dans les paradis fiscaux n’y est pas : il est investi sur les grands marchés financiers internationaux pour qu’il puisse rapporter.

      Prenons l’exemple d’Apple. Bloomberg estime qu’entre 2012 et 2016, le gouvernement des Etats-Unis a versé 600 millions d’intérêts à Apple dont 22 % du matelas financier offshore est placé en titres de dette publique américaine.
      https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-apple-profits

      L’agence d’information américaine a également mis au jour le fait qu’avec 58 % de son trésor de guerre placé dans les obligations d’entreprises, Blaeburn Capital, la filiale financière de la société, est aujourd’hui le premier investisseur obligataire mondial !

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-04/apple-buys-more-company-debt-than-the-world-s-biggest-bond-funds

      On comprend bien à travers ce cas que lorsque l’on dit que l’argent est caché dans les paradis fiscaux, c’est que celui-ci y est officiellement enregistré mais il n’y reste pas : il est placé sur les grands marchés de dette publique et privé internationaux, grâce aux services rendus par les experts du droit et du chiffre.

    • Les p’tits papiers

      Après les « Panama Papers », voici donc les « Paradise Papers ». En attendant des révélations sur notre Caste nationale, et bien qu’il faille faire avec le tamis que le journal Le Monde et France-Inter jugeront utile d’imposer, notez dès à présent qu’un seuil a été franchi : là où les précédents mettaient en lumière des pratiques délictueuses d’évasion fiscale, les derniers en date se concentrent essentiellement sur « l’optimisation fiscale ».

      Terme générique véhiculé par la société bien pensante pour valoriser la légalisation de l’évasion fiscale. A moins que ce ne soit pour promouvoir l’évasion fiscale légalisée. Là où il y a deux ans encore les hommes (et femmes) de main politiques de ceux-là faisaient mine de dénoncer des pratiques individuelles répréhensibles, c’est aujourd’hui un effet de système qui est mis à jour. Il repose sur l’organisation méthodique de la soustraction au peuple d’une part sa richesse (8% !) pour engraisser les mieux lotis. La théorie du ruissellement ne saurait trouver de meilleur contre-exemple : les premiers de cordée si chers au Président Macron n’ont que faire de l’intérêt général. L’accumulation sans fin privatisée est leur seule quête et leurs dévoués dans les institutions sont leurs premiers gestionnaires de patrimoine.

      Depuis avril 2016 et les « Panama Papers », qu’est ce qui a concrètement été fait ? Les échanges automatiques d’informations bancaires se sont améliorés nous dit-on. Très bien. Et ? La principale mesure du gouvernement auquel appartenait le ministre de l’économie Macron a été d’augmenter les effectifs pour permettre la régularisation fiscale des émigrés fraudeurs qui, pris de peur et non de remords, souhaitaient revenir au pays. Pour le reste ? La France s’en remet encore et toujours à ce que pourrait impulser l’Union Européenne, comme si celle-ci n’avait pas à la tête de sa commission un certain Jean-Claude Juncker, ancien Premier ministre du Luxembourg qui, comme l’ont révélé les « Luxleaks », a organisé l’évasion fiscale à grande échelle vers ce pays.

      Seulement voilà. Plutôt que d’attendre faute de réelle volonté politique, la France pourrait et devrait agir. Elle le peut comme l’indiquait encore ce lundi sur France-Info le professeur d’économie à Berkeley Gabriel Zucman. Selon lui, la France pourrait, si elle le souhaitait, décider de taxer les multinationales sur leurs profits réalisés : « Ce qui est essentiel de comprendre, c’est qu’on peut taxer différemment les multinationales. On pourrait dire par exemple dire que si Apple fait 100 milliards de dollars de profit au niveau mondial et 10% de ces ventes en France, on peut considérer que 10 % de leurs profits, c’est-à-dire 10 milliards de dollars sont taxables en France et on appliquerait notre taux d’impôts sur les sociétés. Ça, c’est une réforme que la France pourrait faire demain toute seule et ça mettrait un terme à ce problème d’optimisation fiscale des multinationales qui coûte plus de 10 milliards d’euros par an à la France. Il y a un moment où il faut dire qu’on prend nos responsabilités et on réforme notre fiscalité, tout seul ».

      La volonté, la capacité, et la décision à agir, sont au cœur de l’interpellation du Président Macron par Jean-Luc Mélenchon ce lundi 6 novembre, sous la forme de propositions concrètes et susceptibles d’être immédiatement mises en œuvre pour lutter contre le pillage de la France : la fin du « verrou de Bercy » qui empêche le parquet d’engager une procédure à l’encontre d’un fraudeur fiscal sans l’accord du ministère ; la mise en place de l’impôt universel qui, comme le font les Etats-Unis d’Amérique, oblige les contribuables se déclarant à l’étranger à s’acquitter en France du différentiel avec notre régime fiscal ; l’interdiction pour les établissements bancaires d’exercer dans les paradis fiscaux ; la création du délit d’incitation à la fraude fiscale et à l’évasion fiscale ; l’interdiction d’exercer un mandat social pour les dirigeants de société qui ont exercé dans des paradis fiscaux.

      La communication et les belles paroles ça suffit ! Alors même que s’ouvre cette semaine la COP 23 qui devra prendre acte qu’est mort-né l’accord de Paris signé alors que M. Macron était ministre et tant vanté cet été quand il était déjà Président, il ne faudrait pas que M. Macron prolonge aussi son inaction depuis 18 mois pour ce qui concerne l’évasion fiscale, qu’elle soit illicite ou légalisée. Sauf à de témoin passif devenir complice.

      François Cocq


  • Désobéissance à l’usine : la perruque ouvrière - Les Utopiques
    http://www.lesutopiques.org/desobeissance-a-lusine-perruque-ouvriere

    L’illégalisme à l’usine se traduit sous la forme d’actions collectives : manifestations non autorisées dans les ateliers, refus d’accepter les ordres d’un chef haï, occupation des ateliers, grèves illégales, spontanées, piquets de grève, expulsion physique d’huissiers venus constater la grève, destruction de matériel (Metaleurop, 2003), etc. La désobéissance, hors la grève, est présente, bien que minoritaire, à travers de nombreuses formes de contournement du règlement : chahut, consommation d’alcool, de cannabis, affichage politique ou de photos dites « de charme », vol ou chapardage, travail au noir pour un autre employeur ; production illégale à des fins commerciales. Toutes les formes de déviance : coulage de la production, absentéisme volontaire (macadam), sabotage (moins fréquent1), refus de travail… existent dans les ateliers. Une des activités des plus courantes et des plus méconnues concerne « la perruque ».

    Parmi les fabrications de l’usine, toutes ne vont pas à l’employeur. La perruque fait partie de la culture et des pratiques ouvrières. Elle est aussi répandue que méconnue, la réticence à parler d’un travail illégal étant extrême. Son sens provient de l’analogie avec la perruque de cheveux qui est un trompe-l’œil, une tromperie comme l’est, pour l’employeur, la perruque industrielle. On peut définir tout de suite la perruque : « C’est l’utilisation de matériaux et d’outils par un travailleur, sur le lieu de l’entreprise, pendant le temps de travail, dans le but de fabriquer ou transformer un objet en dehors de la production réglementaire de l’entreprise ».

    #travail #perruque #illégalisme


  • #Paul_Allen Wants to Use Satellites and Software to Fight #Illegal_Fishing - Bloomberg
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-05/paul-allen-wants-to-use-satellites-and-software-to-fight-illegal-fishing

    Microsoft Corp. co-founder Paul Allen, concerned about illegal fishing depleting global fish populations, will spend $40 million to develop a system that uses satellite imagery and data-analysis software to help countries spot and catch unlicensed fishing boats.

    Called SkyLight, the system is being tested in the Pacific Island of Palau and the African nation of Gabon. Allen is trying to use technology to aid enforcement, particularly in countries with thousands of miles of coastline to patrol and few resources to do so. Allen will announce the initiative at the Our Oceans Conference in Malta on Friday.

    Illegal fishing accounts for about 20 percent of the world’s catch, costing up to $23.5 billion a year, according to the World Wildlife Foundation, and placing additional stress on a wild fish population that has declined by about half since 1970. #Overfishing raises the risk of conflict among fishing nations and raises the risk of hunger and joblessness in an industry that provides employment for more than 1 in 10 of the world’s people. Allen, an avid diver, has backed other ocean health projects and is also active in conservation efforts like trying to save the African elephant population  by using drones and sensors to track their movements.

    #surpêche #pêche_illégale
    #la_technique_sauvera_le_monde
    #la_philanthropie_sauvera_le_monde



  • The Interdiction of Asylum Seekers at Sea: Law and (mal)practice in Europe and Australia

    https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2017/05/02/Policy_Brief_4_Interdiction_of_asylum_seekers_at_sea.pdf
    #push-back #refoulement #mer #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Australie #Europe #UE #EU #légalité #illégalité

    Asylum seeker boat turnbacks illegal and don’t deter people, report finds

    Neither Australia’s nor Europe’s deterrence policies save lives, but rather ‘hamper desperate people fleeing war and persecution from finding safety’

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/03/asylum-seeker-boat-turnbacks-illegal-and-dont-deter-people-report-finds
    #dissuasion


  • P.R.O.U.G. #27
    http://www.radiopanik.org/emissions/p-r-o-u-g-/p-r-o-u-g-27

    Report de la #Freedom_Festival Teaser de #Natural_Beat_Makerz Mécou Yenski est une fois encore parti à Toulouse voir les potos de Natural Beat Makerz et à eu l’honneur de tendre son micro à #Emok & #Illegal_Machines... rien que ça ! La #Full_Mood 2017 approche à grands pas... Nous aurons le plaisr d’avoir N’GWA au téléphone afin qu’il nous présente l’open air annuel de son crew, les #Mood_Krafterz ! On en profitera pour parler de son actu et s’écouter sa dernière track !

    #P.R.O.U.G. #Iboga_Records #N'Gwa
    http://www.radiopanik.org/media/sounds/p-r-o-u-g-/p-r-o-u-g-27_03584__1.mp3


  • C’est une première : le tribunal de Boulogne-sur-Mer interdit à un soutien des réfugiés de parler à la presse | StreetPress
    http://www.streetpress.com/sujet/1488290370-soutien-refugies-calais-interdit-parler-presse

    Matthieu*, 42 ans, a décroché le gros lot. Mis en examen pour avoir aidé des amis migrants à traverser la Manche en canot pneumatique, ce soutien aux réfugiés, assez actif dans la jungle a écopé d’un contrôle judiciaire plutôt serré. En août dernier, il était arrêté à son domicile avant de passer devant un juge.

    Interdiction de se rendre à Grande-Synthe ou à Coquelles (à quelques kilomètres de Calais) « sauf pour prendre l’autoroute », interdiction de contacter ses complices présumés… Mais il y a plus original : l’homme a l’interdiction formelle de parler avec « tous journalistes » (sic), précise noir sur blanc le document consulté par StreetPress. Une première, à notre connaissance. Pas facile pour médiatiser son cas ! Selon nos informations, l’homme aurait déjà contesté la décision, sans succès. Difficile d’avoir des précisions… sans contacter l’intéressé.

    #censure #état_d'urgence #démocratie

    • « Dans le cadre d’un contrôle judiciaire, on peut décider d’un certain nombre d’obligations, dont celui de ne pas rencontrer un groupe de personnes », décrypte Olivier Coudert, président du syndicat des avocats de France. La décision ne peut concerner que des individus liés à la procédure. Dans ce cas-là, le parquet est obligé de motiver sa décision. Ce n’est pas le cas pour Matthieu. Son contrôle judiciaire serait donc #illégal :

      « C’est une atteinte à la liberté. On ne peut pas interdire de voir des journalistes comme ça. Il faut qu’il y ait un lien avec les faits reprochés. »


  • Why the language we use to talk about refugees matters so much
    –-> cet article date de juin 2015... je le remets sur seenthis car je l’ai lu plus attentivement, et du coup, je mets en évidence certains passages (et mots-clé).

    In an interview with British news station ITV on Thursday, David Cameron told viewers that the French port of Calais was safe and secure, despite a “#swarm” of migrants trying to gain access to Britain. Rival politicians soon rushed to criticize the British prime minister’s language: Even Nigel Farage, leader of the anti-immigration UKIP party, jumped in to say he was not “seeking to use language like that” (though he has in the past).
    Cameron clearly chose his words poorly. As Lisa Doyle, head of advocacy for the Refugee Council puts it, the use of the word swarm was “dehumanizing” – migrants are not insects. It was also badly timed, coming as France deployed riot police to Calais after a Sudanese man became the ninth person in less than two months to die while trying to enter the Channel Tunnel, an underground train line that runs from France to Britain.

    The way we talk about migrants in turn influences the way we deal with them, with sometimes worrying consequences.

    When considering the 60 million or so people currently displaced from their home around the world, certain words rankle experts more than others. “It makes no more sense to call someone an ’illegal migrant’ than an ’illegal person,’” Human Rights Watch’s Bill Frelick wrote last year. The repeated use of the word “boat people” to describe people using boats to migrate over the Mediterranean or across South East Asian waters presents similar issues.
    “We don’t call middle-class Europeans who take regular holidays abroad ’#EasyJet_people,’ or the super-rich of Monaco ’#yacht_people,’” Daniel Trilling, editor of the New Humanist, told me.

    How people are labelled has important implications. Whether people should be called economic migrants or asylum seekers matters a great deal in the country they arrive in, where it could affect their legal status as they try to stay in the country. It also matters in the countries where these people originated from. Eritrea, for example, has repeatedly denied that the thousands of people leaving the country are leaving because of political pressure, instead insisting that they have headed abroad in search of higher wages. Other countries make similar arguments: In May, Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina said that the migrants leaving her country were “fortune-seekers” and “mentally sick.” The message behind such a message was clear: It’s their fault, not ours.

    There are worries that even “migrant,” perhaps the broadest and most neutral term we have, could become politicized.

    Those living in the migrant camps near #Calais, nicknamed “the #jungle,” seem to understand this well themselves. “It’s easier to leave us living like this if you say we are bad people, not human," Adil, a 24-year-old from Sudan, told the Guardian.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/07/30/why-the-language-we-use-to-talk-about-refugees-matters-so-much
    #langage #vocabulaire #terminologie #mots #réfugiés #asile #migrations #essaim #invasion #afflux #déshumanisation #insectes #expatriés #expats #illégal #migrant_illégal #boat_people #migrants_économiques

    cc @sinehebdo

    • The words we use matter—why we shouldn’t use the term ”illegal migrant”

      Words have consequences, especially in situations where strong emotions as well as social and political conflicts are endemic. Raj Bhopal’s rapid response in The BMJ, in which he objected to the use of the phrase “illegal migrant” on the grounds that only actions, not persons, can be deemed “illegal”, merits further reflection and dissection.

      Some people think that those who protest against this phrase are taking sides with migrants in conflict with the law, in a futile attempt to cover up what is going on. On the contrary: the very idea that a person can be illegal is incompatible with the rule of law, which is founded on the idea that everyone has the right to due process and is equal in the eyes of the law. Labelling a person as “illegal” insinuates that their very existence is unlawful. For this reason, bodies including the United Nations General Assembly, International Organization for Migration, Council of Europe, and European Commission have all deemed the phrase unacceptable, recommending instead the terms “irregular” or “undocumented”. It would be more than appropriate for the medical profession, given its social standing and influence, to do the same.

      While people cannot be illegal, actions can: but here too, words have to be chosen carefully. For example, the overwhelming majority of irregular migrants have not entered the country clandestinely; they have either had their asylum application turned down, or have “overstayed” a visa, or breached its conditions. Moreover, it is never correct to label someone’s actions “illegal” before the appropriate legal authority has determined that they are. Until then, the presumption of innocence should apply. Due process must have been followed, including the right to legal advice, representation, and appeal—rights that the UK government, especially where migrants are concerned, has been only too willing to sacrifice on the altar of cost-cutting.

      Even after an official determination that a person is residing unlawfully, we must have confidence in the fairness of the procedures followed before it is safe to assume that the decision was correct. This confidence has been badly shaken by the recent finding that almost half of the UK Home Office’s immigration decisions that go to appeal are overturned. In their zeal to implement the government’s policy of creating a “hostile environment” for people residing unlawfully, some Home Office officials appear to have forgotten that the rule of law still applies in Britain. People who had lived legally in the UK for decades have been suddenly branded as “illegally resident” and denied healthcare because they couldn’t provide four pieces of evidence for each year of residence since they arrived—even when some of the evidence had been destroyed by the Home Office itself. Hundreds of highly skilled migrants including doctors have been denied the right to remain in the UK because minor tax or income discrepancies were taken as evidence of their undesirability under the new Immigration Rules. A recent case in which the Home Office separated a 3-year-old girl from her only available parent, in contravention of its own policies, led to an award for damages of £50,000.

      What of the medical profession’s own involvement? The 2014 Immigration Act links a person’s healthcare entitlement to their residency status. Health professionals in the UK are now required to satisfy themselves that an individual is eligible for NHS care by virtue of being “ordinarily resident in the UK,” the definition of which has been narrowed. In practice, this has meant that people who do not fit certain stereotypes are more likely to be questioned—a potential route to an institutionally racist system. They can instantly be denied not only healthcare, but also the ability to work, hold a bank account or driver’s licence, or rent accommodation. It is unprecedented, and unacceptable, for UK health professionals to be conscripted as agents of state control in this way.

      Given the unrelenting vendetta of sections of the British press against people who may be residing unlawfully, it should also be borne in mind that such migrants cannot “sponge off the welfare state”, since there are virtually no benefits they can claim. They are routinely exposed to exploitation and abuse by employers, while “free choice” has often played a minimal role in creating their situation. (Consider, for example, migrants who lose their right of residence as a result of losing their job, or asylum seekers whose claim has been rejected but cannot return to their country because it is unsafe or refuses to accept them).

      To sum up: abolishing the dehumanising term “illegal migrant” is an important first step, but the responsibility of health professionals goes even further. In the UK they are obliged to collaborate in the implementation of current immigration policy. To be able to do this with a clear conscience, they need to know that rights to residence in the UK are administered justly and humanely. Regrettably, as can be seen from the above examples, this is not always the case.

      https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2018/10/02/the-words-we-use-matter-why-we-shouldnt-use-the-term-illegal-migrant


  • TEDx Champs Elysées Salon | Le pouvoir des mots
    http://asile.ch/2017/02/01/tedx-champs-elysees-salon-pouvoir-mots

    Jean-François Dubost est juriste et responsable du Programme Protection des populations à Amnesty International France. Il est intervenu à TEDx Champs Elysées Salon, un événement qui a eu lieu à Paris en juin 2016, en rappelant un panorama des mots qui parlent d’exil.

    • Les conflits au #Kosovo ou au #Timor sont d’autres exemples de l’imbroglio sémantique et juridique auquel conduit une division du monde instable et contestée. Ainsi, en droit, les exilés du Kosovo étaient des déplacés si la fuite les avait conduit dans des républiques dépendant de la fédération yougoslave (Monténégro) mais des réfugiés s’ils avaient franchi la frontière de cette dernière pour atteindre des pays souverains tels que l’Albanie ou la Macédoine.
      Quelques mois plus tard, après que la situation se fut radicalement inversée, ce fut au tour des populations serbes du Kosovo exilées vers la Serbie de prendre le statut de déplacées. Quant aux Kosovars qui ne sont pas encore retournés chez eux - ceux qui ont pu atteindre des pays européens plus lointains par exemple- leur statut de réfugiés « réinstallés » ne conserve de légitimité que le temps du conflit. La paix revenue, ils sont appelés à le perdre. (Cambrézy, 2001 : 45)

      Disons enfin que « réfugié » et « déplacé » ne sont pas des catégories exclusives dans le temps. On peut envisager que des populations d’abord déplacées choisissent ensuite de chercher un refuge hors des frontières de leur pays. Dans un sens inverse, il est fréquent que des réfugiés de retour dans leur pays d’origine ne retrouvent ni leur domicile ni leur région d’origine. De ce fait, considérer les réfugiés comme une catégorie parfaitement définie, strictement étanche et totalement indépendante des autres catégories de migrants tels que le déplacés ou les immigrés n a aucun sens. Car, si la distinction est essentielle sur le plan du droit international, celle-ci l’est beaucoup moins dans la pratique et dans la vie quotidienne des populations. Il existe des réfugiés sans statut de réfugié ; des déplacés qui, lorsqu’ils auront franchi la frontière, deviendront des réfugiés ; des réfugiés qui, une fois rapatriés, deviennent des déplacés ; des réfugiés qui, pour des raisons économiques, font le choix de rester dans le pays d’accueil et deviennent des immigrés. (Cambrézy, 2001 : 46-47)

      Tiré du livre « Réfugiés et exilés. Crise des sociétés, crise des territoires », dont il est possible de trouver une recension ici :
      http://journals.openedition.org/cybergeo/833


  • Offres d’emploi illégales - Question au gouvernement
    Union départementale CGT du Morbihan
    http://www.cgt56.com/spip.php?article1523

    M. LE SCOUARNEC, sénateur du Morbihan, a posé une question au gouvernement, concernant les offres d’emploi illégales. Merci à lui pour son soutien, nous attendons la réponse de Mme la ministre du travail (voir en bas de page pour accéder au courrier d’origine) :

    Offres non légales sur le site de Pôle Emploi

    Question Ecrite 24129
    Déposée au Journal Officiel du Sénat, le 01/12/2016

    Monsieur Michel LE SCOUARNEC souhaite attirer l’attention de Mme la ministre dutravail, de l’emploi, de la formation professionnelle et du dialogue social sur les offres non légales proposées sur le site pôle emploi.fr.

    L’union départementale CGT du Morbihan a analysé les offres d’emplois sur ce site le 2 septembre 2016. Ainsi, 46% d’entre elles seraient illégales. Dans un courrier adressé à l’organisation syndicale le 20 octobre 2016, le directeur national de Pôle emploi reconnaît lui-même que ces offres « présentent manifestement des non conformités malgré les dispositifs de sécurisation mis en place de façon automatisée et via les conseillers alertés ».

    En effet, c’est un logiciel de contrôle automatique qui gère les offres d’emplois. Or, jusqu’en 2014, c’était des agents de Pôle emploi qui contrôlaient, avant leur diffusion, la légalité des offres.
    Les analyses réalisées par la CGT les 28 janvier et 7 juillet 2016 indiquaient déjà des taux d’offres illégales respectivement de 30 % et 33 %. Ces chiffres illustrent le défaut de fonctionnement de ce logiciel.
    Les salariés en recherche d’un emploi ont le droit de consulter des offres légales et non pas incohérentes, mensongères voire malhonnêtes.

    De plus, Pôle emploi remplit une mission de service public et doit garantir la légalité et la réalité des offres qu’il diffuse sur son site internet.

    C’est pourquoi il lui demande ses intentions afin de rétablir le contrôle des offres, avant leur diffusion, par les agents de Pôle emploi formés à cette tâche.

    Réponse de Mme la Ministre à venir


    #Offres_d_emploi #illégalité #Pôle_emploi #CGT


  • What it means when we call people illegal

    Decades later one group is still denied humanity and rights; here in the UK we even go so far as to label their very existence unlawful. Illegal migrants, bogus asylum seekers. The phrasing is used in the British press (broadsheets, tabloids and broadcasters alike) and by politicians and civil servants. This language matters, and it needs to be more seriously challenged.

    http://lacuna.org.uk/migration/what-it-means-when-we-call-people-illegal
    #terminologie #mots #vocabulaire #illégal #migrations #asile #réfugiés


  • Libé décide d’utiliser dans le titre le #mot #personnes au lieu de #migrants_illégaux :
    Dans son premier entretien après sa victoire, Trump promet d’expulser jusqu’à 3 millions de personnes

    « Nous allons les renvoyer de notre pays, ils sont ici illégalement », a dit le président élu des Etats-Unis, qui a fait campagne avec un programme très xénophobe, en visant notamment des « criminels qui ont des casiers judiciaires ».

    http://www.liberation.fr/planete/2016/11/13/dans-son-premier-entretien-apres-sa-victoire-trump-promet-d-expulser-jusq

    #wordsmatter #vocabulaire #terminologie #médias #journalisme #illégal