• Podcast : #migrants ou #réfugiés ? Crise ou phénomène durable ?
    http://theconversation.com/podcast-migrants-ou-refugies-crise-ou-phenomene-durable-106866

    Alors qu’en 2018 le nombre de migrants en Europe est le plus faible des dernières années, et que l’on ne cesse de parler de « crise des migrants », retour sur un débat à la fois lexical, politique et socio-économique avec trois experts de disciplines différentes.

    #migration #asile



  • Dire la #violence des #frontières. Mises en mots de la migration vers l’Europe

    Considérant les pratiques langagières comme partie intégrante des pratiques migratoires, ce dossier s’intéresse aux mises en mots de la #mort et de la violence aux frontières dans le cadre des migrations vers l’Europe. Ces mises en mots sont appréhendées à différents niveaux, qu’il s’agisse de leurs productions depuis les espaces institutionnels (organisations internationales, espaces politiques à l’échelle européenne ou étatique) ou de leurs réceptions par les migrants, au cours de leur voyage vers l’Europe ou après coup, lorsqu’ils y sont arrivés, ou encore de retour dans leur pays de résidence après une expulsion. L’approche par le #langage, correspondant à la fois à une prise en compte des discours produit sur les migrants et de la parole prise par ces derniers dans des cadres discursifs divers, est au cœur du dossier thématique de ce numéro : en déclinant la manière dont sont exprimées, dans des cadres discursifs divers, les mises en mots de la mort sociale, de la disparition, de l’arbitraire institutionnel, ou encore du sécuritaire et de l’humanitaire, etc., cette perspective permet de penser l’objet frontière tout en offrant une grille de lecture des inégalités socio-spatiales à l’heure de la mondialisation.

    Cécile Canut et Anaïk Pian
    Éditorial [Texte intégral]
    Editorial
    Editorial
    Cécile Canut
    « Tu ne pleures pas, tu suis Dieu… » Les #aventuriers et le spectre de la mort [Résumé | Accès restreint]
    “You don’t cry, you follow God…” Adventurers and the Specter of Death
    « No lloras, sigues a Dios… » Los aventureros y el espectro de la muerte

    Anaïk Pian
    Les #espaces_discursifs de la frontière : mort et arbitraire dans le voyage vers l’Europe [Résumé | Accès restreint]
    Discursives Spaces of Border: Death and Arbitrariness in Journeys towards Europe
    Espacios discursivos de la frontera: la muerte y lo arbitrario en viajes hacia Europa

    Charles Heller et Antoine Pécoud
    Compter les morts aux frontières : des contre-statistiques de la société civile à la récupération (inter)gouvernementale [Résumé | Accès restreint]
    Counting Migrant Deaths at the Borders: From Civil Society’s Counter-statistics to (Inter)governmental Recuperation
    Contabilizar los muertos en las fronteras: de las contra-estadísticas de la sociedad civil a la recuperación (inter)gubernamental

    Jacinthe Mazzocchetti
    Dire la violence des frontières dans le rapport de force que constitue la procédure d’asile. Le cas d’Ali, de l’Afghanistan en Belgique [Résumé | Accès restreint]
    Telling the Violence of Borders in the Power Relations that Constitutes the Asylum Process. The Case of Ali, from Afghanistan to Belgium
    Contar la violencia de las fronteras en el equilibrio de poder representado por el procedimiento de asilo. El caso de Ali, de Afganistán a Bélgica

    Carolina Kobelinsky
    Exister au risque de disparaître. Récits sur la mort pendant la traversée vers l’Europe [Résumé | Accès restreint]
    Existing at Risk of Disappearing. Narratives on Death during Border Crossing
    Existir arriesgando desaparece. Relatos sobre la muerte durante la travesía hacia Europa

    Annastiina Kallius
    The East-South Axis: Legitimizing the “Hungarian Solution to Migration” [Résumé | Accès restreint]
    L’axe Est-Sud : légitimer la « solution hongroise à la migration »
    El eje Este-Sur: legitimación de la «solución húngara a la migración»

    https://journals.openedition.org/remi/8596
    #revue #mots #vocabulaire #terminologie


  • L’importanza di chiamarsi Stato (Islamico)

    Qualunque studente abbia anche solo distrattamente frequentato temi di geografia politica sa che uno Stato, per ritenersi tale, deve avere tre caratteristiche: territorio, popolazione e sovranità. In particolare quest’ultima ha due dimensioni: una “interna”, nel senso che l’autorità dello stato deve essere riconosciuta dai suoi cittadini, e una esterna, poiché lo stato deve ottenere il riconoscimento degli altri stati o, quantomeno, di quelli che hanno maggior peso nella comunità internazionale (su questo un approfondimento sulla recente approvazione di una mozione della Camera dei Comuni britannica, QUI). Questo elemento è particolarmente importante perché la comunità degli stati è – almeno in linea teorica – una comunità di pari; chi ne fa parte non può tollerare ingerenze nei propri affari interni e contribuisce, tramite lo stabilirsi di consuetudini e accordi, a dare corpo al diritto internazionale. Il riconoscimento della qualità statuale avviene, generalmente, a seguito di periodi di conflitto o, assai più raramente, come esito di processi pacifici (come nel caso della divisione in due stati della ex Cecoslovacchia) ed è un momento determinante per la definizione del nuovo status quo.

    Se si tiene conto di questi elementi, certamente ben noti alle cancellerie di tutto il mondo (essendo l’ABC dei rapporti internazionali), appare assolutamente sorprendente (e perfino irresponsabile) il fatto che sia divenuta di uso comune la denominazione ISIS (o IS), condensata in «Stato Islamico», per denominare non tanto un gruppo che contemporaneamente si definisce terroristico, ma un vasto territorio che questo gruppo tende a controllare militarmente. Ciò non avviene soltanto in ambito giornalistico, ma anche ufficiale: se Obama generalmente utilizza la formula “gruppo che chiama se stesso Islamic State” (QUI, minuto 1.38), ormai generalmente non si usa più neanche questa blanda cautela. Tra gli innumerevoli esempi possibili, prendiamo la trascrizione della conferenza stampa del Segretario Generale delle Nazioni Unite Ban Ki-moon (16 settembre 2014) pubblicata sul sito web delle Nazioni Unite (QUI): questa riporta, nella domanda rivolta al Segretario dalla giornalista Pamela Falk (CBS news): “My question is about the very difficult question of foreign terrorist fighters and ISIS [Islamic State in Iraq and the Shams]”. Le parentesi quadre indicano una precisazione redazionale inserita dallo staff delle Nazioni Unite, che traduce l’acronimo riportando senza remore (né perifrasi, come “il sedicente”) la dicitura di “Stato Islamico dell’Iraq e della Siria”. Nello stesso testo l’uso dell’acronimo viene attribuito direttamente al Segretario Generale in una sua risposta a una domanda sull’Iraq (“This is all the more important when it comes to critical posts related to security in view of the threat the country is now facing, particularly by ISIL [Islamic State in Iraq and the Shams]”). Curioso notare come, in questo caso, ci sia anche una incongruenza “geografica”: l’acronimo usato da Ban Ki-moon terminava con la lettera L (per “Levant”: ISIL, Islamic State in Iraq and Levant è infatti uno degli acronimi usati in particolare dagli anglosassoni), ma evidentemente lo staff che trascrive le conferenze stampa ha avuto indicazioni di adottare “the Sham”, che in arabo sta per Siria, in luogo del più vasto e indistinto “Levant”. Così fa anche in questo caso, “correggendo” addirittura il Segretario Generale.

    Quella sollevata sin qui potrebbe apparire una questione di secondo piano o di dettaglio, soprattutto di fronte ai disastri della guerra e alle atroci decapitazioni divenute ormai drammaticamente abituali nelle immagini dei media; in realtà è ben evidente come in questa guerra si stia puntando molto sull’uso dei media per la propaganda, ed esattamente quello dell’affermazione dell’esistenza di un soggetto statuale (lo Stato Islamico) appare tra i principali obiettivi – peraltro acquisiti – dei combattenti jhadisti.

    Interessante in proposito il fatto che la denominazione sia nel tempo mutata, a rappresentare il salto di scala che i combattenti vogliono raggiungere. Se inizialmente si puntava all’Iraq e alla Siria o all’Iraq e al Levante (ISIS o ISIL), successivamente la connotazione geografica specifica è stata rimossa, passando a un più generico Islamic State (IS). In questo modo, puntando sull’elemento religioso, la denominazione può risultare più attrattiva (o insultante, a seconda del punto di vista, come si vedrà più oltre) su scala globale. Il risultato è anche quello di “occupare” l’immaginario collettivo: sui non-musulmani il continuo tam tam mediatico che mette in relazione “Stato Islamico” con efferatezza, inusitata violenza e terrore potrebbe provocare, nel breve quanto nel medio termine, effetti tanto gravi quanto facilmente prevedibili. D’altro canto è sufficiente un esperimento mentale per comprendere meglio la situazione. Immaginiamo che il gruppo estremista fosse stato cristiano. Al di là dell’auto-denominazione scelta, si sarebbe ugualmente diffusa a livello mondiale la definizione “Stato Cristiano”? Se mentalmente il primo pensiero che ci viene in mente fosse “i cristiani non fanno mica quelle cose”, l’”occupazione dell’immaginario” cui si faceva riferimento poco sopra diverrebbe ancor più chiara.

    Se in molti casi la categoria di Stato può generare imponenti tensioni e persino crisi internazionali (è di ieri il riconoscimento della Palestina in quanto Stato da parte della Svezia, e la conseguente durissima reazione di Israele: vedi QUI e QUI), sembra che i portatori delle bandiere nere abbiano ottenuto uno dei risultati più notevoli con ferocissima semplicità, e viene allora da chiedersi se vi fosse una (più o meno inconscia) predisposizione all’accettazione dell’accostamento tra il concetto di Stato Islamico e quello di inusitata violenza.

    La riflessione sulla denominazione non è però stata del tutto ignorata. In Francia, ad esempio, la direttrice dell’Associated France Press ha spiegato, in un editoriale (QUI) la scelta della prestigiosa agenzia di stampa di non utilizzare più la denominazione “Stato Islamico” (scelta per la verità contraddetta da alcuni titoli e didascalie dell’editoriale stesso). Michèle Lérindon motiva così la decisione: “Nous jugeons que l’expression « Etat islamique » est inappropriée pour deux raisons : un, il ne s’agit pas d’un véritable Etat, avec des frontières et une reconnaissance internationale. Et deux, pour de nombreux musulmans, les valeurs dont se réclame cette organisation ne sont en rien « islamiques ». Le nom « Etat islamique » est donc susceptible d’induire le public en erreur”. In sintesi: non si tratta di uno vero Stato e, per molti musulmani, i valori di questa organizzazione non hanno nulla di “islamico”; per questo la denominazione “Stato Islamico” potrebbe indurre il pubblico in errore e non la useremo. Lo Stato francese utilizza la denominazione “Daesh”; in questo articolo Lettera 43 dà credito all’ipotesi in base alla quale questo termine avrebbe un carattere peggiorativo per assonanza con “dèche” (rotto); France 24 riporta invece, come origine, una denominazione in arabo (QUI).

    La riflessione sulla denominazione non si limita alla sola Francia: le autorità religiose egiziane suggeriscono l’uso di QSIS, che sta per “Al-Qaeda Separatists in Iraq and Syria”. A parte il riferimento ad Al-Qaeda, in questo caso appare evidente come la denominazione avrebbe un senso diametralmente opposto: definendo il gruppo come “separatista”, rafforzerebbe il concetto delle entità statuali di Siria e Iraq. Il che è perfettamente coerente con i possibili timori dell’Egitto, che, uscendo a fatica da anni di fortissime tensioni interne, può temere il fattore d’attrazione propagandistica che l’idea di uno “Stato Islamico” potrebbe rappresentare. Come riporta The Guardian (QUI) anche un gruppo di Imam e organizzazioni di musulmani britannici premono affinché il loro governo rigetti la denominazione di “Stato Islamico”. Pure in Italia sono stati ripresi spunti di questo dibattito (tra gli altri, ad esempio La Stampa - ed Il Post), ma non sembra che la discussione si sia realmente focalizzata sulle questioni di fondo né che abbia avuto particolari esiti. Proprio per questo come LuogoeSpazio abbiamo deciso di occuparcene, considerando che alcune comuni nozioni di geografia politica, purtroppo, appaiano in Italia scarsamente diffuse. Il danno che potrebbe derivarne, anche nella prospettiva della convivenza tra culture differenti e considerata l’inerzia dell’immgainario collettivo, non è da sottovalutare.

    http://nuke.luogoespazio.info/HOMEDILUOGOESPAZIOINFO/tabid/466/EntryID/299/Default.aspx
    #Etat #Etat_islamique #ISIS #EI #terminologie #vocabulaire #mots


  • Immigration : Faure (PS) évoque le sentiment d’une « colonisation à l’envers » dans certains quartiers

    « Il y a des endroits (...) qui donnent le sentiment que l’on est dans une forme de “colonisation à l’envers” », a déclaré le premier secrétaire du PS, #Olivier_Faure, jeudi sur France inter, répondant à une question sur le « racisme anti-blanc ». Des propos nuancés par l’intéressé.

    Ce sont des #mots rares dans la bouche d’un socialiste. « Il y a des endroits où il y a des regroupements qui se sont faits, génération après génération, et qui donnent le sentiment que l’on est dans une forme de “colonisation à l’envers” », a affirmé Olivier Faure, le premier secrétaire du Parti socialiste (PS), jeudi matin sur France inter, en reprenant les termes d’une « concitoyenne ».

    Interrogé sur la « discrimination antiblanche » dont un auditeur dit avoir souffert à Villiers-le-Bel (Val-d’Oise), le député socialiste de Seine-et-Marne a concédé que la gauche avait « souvent évité la question pour ne pas avoir à y répondre ». Aujourd’hui, il remarque une « crise identitaire profonde chez un certain nombre de concitoyens ».

    « Il existe des endroits où le fait de ne pas être issu de l’immigration peut poser problème à des gens qui sont issus de ces quartiers et qui peuvent se sentir exclus », estime le numéro un du PS. « Il y a des endroits où il y a des regroupements qui se sont faits, génération après génération, et qui donnent le sentiment que l’on est dans une forme de “colonisation à l’envers”. C’est ce que m’a dit un jour une de nos concitoyennes, qui ne votait plus à gauche car elle avait l’impression d’être “colonisée”. Ce message-là, je l’entends. »
    Marine Le Pen applaudit

    Mais selon Olivier Faure, les causes de cette « #crise_identitaire » sont sociales. « La difficulté ne tient pas aux étrangers », souligne-t-il, « mais à la politique du #logement, à la façon dont on a conçu les politiques. On a créé des #ghettos où la #mixité_ethnique n’existe plus ». « La question, c’est comment est-ce qu’on organise les choses, comment on ne laisse pas le terrain s’organiser tout seul, car ça donne le sentiment de #regroupements qui ne sont pas maîtrisés », a-t-il poursuivi.

    Alors que le PS est souvent jugé, par une partie de la droite et le Rassemblement national (RN, ex-FN), comme trop timoré sur la question de l’immigration, ce discours a été applaudi par des cadres du RN. « Une étincelle de lucidité ? Tardive....mais qui fera grand bruit ! », a écrit le vice-président du parti à la flamme, Louis Aliot, sur Twitter. Sur son compte privé, Marine Le Pen a salué cette déclaration avec le symbole d’une bouteille de champagne.

    « À chaque fois, on cherche à instrumentaliser les propos, c’est le jeu politique », explique au Figaro Olivier Faure, presque résigné par ces réactions. Sa déclaration n’implique « aucun revirement » dans le ton ou le programme du PS sur l’immigration, assure-t-il. « Je n’ai fait que répéter ce que j’entends parfois. La “#colonisation”, ce n’est pas une expression de ma part, elle ne correspond ni à ma pensée, ni à ce que je suis. »

    Le premier secrétaire du PS veut montrer qu’il « entend cette exaspération qui monte », tout en voulant « combattre ces discours-là en proposant des solutions : non pas le rejet des étrangers, mais le rejet des #ghettos_urbains, à travers la mixité ». Il plaide en faveur d’un meilleur accueil des étrangers, et non d’une limitation de l’immigration. Pourtant, selon une étude publiée lundi par la Fondation Jean Jaurès, proche du PS, un sympathisant socialiste sur quatre pense qu’il y a « trop d’immigrés en France ».

    http://www.lefigaro.fr/politique/le-scan/citations/2018/10/25/25002-20181025ARTFIG00343-immigration-faure-ps-evoque-le-sentiment-d-une-co
    #racisme_anti-blancs #colonisation_à_l'envers #anti-blancs #vocabulaire #terminologie #no_shit #communautarisme #banlieues #quartiers_populaires



  • Words matter. Is it @AP style to call migrants an “army”—above a photo of mothers tending to their infants and toddlers, no less? This is not only incorrect, but it enables a racist narrative sold by this @POTUS and his supporters. Armies invade. These people are running away.


    https://twitter.com/JamilSmith/status/1054163071785037824
    #armée #terminologie #préjugés #invasion #afflux #mots #vocabulaire #migrations #réfugiés #médias #journalisme #presse

    • #Polly_Pallister-Wilkins sur la marche de migrants qui a lieu en Amérique centrale...

      Dear media reporting on the Central American migrant caravan, can you please be attentive to how you talk about it? 1/n
      People are walking, walking not pouring, flowing, or streaming. Walking. They are walking along roads, they will be tired, hungry, their feet will hurt, they will have blisters and sore joints. They are not a natural liquid phenomenon governed by the force of gravity. 2/n
      Their walking is conditioned by the infrastructures they move along like roads, the physical geographies they traverse like hills and rivers and the human controls they encounter like border controls and police checkpoints. 3/n
      All of these things are risky, they make the walk, the journey more difficult and dangerous, esepcially the police checkpoints and the border controls. These risks are the reason they are travelling as a caravan, as a large group attempting to minimise the risks of controls 4/n
      And the risks from gangs and criminals that migrants on their journeys routinely face. Their journey is a deeply embodied one, and one that is deeply conditioned both by the violence they are leaving and the violence of the journey itself. 5/n
      So media please try and reflect this in your storytelling. These people are not a river obeying gravity. They have made an active yet conditioned choice to move. When they encounter a block in their path this can be deadly. It can detain, deport, injure, rape, or kill. 6/n
      And these blockages are not boulders in a riverbed around which the river flows. These blockages, these #checkpoints, border controls or police patrols are human blockages, they are not natural. So please try and reflect the political structures of this journey. Please. End/
      Addendum: there is a long history of caravans as a form political resistance in Central America.

      https://twitter.com/PollyWilkins/status/1054267257944227840
      #marche #migrations #Honduras #Amérique_centrale #mots #vocabulaire #terminologie #média #journalisme #presse #caravane #métaphores_liquides #risque #gravité #mouvement #contrôles_frontaliers #blocages #barrières #résistance #Mexique

    • Migrants travel in groups for a simple reason: safety

      A caravan of Central American migrants traveling to through Mexico to the United States to seek asylum is about halfway through its journey.

      The caravan began on Oct. 13 in Honduras with 200 people. As it has moved through Honduras, Guatemala and now Mexico, its ranks have grown to over 7,000, according to an estimate by the International Organization of Migration.

      The migrants have been joined by representatives from humanitarian organizations like the Mexican Red Cross providing medical assistance and human rights groups that monitor the situation.

      Journalists are there, too, and their reporting has caught the attention of President Donald Trump.

      He has claimed that the caravan’s ranks probably hide Middle Eastern terrorists. Trump later acknowledged there is no evidence of this, but conservative media outlets have nevertheless spread the message.

      It is reasonable for Americans to have security concerns about immigration. But as a scholar of forced migration, I believe it’s also important to consider why migrants travel in groups: their own safety.
      Safety in numbers

      The Central Americans in the caravan, like hundreds of thousands of people who flee the region each year, are escaping extreme violence, lack of economic opportunity and growing environmental problems, including drought and floods, back home.

      Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico have some of the world’s highest murder rates. According to Doctors Without Borders, which provides medical care in crisis zones, 68 percent of the migrants and refugees it surveyed in Mexico had experienced violence. Nearly one-third of women were sexually abused.

      Whether crossing Central America, the Sahara desert or the mountains of Afghanistan, migrants are regularly extorted by criminals, militias and corrupt immigration officials who know migrants make easy targets: They carry cash but not weapons.

      Large groups increase migrants’ chance of safe passage, and they provide some sense of community and solidarity on the journey, as migrants themselves report.
      Publicizing the dangers they flee

      Large groups of migrants also attract media coverage. As journalists write about why people are on the move, they shed light on Central America’s many troubles.

      Yet headlines about huge migrant caravans may misrepresent trends at the U.S.-Mexico border, where migration is actually decreasing.

      While the number of Central American families and children seeking asylum in the U.S. has increased in the past two years, Mexican economic migrants are crossing the border at historically low levels.

      And while most migrant caravan members hope to seek asylum in the U.S., recent history shows many will stay in Mexico.

      In response to Trump’s immigration crackdown, Mexican president-elect Andrés Manuel López Obrador has promised to welcome Central American refugees — and try to keep them safe.


      https://theconversation.com/migrants-travel-in-groups-for-a-simple-reason-safety-105621

      #sécurité

    • Trump’s Caravan Hysteria Led to This

      The president and his supporters insisted that several thousand Honduran migrants were a looming menace—and the Pittsburgh gunman took that seriously.

      On Tuesday, October 16, President Donald Trump started tweeting.

      “The United States has strongly informed the President of Honduras that if the large Caravan of people heading to the U.S. is not stopped and brought back to Honduras, no more money or aid will be given to Honduras, effective immediately!”

      “We have today informed the countries of Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador that if they allow their citizens, or others, to journey through their borders and up to the United States, with the intention of entering our country illegally, all payments made to them will STOP (END)!”

      Vice President Mike Pence also tweeted:

      “Spoke to President Hernandez of Honduras about the migrant caravan heading to the U.S. Delivered strong message from @POTUS: no more aid if caravan is not stopped. Told him U.S. will not tolerate this blatant disregard for our border & sovereignty.”

      The apparent impetus for this outrage was a segment on Fox News that morning that detailed a migrant caravan thousands of miles away in Honduras. The caravan, which began sometime in mid-October, is made up of refugees fleeing violence in their home country. Over the next few weeks, Trump did his best to turn the caravan into a national emergency. Trump falsely told his supporters that there were “criminals and unknown Middle Easterners” in the caravan, a claim that had no basis in fact and that was meant to imply that terrorists were hiding in the caravan—one falsehood placed on another. Defense Secretary James Mattis ordered more troops to the border. A Fox News host took it upon herself to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen whether there was “any scenario under which if people force their way across the border they could be shot at,” to which Nielsen responded, “We do not have any intention right now to shoot at people.”

      Pence told Fox News on Friday, “What the president of Honduras told me is that the caravan was organized by leftist organizations, political activists within Honduras, and he said it was being funded by outside groups, and even from Venezuela … So the American people, I think, see through this—they understand this is not a spontaneous caravan of vulnerable people.”

      The Department of Homeland Security’s Twitter account “confirmed” that within the caravan are people who are “gang members or have significant criminal histories,” without offering evidence of any such ties. Trump sought to blame the opposition party for the caravan’s existence. “Every time you see a Caravan, or people illegally coming, or attempting to come, into our Country illegally, think of and blame the Democrats for not giving us the votes to change our pathetic Immigration Laws!” Trump tweeted on October 22. “Remember the Midterms! So unfair to those who come in legally.”

      In the right-wing fever swamps, where the president’s every word is worshipped, commenters began amplifying Trump’s exhortations with new details. Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida wondered whether George Soros—the wealthy Jewish philanthropist whom Trump and several members of the U.S. Senate blamed for the protests against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and who was recently targeted with a bomb—was behind the migrant caravan. NRATV, the propaganda organ of the National Rifle Association, linked two Republican obsessions, voter fraud and immigration. Chuck Holton told NRATV’s viewers that Soros was sending the caravan to the United States so the migrants could vote: “It’s telling that a bevy of left-wing groups are partnering with a Hungarian-born billionaire and the Venezuelan government to try to influence the 2018 midterms by sending Honduran migrants north in the thousands.” On CNN, the conservative commentator Matt Schlapp pointedly asked the anchor Alisyn Camerota, “Who’s paying for the caravan? Alisyn, who’s paying for the caravan?,” before later answering his own question: “Because of the liberal judges and other people that intercede, including George Soros, we have too much chaos at our southern border.” On Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show, one guest said, “These individuals are not immigrants—these are people that are invading our country,” as another guest asserted they were seeking “the destruction of American society and culture.”

      Peter Beinart: Trump shut programs to counter violent extremists

      In the meantime, much of the mainstream press abetted Trump’s effort to make the midterm election a referendum on the caravan. Popular news podcasts devoted entire episodes to the caravan. It remained on the front pages of major media websites. It was an overwhelming topic of conversation on cable news, where Trumpists freely spread disinformation about the threat the migrants posed, while news anchors displayed exasperation over their false claims, only to invite them back on the next day’s newscast to do it all over again.

      In reality, the caravan was thousands of miles and weeks away from the U.S. border, shrinking in size, and unlikely to reach the U.S. before the election. If the migrants reach the U.S., they have the right under U.S. law to apply for asylum at a port of entry. If their claims are not accepted, they will be turned away. There is no national emergency; there is no ominous threat. There is only a group of desperate people looking for a better life, who have a right to request asylum in the United States and have no right to stay if their claims are rejected. Trump is reportedly aware that his claims about the caravan are false. An administration official told the Daily Beast simply, “It doesn’t matter if it’s 100 percent accurate … this is the play.” The “play” was to demonize vulnerable people with falsehoods in order to frighten Trump’s base to the polls.

      Nevertheless, some took the claims of the president and his allies seriously. On Saturday morning, Shabbat morning, a gunman walked into the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh and killed 11 people. The massacre capped off a week of terrorism, in which one man mailed bombs to nearly a dozen Trump critics and another killed two black people in a grocery store after failing to force his way into a black church.

      Before committing the Tree of Life massacre, the shooter, who blamed Jews for the caravan of “invaders” and who raged about it on social media, made it clear that he was furious at HIAS, founded as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, a Jewish group that helps resettle refugees in the United States. He shared posts on Gab, a social-media site popular with the alt-right, expressing alarm at the sight of “massive human caravans of young men from Honduras and El Salvador invading America thru our unsecured southern border.” And then he wrote, “HIAS likes to bring invaders in that kill our people. I can’t sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I’m going in.”

      The people killed on Saturday were killed for trying to make the world a better place, as their faith exhorts them to do. The history of the Jewish people is one of displacement, statelessness, and persecution. What groups like HIAS do in helping refugees, they do with the knowledge that comes from a history of being the targets of demagogues who persecute minorities in pursuit of power.

      Ordinarily, a politician cannot be held responsible for the actions of a deranged follower. But ordinarily, politicians don’t praise supporters who have mercilessly beaten a Latino man as “very passionate.” Ordinarily, they don’t offer to pay supporters’ legal bills if they assault protesters on the other side. They don’t praise acts of violence against the media. They don’t defend neo-Nazi rioters as “fine people.” They don’t justify sending bombs to their critics by blaming the media for airing criticism. Ordinarily, there is no historic surge in anti-Semitism, much of it targeted at Jewish critics, coinciding with a politician’s rise. And ordinarily, presidents do not blatantly exploit their authority in an effort to terrify white Americans into voting for their party. For the past few decades, most American politicians, Republican and Democrat alike, have been careful not to urge their supporters to take matters into their own hands. Trump did everything he could to fan the flames, and nothing to restrain those who might take him at his word.

      Many of Trump’s defenders argue that his rhetoric is mere shtick—that his attacks, however cruel, aren’t taken 100 percent seriously by his supporters. But to make this argument is to concede that following Trump’s statements to their logical conclusion could lead to violence against his targets, and it is only because most do not take it that way that the political violence committed on Trump’s behalf is as limited as it currently is.

      The Tree of Life shooter criticized Trump for not being racist or anti-Semitic enough. But with respect to the caravan, the shooter merely followed the logic of the president and his allies: He was willing to do whatever was necessary to prevent an “invasion” of Latinos planned by perfidious Jews, a treasonous attempt to seek “the destruction of American society and culture.”

      The apparent spark for the worst anti-Semitic massacre in American history was a racist hoax inflamed by a U.S. president seeking to help his party win a midterm election. There is no political gesture, no public statement, and no alteration in rhetoric or behavior that will change this fact. The shooter might have found a different reason to act on a different day. But he chose to act on Saturday, and he apparently chose to act in response to a political fiction that the president himself chose to spread and that his followers chose to amplify.

      As for those who aided the president in his propaganda campaign, who enabled him to prey on racist fears to fabricate a national emergency, who said to themselves, “This is the play”? Every single one of them bears some responsibility for what followed. Their condemnations of anti-Semitism are meaningless. Their thoughts and prayers are worthless. Their condolences are irrelevant. They can never undo what they have done, and what they have done will never be forgotten.

      https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/caravan-lie-sparked-massacre-american-jews/574213

    • Latin American asylum seekers hit US policy “wall”

      Trump’s new restrictions mean long waits simply to register claims.

      The movement of thousands of Central American asylum seekers and migrants north from Honduras towards the southern border of the United States has precipitated threats from US President Donald Trump – ahead of next week’s midterm elections – to block the group’s entry by deploying troops to the US-Mexican border.

      Under international law the United States is obligated to allow asylum seekers to enter and file claims. However, immigration officials at the country’s southern border have for months been shifting toward legally dubious practices that restrict people’s ability to file asylum claims.

      “Make no mistake, the administration is building a wall – one made of restrictionist policy rather than brick and mortar,” said Jason Boyd, policy counsel at the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA).

      As a result, hundreds, possibly thousands, of asylum seekers have been left waiting for extended periods of time on the Mexican side of the border in need of shelter and basic services. Firm numbers for those affected are difficult to come by because no one is counting.

      Some of those turned away explore potentially dangerous alternatives. Aid and advocacy groups as well as the Department of Homeland Security say the wait has likely pushed some to attempt to enter the United States illegally, either with smugglers or on their own via perilous desert routes.

      While some of those in the so-called “migrant caravan” are searching for economic opportunity, others are fleeing gang violence, gender-based violence, political repression or unrest – all increasingly common factors in Central America and Mexico that push people to leave their homes.
      Menacing phone calls

      When people from the migrant caravan reach the southern border of the United States, they may find themselves in a similar position to Dolores Alzuri, 47, from Michoacan, a state in central Mexico.

      In late September, she was camped out with her husband, daughter, granddaughter, and aunt on the Mexican side of the DeConcini port of entry separating the twin cities of Nogales – one in the Mexican state of Sonora, the other in the US state of Arizona.

      Alzuri and her family were waiting for their turn to claim asylum in the United States, with only a police report in hand as proof of the threats they faced back home. Camping beside them on the pedestrian walkway just outside the grated metal door leading to the United States, nine other families waited to do the same.

      Over the preceding month Alzuri had received several menacing phone calls from strangers demanding money. In Michoacan, and many other parts of Mexico where criminal gangs have a strong presence, almost anybody can receive calls like these. You don’t know who’s on the other end of the line, Alzuri explained, but you do know the consequences of not following their orders.

      “If you do not give [money] to them, they kidnap you or they kidnap your family,” Alzuri said. “They destroy you. They kill you. That is why it is so scary to be in this country.”

      Other people she knew had received similar calls. She also knew that those who didn’t pay ended up dead – pictures of their bodies posted on Facebook as a macabre warning of what happens to those who resist.

      Fearing a similar fate, Alzuri packed her bags and her family and travelled north to ask for asylum in the United States. A friend had been granted asylum about nine months ago, and she had seen on television that other people were going, too. It seemed like the only way out.

      “I had a problem,” she said, referring to the phone calls. “They asked us for money, and since we did not give them money, they threatened us.”

      Before leaving her home, Alzuri said she filed a police report. But the authorities didn’t care enough to act on it, she said. “They are not going to risk their life for mine.”
      No way out

      Despite the danger at home, Alzuri and others in similar situations face an increasingly difficult time applying for asylum in the United States. At the Nogales crossing, asylum seekers must now wait up to a month simply to be allowed to set foot inside a border office where they can register their claims, aid workers there say.

      Those waiting are stuck in territory on the Mexican side that is controlled by gangs similar to the ones many are fleeing, though local aid groups have scrambled to find space in shelters, especially for women and children, so people will be safer while they wait.

      The situation hasn’t always been like this.

      In the past, asylum seekers were almost always admitted to register their claims the same day they arrived at the border. Since May, however, there has been a marked slowdown in registration.

      US Custom and Border Protection (CBP), the federal law enforcement agency responsible for screening people as they enter the country, says delays are due to a lack of capacity and space. But asylum advocates say similar numbers have arrived in previous years without causing a delay and the real reason for the slowdown is that CBP has shifted resources away from processing asylum seekers – not just in Nogales but across the southern US border – resulting in people being forced to wait for long periods or turned away altogether.

      This is happening despite the insistence of high-ranking Trump administration officials that asylum seekers present themselves at ports of entry or face criminal prosecution for crossing the border irregularly. Such contradictory policies, asylum advocates argue, are part of a broad-based effort by the Trump administration to dramatically reduce the number of people able to seek protection in the United States.

      “Our legal understanding is that they have the legal obligation to process asylum seekers as they arrive,” said Joanna Williams, director of education and advocacy at the Kino Border Initiative (KBI), a Nogales-based NGO. “There’s no room in the law for what they are doing right now.”
      A system in crisis

      In the past decade, migration across the southern border of the United States has undergone a dramatic change. Every year since the late 1970s US Border Patrol agents apprehended close to a million or more undocumented migrants entering the country. In 2007, that number began to fall, and last year there were just over 310,000 apprehensions – the lowest number since 1971.

      At the same time, the proportion of people entering the United States from the southern border to claim asylum has increased. Ten years ago, one out of every 100 people crossing the border was seeking humanitarian protection, according to a recent report published by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), a non-partisan think tank in Washington DC. Today that number is about one in three.

      According to Boyd of AILA, the increase is being driven by ongoing humanitarian emergencies in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, an area of Central America known as the Northern Triangle. These countries have some of the highest homicide rates in the world and are wracked by gang violence, gender-based violence, extortion, and extra-judicial killings. “Many of the individuals and families arriving at the US southern border are literally fleeing for their lives,” said Boyd.

      But the system that is supposed to provide them protection is in crisis. Beginning in 2010 the number of asylum requests lodged in the United States started to balloon, mirroring an upward trend in global displacement. Last year, 79,000 people approached the US border saying they had a credible fear of returning to their home country, compared to 9,000 at the beginning of the decade.

      The increase in credible-fear claims, as well as asylum requests made by people already in the United States, has strained the system to a “crisis point”, according to the MPI report. This has led to a backlog of around 320,000 cases in US immigration courts and people having to wait many months, if not years, to receive a hearing and a decision.
      Crackdown

      Senior officials in the Trump administration, including the president, have consistently lumped asylum seekers and economic migrants together, positing that the United States is being “invaded” by a “massive influx of illegal aliens” across the southern border, and that the asylum system is subject to “systematic abuse” by people looking to gain easy entry to the country.

      People working on the ground with asylum seekers refute this. Eduardo Garcia is a communication coordinator at SOA Watch, an organisation that monitors the humanitarian impact of US policy in Latin America. He has spent time in Nogales speaking with people waiting to claim asylum.

      “The stories of many of the people we have talked to… are stories of people fleeing gang violence, are stories of people fleeing because one of their sons was killed, because one of their sons was threatened, because one of their family members [was] raped,” he said. “They have said they cannot go back to their countries. If they are sent back they are going to be killed.”

      Still, the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy on immigration – responsible for the recent child-separation crisis – has also included measures that have restricted access to asylum in the United States.

      In May, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Justice Department would begin criminally prosecuting everyone who irregularly crossed the US southern border, including asylum seekers. In June, that policy was followed by a decision that the United States would no longer consider gang and sexual violence – precisely the reasons so many people flee the Northern Triangle – as legitimate grounds for asylum. Around the same time, CBP appears to have deprioritised the processing of asylum seekers at ports of entry in favour of other responsibilities, leading to the long waits and people being turned away, according to humanitarian workers and a recent report by the DHS’s Office of Inspector General.

      And even as these restrictive policies were being put in place, Trump administration officials have been encouraging asylum seekers to try. “If you’re seeking asylum, go to a port of entry,” Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen said in an 18 June press conference. “You do not need to break the law of the United States to seek asylum.”

      Nogales, Mexico

      “I came here with the hope that if I asked for asylum I could be in the United States,” said Modesto, a 54-year-old from Chimaltenango, Guatemala. In mid-September he was sitting in a mess hall run a couple hundred meters from the US border run by KBI, which provides humanitarian assistance to migrants and asylum seekers.

      Modesto had already been in Nogales, Sonora for several months. Like Dolores Alzuri, he fled his home because criminal gangs had tried to extort money from him. “I worked a lot and was making a living in my country,” Modesto explained. “The problem in particular with the gangs is that they don’t let you work… If you have money they extort you. If you don’t have money they want to recruit you.” And people who don’t cooperate: “They’re dead,” he added.

      The situation Modesto found when he arrived in Nogales, Sonora was far from what he expected. For starters, there was the long wait at the border. But he also discovered that – as an adult travelling with his 18-year-old son – even once he entered the United States he would likely end up in a detention centre while his case slowly made its way through the overburdened immigration courts – a practice that has also increased under the Trump administration. “I don’t want to cross… and spend a year in prison when my family needs my help,” he said.

      Modesto is in some ways an exception, according to Williams of KBI. Many of the people arriving in Nogales, Sonora are families with children. Once in the United States they will likely be released from immigration detention with ankle monitoring bracelets to track their movements. These people often choose to wait and to claim asylum at the port of entry when there is space.

      After more than 100 people piled up to wait at the border in May, local humanitarian groups set up a system to organise and keep track of whose turn it was to submit an asylum claim to US immigration officials. They also scrambled to find spaces in shelters so people were not sleeping on the walkway over the weeks they needed to wait.

      Now, only people who are likely to enter soon are camped on the walkway. When IRIN visited, about 40 asylum seekers – mostly women and children – sat on one side of the walkway as a steady stream of people heading to the United States filtered by on the other. Some of the asylum seekers were new arrivals waiting to be taken to a shelter, while others had been sleeping there for days on thin mats waiting for their turn. Volunteers handed out clean clothing and served pasta, as a CBP agent opened and closed the metal gate leading to the United States, just a few tantalisingly short feet away.

      The slowdown of processing “leaves people stranded – in really dangerous situations sometimes – on the other side of the border, and completely violates our obligations under both domestic and international law,” said Katharina Obser, a senior policy adviser at the Women’s Refugee Commission, an NGO that advocates for women, children, and youth displaced by conflict and crisis.

      As a result, some people arrive, find out about the wait, and leave. “We’re fairly certain that those are individuals who then end up crossing the border through other means,” Williams said.

      The DHS Office of the Inspector General came to a similar conclusion, finding that the contradiction between Trump administration rhetoric and policy “may have led asylum seekers at ports of entry to attempt illegal border crossings.”
      Border-wide

      The situation in Nogales, Sonora is far from isolated, according to Boyd of the AILA. “Recent turnbacks of vulnerable asylum seekers have been documented throughout the US southern border,” he said, including at many ports of entry in Texas and California. In those states, asylum seekers have reported being stopped as they approach the border and told they cannot enter because immigration officials don’t have the capacity to process their claims.

      “Turnbacks form part of a comprehensive set of practices and policies advanced under this administration that appears aimed at shutting out asylum seekers from the United States,” Boyd continued.

      Meanwhile, people like Dolores Alzuri – and most likely some of the thousands of Central Americans who are travelling north from Honduras in the hope of claiming asylum – are left with little choice but to wait. Moving somewhere else in Mexico or returning home is not an option, said Alzuri. “The violence is the same in every state,” she said. And crossing the desert, “that’s a big danger.”

      She and her family don’t have a back-up plan. “Let’s hope that I do get [asylum], because I really do need it,” she said. “You don’t live comfortably in your own country anymore. You live in fear that something will happen to you. You can’t walk around on the streets because you feel that you’re being followed.”

      https://www.irinnews.org/news-feature/2018/10/29/latin-american-asylum-seekers-hit-us-policy-wall
      #USA #Etats-Unis #fermeture_des_frontières #Mexique

      Commentaire Emmanuel Blanchar via la mailing-list Migreurop:

      Un article intéressant car il rappelle opportunément que la « caravane des migrants » en route vers les Etats-Unis est également composée de nombreuses personnes qui souhaiteraient pouvoir déposer des demandes d’asile. Or, si la frontières Mexique-USA est loin d’être encore mûrées, un mur administratif empêche déjà que les demandes d’asile puisse être déposées et traitées dans le respect des droits des requérant.e.s.

      #mur_administratif #asile

    • No es una caravana, es un dolor que camina

      La caravana de migrantes es sólo la primera manifestación pública y masiva de la crisis humanitaria en la que vive la mayoría de la población; negada por el gobierno, por la oligarquía, embajadas, organizaciones de la sociedad civil y por algunas agencias de cooperación que le hacen comparsa a la dictadura.

      Esta crisis humanitaria es provocada por el modelo económico neoliberal impuesto a sangre y fuego, que sólo pobreza y violencia ha llevado a las comunidades, que ante la ausencia de oportunidades y ante el acoso de los grupos criminales no tienen otra alternativa que la peligrosa e incierta ruta migratoria; prefieren morir en el camino que en sus barrios y colonias.

      El infierno en que se ha convertido Honduras tiene varios responsables. En primer el lugar el imperialismo, que a través de su embajada promueve la inestabilidad política en el país con el apoyo directo al dictador, que para granjearse ese apoyo les ha entregado el país, hasta el grado del despojo y de la ignominia, como puede observarse en los foros internacionales.

      Otro responsable es el dictador, que además de la incertidumbre que genera en lo económico, en lo político y en lo social, ha profundizado y llevado al extremo las políticas neoliberales, despojando de sus recursos a comunidades enteras, para dárselas a las transnacionales, principalmente norteamericanas y canadienses.

      La oligarquía corrupta, mediocre, salvaje, inepta y rapaz también es responsable de esta crisis humanitaria, quien se ha acostumbrado a vivir del presupuesto nacional a tal grado de convertir al Estado en su patrimonio, por medio de un ejército de ocupación, de diputados y presidentes serviles y títeres, que toman las decisiones no para el pueblo, sino que para sus insaciables intereses.

      Hay otro actor importante en esta crisis y es el Ejército Nacional, fiel sirviente de los intereses imperiales y de la oligarquía, que sólo sirve para consumir una gran tajada del presupuesto nacional y más que un ejército defensor y garante de la soberanía nacional es una fuerza de ocupación; listo para asesinar, torturar y matar aquellos que se oponen al dictador, al imperio y la oligarquía.

      Desgraciadamente esta caravana la conforman los miserables, los desheredados de la tierra, los parias: “los que crían querubes para el presidio y serafines para el burdel” como dijo en su poema, Los Parias, el poeta mexicano Salvador Díaz Mirón.

      Estos miserables y desheredados no huyen de la patria, la aman, la adoran y la llevan convertida en un dolor sobre sus hombros, huyen de los verdugos y carniceros que nos gobiernan y de los otros responsables de esta crisis humanitaria. Los que huyen aman a esta tierra más que los que nos quedamos.

      https://criterio.hn/2018/10/29/no-es-una-caravana-es-un-dolor-que-camina
      #douleur


  • Les pacifications dans la ville contemporaine

    Dans un court essai critique sur les mots du langage politique publié en 1946, l’écrivain George Orwell prend l’exemple du mot « pacification » comme l’un des euphémismes servant à « défendre l’indéfendable » : « Des villages sans défense subissent des bombardements aériens, leurs habitants sont chassés dans les campagnes, leur bétail est mitraillé, leurs huttes sont détruites par des bombes incendiaires : cela s’appelle la pacification » [1][1] Et l’auteur de poursuivre : « Des millions de paysans... (1983 [1946] : 84). Plus qu’un simple instrument rhétorique des discours et écrits politiques visant à « nommer les choses sans évoquer les images mentales correspondantes », la ou les pacifications peuvent être abordées plus largement aujourd’hui en tant que logiques et stratégies politiques, qui incluent une dimension langagière mais la dépassent, car elles mobilisent aussi des institutions, des organisations sociales, des personnes et des moyens financiers jusqu’à former un dispositif de contrôle et de fabrication d’un ordre social. C’est ce dont nous voudrions ici prendre la mesure.

    2

    Le terme de « pacification » est employé dès 1898, par le général #Gallieni, gouverneur de Madagascar, dans son rapport sur la #colonisation de l’île intitulé Rapport d’ensemble sur la pacification, l’organisation et la colonisation de Madagascar (cité in Özcan & Rigakos 2014). Il sera repris par la suite par le lieutenant-colonel Lyautey, dans un article sur le rôle de l’armée dans la colonisation du Vietnam par la France [2][2] À ce titre, Mark Neocleous et George Rigakos (2011).... Durant la guerre du Vietnam, la pacification entre dans les discours politiques et militaires états-uniens comme substitut du terme « contre-insurrection », connoté trop négativement (Rigakos 2011). Ce dernier reste employé en France durant les mouvements anticoloniaux en Indochine, au Maroc et pendant la guerre d’Algérie (Rigouste 2012). Les deux termes, « pacification » et « contre-insurrection », sont, à la suite des retraits ou des défaites coloniales de la France et des États-Unis, abandonnés. Puis la « pacification » et les politiques correspondantes réapparaissent dans le cadre des sociétés contemporaines, en particulier dans les contextes urbains et dans le traitement de la marginalité, la région de Rio de Janeiro au Brésil faisant depuis 2008 figure de modèle vivant de cet usage. Cette actualité autant que la continuité dans laquelle elle s’inscrit nous incitent à nous interroger sur la possibilité d’une anthropologie de la pacification.

    3

    Conçue et expérimentée dans l’histoire militaire et coloniale, la pacification est aujourd’hui réintroduite comme stratégie politique dans les contextes nationaux et urbains, marginaux et d’exception. Dans ce cadre, les pacifications urbaines, dont ce dossier interdisciplinaire traitera plus particulièrement, sont devenues des modalités majeures de construction politique et de traitement des marges urbaines (où la marge désigne des populations et des individus autant que des territoires), selon une opposition artificiellement clivée entre ordre et désordre, centre et périphérie, dedans et dehors. À partir des travaux présentés par les auteurs qui ont bien voulu répondre à notre invitation, nous verrons dans quelle mesure nous pourrons passer de la notion politique (emic) de pacification à une définition conceptuelle (etic) capable de saisir et de comparer, dans une perspective d’ethnographie globale, plusieurs situations de contrôle des territoires et des populations [3][3] Sur la politique comme gouvernement des « populations »....

    4

    Plus largement, cette introduction voudrait poser les bases d’une approche anthropologique des #pacifications, fondée à la fois sur l’expérience des situations observées, l’analyse inductive et réflexive de ces situations, et sur plusieurs décentrements épistémologiques (Agier 2016) permettant de relativiser la place et le rôle de chacun des acteurs apparemment dominants dans la relation créée par les processus de pacification : l’#État, l’#armée ou la #police, tout comme les #marges sociales et spatiales désignées comme cibles des opérations.

    https://www.cairn.info/revue-l-homme-2016-3-page-7.htm

    #pacification #villes #urban_matter #colonialisme #terminologie #mots #vocabulaire


  • Salvini: chiusura entro le 21 dei negozi etnici. Confesercenti: no a discriminazioni

    Nel #decreto_sicurezza ci sarà un emendamento per prevedere «la chiusura entro le 21 dei negozietti etnici che diventano ritrovo di spacciatori e di gente che fa casino». Lo ha detto il ministro dell’Interno Matteo Salvini in diretta Facebook sottolineando che «non è un’iniziativa contro i negozi stranieri ma per limitare abusi».

    Market etnici, Confesercenti: no a norme discriminatorie
    Contro l’iniziativa annunciata da Salvini si schiera Confesercenti. «Non si può fare una norma che discrimina determinati imprenditori rispetto ad altri. Chi ha un’attività commerciale ha diritti e doveri: il dovere di rispettare le regole e il diritto di restare aperti, sia che siano esercizi gestiti da stranieri, sia che siano esercizi gestiti da italiani» dichiara Mauro Bussoni segretario generale della Confesercenti nazionale.

    Codacons: negozi etnici utili per acquisti “last minute”
    Per il Codacons la chiusura dei “negozietti etnici” deve essere prevista solo nei centri storici delle città italiane e in tutti quei casi in cui gli esercizi in questione
    creino degrado. «Crediamo che in materia di commercio e sicurezza non sia corretto generalizzare - spiega il presidente Carlo Rienzi -. Tali negozi etnici sono molto utili ai consumatori, perché rimangono aperti più a lungo degli altri esercizi e commercializzano una moltitudine di prodotti di diverse categorie, consentendo ai cittadini di fare acquisti “last minute”. Certamente la loro apertura va vietata in tutti quei casi in cui gli esercizi in questione creino disordini, e in modo assoluto nei centri storici delle città, perché la loro presenza alimenta il degrado urbano e danneggia le bellezze artistiche come nel caso di Roma, dove alcune vie del centro sono state trasformate in #suk» conclude Rienzi.


    https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/notizie/2018-10-11/salvini-dl-sicurezza-chiusura-entro-21-negozi-etnici--160739.shtml?uuid

    #magasins_ethniques #ethnicité #negozi_etnici #fermeture #it_has_begun #discriminations #géographie_culturelle #Italie #criminalisation #Italie #sécurité #drogue #magasins #negozi_stranieri #magasins_étrangers #terminologie #mots #vocabulaire

    #lois_raciales?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  • Si può parlare di “patria” anche a sinistra

    Alcuni esponenti della sinistra radicale hanno partecipato alla costituzione dell’associazione politica “#Patria_e_Costituzione”. Ne è seguita una reazione fredda, quando non apertamente critica. L’impressione è che il riferimento alla Patria sia percepito come “estraneo” e “innaturale” rispetto alla tradizione della sinistra.
    Il rapporto tra la sinistra e l’idea di Patria richiederebbe l’analisi approfondita di uno storico, di un politologo, di un sociologo. Questo articolo non può arrivare a tanto. Tuttavia, siamo persone di sinistra, conosciamo i nostri valori, e riconosciamo l’esigenza di evitare malintesi al nostro interno. Perciò, possiamo e dobbiamo dare il nostro contributo al dibattito. E nella nostra ingenuità, non riusciamo a convincerci che il sentimento patriottico sia incompatibile con la sinistra.

    In teoria (e purtroppo, spesso, anche in pratica), il nazionalismo viola alcuni dei valori fondamentali della sinistra: la pace tra i popoli, e quindi tra gli Stati; l’accoglienza degli stranieri e l’uguaglianza tra persone di culture diverse in uno stesso Paese; la cooperazione tra i Paesi del mondo. A questo proposito, sappiamo che il dialogo internazionale è una necessità dettata dalla realtà, dalla consapevolezza che non siamo da soli sulla Terra, dai guadagni che possono arrivare – per tutti – se il commercio internazionale è inserito in un sistema equo e non fraudolento, dall’esigenza di affrontare multinazionali private più forti dei singoli Stati. (Per inciso, quest’ultima esigenza non richiede, per forza, la scomparsa degli attuali Stati: è sufficiente, appunto, che gli Stati collaborino).
    Eppure, dal punto di vista logico, il patriottismo non ci sembra affatto in contraddizione con tutti questi valori. Quando una Patria si trasforma in uno Stato sovrano, questo Stato può ripudiare la guerra; può ospitare gli immigrati sul suo territorio e può garantire la loro dignità; può collaborare con gli altri Stati per promuovere gli scambi commerciali e culturali o per combattere le ingiustizie in tutto il pianeta. Questa è la definizione di “internazionalismo”: non è la distruzione degli Stati nazionali, ma l’esistenza di relazioni pacifiche e costruttive fra tutti gli Stati.
    Insomma, lo Stato può anche corrispondere a una Patria: ciò che conta, per noi, è che sia governato secondo i valori del socialismo democratico; in questo caso, non sarà mai costruito su base etnica, e non si consoliderà mai nell’esclusione del diverso, ma proprio nella sua inclusione in un sistema armonico di sviluppo.

    Se quel che abbiamo scritto sin qui è condivisibile, allora si può ammettere che il sentimento patriottico, che è parte integrante della vita di molte persone, possa esserlo anche per molte persone di sinistra.
    Naturalmente, questo sentimento ci spaventa se è interpretato da un punto di vista etnico; rifiutiamo un’Italia che esclude chi non è italiano di sangue, una patria che diventa razzista e disumana.
    Però, non sono incoerenti quei compagni che riconoscono l’importanza della storia e delle tradizioni di un popolo, all’interno di uno Stato sovrano (e anche, in modo diverso, all’interno di un’autonomia locale: si tratta di questione complessa, ma collegata con una delle possibili declinazioni del concetto chiave della sinistra e cioè quello dell’ “autodeterminazione”). E non lo sono nemmeno quando riconoscono, in ogni Stato sovrano nato da una Patria, una comunità di persone, con il diritto a compiere liberamente le scelte politiche che la riguardano, nel rispetto della sovranità degli altri Stati.

    In questo modo, si possono rassicurare anche quei compagni che vedono nella riscoperta della sovranità nazionale una rottura con l’Unione Europea. A questo proposito, bisogna ammettere che alcuni compagni più sensibili al sentimento patriottico hanno contribuito a generare un equivoco, concentrandosi su temi economicistici come quello della moneta unica, considerata un male in sé, e non per il meccanismo che genera.
    Attualmente, è un dato di fatto che i Trattati dell’Unione e l’attuale sistema della moneta unica impediscano agli Stati membri di intervenire a favore dei lavoratori e dei deboli: la spesa pubblica è vincolata; non esistono trasferimenti di risorse a vantaggio degli Stati più poveri. Questa è un’emergenza. Finché non sarà risolta, ogni programma di sinistra è destinato a non essere realizzato.
    In sé, la soluzione non è uscire dall’Unione Europea, così come non lo è rinunciare (anche solo in parte) alla sovranità degli Stati per dare vita agli Stati Uniti d’Europa. Infatti, l’Italia è uno Stato, come lo sarebbe un’eventuale Federazione Europea: uno Stato può aumentare la spesa pubblica, come ridurla; può schierarsi a favore del capitale, come del lavoro. Si può avere uno Stato nel quale compiere scelte politiche di sinistra, liberi dai vincoli dell’austerità, ma il problema resta: lo Stato, come ci ricorda Marx, non è un’entità statica e neutra, ma l’espressione di rapporti di forza sociali, e a nulla serve “tornare allo Stato” se poi esso è amministrato e governato a favore dei pochi, delle élites finanziarie, delle oligarchie anche politiche. Del resto, se il Governo italiano (come ci sembra) non è in grado di affrontare i problemi reali dell’Italia che lavora, la colpa non può essere scaricata interamente sull’Europa. Peraltro, è utile ricordare che gli attuali vincoli europei sono stati adottati da Stati sovrani, legittimamente e volontariamente: ad esempio, la Gran Bretagna scelse di non sottoscrivere il fiscal compact, segno che l’adesione alle politiche di austerità è stata anch’essa espressione di una volontà nazionale forte.
    Di conseguenza, un conto è la lotta contro i vincoli europei, che è la priorità assoluta per qualsiasi forza socialista e democratica; un altro conto sono i sentimenti patriottici e la sovranità nazionale.
    Sicuramente, nessuno Stato europeo può essere “sovrano”, finché le norme dell’Unione impediranno una politica economica diversa dall’austerità. Inoltre, il problema primario in Europa è – di nuovo – proprio l’autodeterminazione, dal momento che non possono convivere pacificamente e nello sviluppo comune sistemi produttivi così diversi ed eterogenei; anche se potessero farlo, noi non crediamo che l’uniformità sia desiderabile: ciascun popolo ha diritto a pensare una via al proprio sviluppo.
    Eppure, si può invocare maggiore sovranità nazionale contro l’Europa che ci impedisce la spesa pubblica, anche senza proporre l’uscita dalla moneta unica, o dall’Unione Europea. Infatti, si tratta di problemi specifici, che richiedono rimedi specifici, modifiche di specifiche disposizioni contenute nei Trattati, introduzione di specifici istituti fiscali. Questi rimedi ridurrebbero solo in parte la sovranità degli Stati membri; quindi, consentirebbero un compromesso accettabile tra l’autodeterminazione dei popoli europei e la loro permanenza in un’Unione che ne assicura la collaborazione pacifica.

    Persino il nesso tra il patriottismo e il fascismo è più complesso di quanto siamo abituati a pensare. Fabio Vander, ne L’estetizzazione della politica, ha ricostruito il legame tra il fascismo e la tradizione futurista, proseguito a lungo durante il Ventennio; il fascismo ha utilizzato il sentimento nazionale come strumento di propaganda, ma le sue radici si trovano in un movimento che intendeva rompere con l’Italia dei secoli precedenti, con la sua storia e la sua cultura, a iniziare dall’Umanesimo.
    Del resto, la sinistra che vuole davvero contrastare il fascismo e la sua eredità dovrebbe iniziare a riconoscere la caratteristica principale di quell’ideologia: non tanto la presenza di un “capo” in diretta relazione con il “popolo”, e nemmeno tanto l’odio verso il “diverso”, quanto la volontà di distruggere la vita delle persone, in nome di un continuo “cambiamento” che non lascia alcuno spazio alla dignità umana. Può trattarsi di perseguitare gli ebrei e di deportarli ad Auschwitz, o di inviare i giovani italiani a morire in guerra, o di mantenere le donne italiane in stato di servitù, ma può trattarsi anche di realizzare il principale obiettivo del fascismo degli inizi, nonostante le sue pretese protezionistiche: impedire con la forza le lotte dei lavoratori per essere pagati di più, per lavorare di meno, per avere più ferie o la malattia pagata. In questo senso, sarebbe sicuramente “fascista” (anche se questo non è avvenuto sotto il regime di Mussolini) una forza politica che emargina il patriottismo, magari con lo scopo di scoraggiare (o addirittura di eliminare), in nome della libertà dell’individuo, le identità e i sentimenti collettivi, come temeva Pasolini negli Scritti corsari.

    Patria e sovranità nazionale non hanno a che vedere con la guerra e con il razzismo. Non hanno a che fare neanche con uno Stato che si isola, condannando i suoi cittadini a essere più deboli e più poveri in un mondo sempre più interconnesso. E non ci obbligano neppure a dare l’addio all’Unione Europea, ai suoi vantaggi pratici, alla sua insostituibile missione storica di collaborazione internazionale. Almeno, non necessariamente.
    Per noi, socialisti e democratici, il valore principale resta la difesa della dignità umana e il sostegno alla classe lavoratrice. Finché questo valore non è in discussione, i sentimenti patriottici possono essere un bene prezioso anche per chi sta a sinistra: inoltre, non rappresentano solo un fatto privato, perché a ogni Patria corrisponde una comunità che ha il diritto di autodeterminarsi.
    A voler ampliare l’orizzonte, questo singolo tema offre lo spunto per affrontare la reale difficoltà della sinistra, in questa fase in cui, dal nostro punto di vista, tutto sembra disperato. Nessuno dice che la sinistra si debba fondare sul patriottismo, perché non è la sua ragione di esistere: quel che conta è saper accogliere anche chi crede ancora in alcune identità collettive (come la Patria), verso le quali la sinistra degli ultimi anni è stata troppo diffidente. Allo stesso modo, del resto, tutti devono impegnarsi a difendere la libertà e la dignità di chi non crede nella Patria: non solo nel partito della sinistra che verrà (se verrà), ma anche in quelle realtà sociali nelle quali questo valore è imposto con la forza violenta dell’intolleranza e del conformismo.
    Al di là di questo singolo tema, un partito deve saper trovare il compromesso fra i propri valori e i bisogni emotivi delle persone, quando è possibile. Altrimenti, è destinato a non fare egemonia e a lasciare il campo libero ai suoi avversari, ai suoi opposti. È destinato a rinunciare alla sua funzione di includere le persone, che è qualcosa di diverso (e di più) rispetto al semplice “imitare la destra per portarle via i voti”. È destinato a non scendere in quel terreno di gioco nel quale si può almeno provare quell’impresa culturale, oggi così urgente. In altri termini, è destinato a cantarsela e suonarsela da sé. Mentre la Lega di Salvini conquista a tavolino il potere politico e le coscienze degli italiani.

    https://ipettirossi.wordpress.com/2018/09/26/si-puo-parlare-di-patria-anche-a-sinistra
    #patrie #mots #vocabulaire #terminologie #droite #gauche #idéologie #UE #Union_européenne #EU #Etat-nation #nationalisme #fascisme #souveraineté_nationale
    via @wizo


  • Migration: the riddle of Europe’s shadow population
    Lennys — not her real name — is part of a shadow population living in Europe that predates the arrival of several million people on the continent in the past few years, amid war and chaos in regions of the Middle East and Africa. That influx, which has fuelled Eurosceptic nativism, has if anything complicated the fate of Lennys and other irregular migrants.

    Now she is using a service set up by the Barcelona local administration to help naturalise irregular migrants and bring them in from the margins of society. She is baffled by the anti-immigrant rhetoric of politicians who suggest people like her prefer living in the legal twilight, without access to many services — or official protection.❞

    The fate of Lennys and other irregulars is likely to take an ever more central role in Europe’s deepening disputes on migration. They are a diverse group: many arrived legally, as Lennys did, on holiday, work or family visas that have since expired or become invalid because of changes in personal circumstances. Others came clandestinely and have never had any legal right to stay.

    The most scrutinised, and frequently demonised, cohort consists of asylum seekers whose claims have failed. Their numbers are growing as the cases from the surge in migrant arrivals in the EU in 2015 and 2016 — when more than 2.5m people applied for asylum in the bloc — work their way through the process of decisions and appeals. Almost half of first instance claims failed between 2015 and 2017, but many of those who are rejected cannot be returned to their home countries easily — or even at all.

    The question of what to do about rejected asylum applicants and the rest of Europe’s shadow population is one that many governments avoid. Bouts of hostile rhetoric and unrealistic targets — such as the Italian government’s pledge this year to expel half a million irregular migrants — mask a structural failure to deal with the practicalities.

    Many governments have sought to deny irregular migrants services and expel them — policies that can create their own steep human costs. But authorities in a growing number of cities from Barcelona to Brussels have concluded that the combination of hostile attitudes and bureaucratic neglect is destructive.

    These cities are at the frontline of dealing with irregular status residents from Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere. Local authorities have, to varying degrees, brought these populations into the system by offering them services such as healthcare, language courses and even legal help.

    The argument is part humanitarian but also pragmatic. It could help prevent public health threats, crime, exploitative employment practices — and the kind of ghettoisation that can tear communities apart.

    “If we provide ways for people to find their path in our city . . . afterwards probably they will get regularisation and will get their papers correct,” says Ramon Sanahuja, director of immigration at the city council in Barcelona. “It’s better for everybody.”

    The size of Europe’s shadow population is unknown — but generally reckoned by experts to be significant and growing. The most comprehensive effort to measure it was through an EU funded project called Clandestino, which estimated the number of irregular migrants at between 1.9m and 3.8m in 2008 — a figure notable for both its wide margin of error and the lack of updates to it since, despite the influx after 2015.

    A more contemporaneous, though also imprecise, metric comes from comparing the numbers of people ordered to leave the EU each year with the numbers who actually went. Between 2008 and 2017, more than 5m non-EU citizens were instructed to leave the bloc. About 2m returned to countries outside it, according to official data.

    While the two sets of numbers do not map exactly — people don’t necessarily leave in the same year they are ordered to do so — the figures do suggest several million people may have joined Europe’s shadow population in the past decade or so. The cohort is likely to swell further as a glut of final appeals from asylum cases lodged since 2015 comes through.

    “The volume of people who are in limbo in the EU will only grow, so it’s really problematic,” says Hanne Beirens, associate director at Migration Policy Institute Europe, a think-tank. “While the rhetoric at a national level will be ‘These people cannot stay’, at a local community level these people need to survive.”

    Barcelona: cities seek practical solutions to ease migrant lives

    Barcelona’s pragmatic approach to irregular migration echoes its history as a hub for trade and movement of people across the Mediterranean Sea.

    It is one of 11 cities from 10 European countries involved in a two-year project on the best ways to provide services to irregular status migrants. Other participants in the initiative — set up last year by Oxford university’s Centre on Migration, Policy, and Society — include Athens, Frankfurt, Ghent, Gothenburg, Lisbon, Oslo, Stockholm and Utrecht.

    A report for the group, published last year, highlights the restrictions faced by undocumented migrants in accessing services across the EU. They were able to receive only emergency healthcare in six countries, while in a further 12 they were generally excluded from primary and secondary care services.

    Some cities have made special efforts to offer help in ways that they argue also benefit the community, the report said. Rotterdam asked midwives, doctors, and schools to refer children for vaccinations, in case their parents were afraid to reveal their immigration status.

    The impact of some of these policies has still to be demonstrated. Ramon Sanahuja, director of immigration at the city council in Barcelona, says authorities there had an “intuition” their approach brought benefits, but he admits they need to do a cost-benefit analysis. As to the potential for the scheme to be exploited by anti-immigrant groups, he says Europe needs “brave politicians who explain how the world works and that the system is complicated”.

    “A lot of people in Barcelona are part of the system — they have [for example] a cleaning lady from Honduras who they pay €10 per hour under the counter,” he says. “Someone has to explain this, that everything is related.” Michael Peel

    https://www.ft.com/content/58f2f7f8-c7c1-11e8-ba8f-ee390057b8c9?segmentid=acee4131-99c2-09d3-a635-873e61754
    #naturalisation #villes-refuge #ville-refuge #citoyenneté #sans-papiers #migrerrance #régularisation #statistiques #chiffres #Europe #Etat-nation #limbe #pragmatisme #Barcelone

    cc @isskein

    –----

    Au niveau de la #terminologie (#mots, #vocabulaire), pour @sinehebdo:

    Belgian policy towards irregular migrants and undocumented workers has stiffened under the current government, which includes the hardline Flemish nationalist NVA party. It has prioritised the expulsion of “transmigrants”— the term used for people that have travelled to Europe, often via north Africa and the Mediterranean and that are seeking to move on from Belgium to other countries, notably the UK. Several hundred live rough in and around Brussels’ Gare du Nord.

    –-> #transmigrants


  • L’Italie fermera ses #aéroports aux migrants

    Le ministre italien de l’Intérieur s’est opposé, dimanche, à tout renvoi de migrants de l’Allemagne vers son pays, sans accord préalable.

    L’Italie va fermer ses aéroports aux avions de ligne non autorisés transportant des migrants en provenance d’Allemagne, a annoncé dimanche le ministre italien de l’Intérieur Matteo Salvini. Une décision qui accentue les tensions entre Rome et Berlin.

    L’Allemagne et l’Italie travaillent à un #accord aux termes duquel des migrants résidant en Allemagne pourraient être renvoyés en Italie, pays où ils ont déposé une demande d’asile. L’accord n’a pas été signé pour le moment.

    Le quotidien La Repubblica rapportait samedi que l’office allemand pour les réfugiés avait adressé « des dizaines de lettres » à des migrants les informant d’un possible transfert vers l’Italie via des #vols_charters. Le premier vol est prévu mardi prochain.

    « Pas d’aéroports disponibles »

    « Si des gens pensent, à Berlin ou à Bruxelles, qu’ils vont pouvoir balancer des dizaines de migrants en Italie par des vols charter non autorisés, ils doivent savoir qu’il n’y a pas et n’y aura pas d’aéroports disponibles », a dit M. Salvini dans un communiqué. « Nous fermerons les aéroports comme nous avons fermé les #ports », a-t-il dit.

    Le ministre allemand de l’Intérieur Horst Seehofer affirmait en septembre qu’un accord avait été trouvé avec l’Italie et qu’il devait être signé prochainement. Matteo Salvini avait démenti le lendemain, exigeant de nouvelles concessions de la part de l’Allemagne. Le ministre italien avait alors expliqué qu’il avait reçu des assurances de la part de l’Allemagne que pour chaque migrant renvoyé en Italie les autorités allemandes accepteraient un demandeur d’asile en Italie. Matteo Salvini exigeait deux autres concessions - une révision du traité de Dublin sur la gestion des demandes d’asile dans le pays d’arrivée et la fin de la mission navale européenne Sophia qui porte secours aux migrants en Méditerranée.

    Sortir de l’impasse

    Horst Seehofer a appelé la chancelière allemande Angela Merkel et le président du Conseil italien Giuseppe Conte à intervenir pour sortir de l’impasse. « L’accord a été négocié et suit les mêmes principes que celui avec la Grèce »« , a dit M. Seehofer au Welt am Sonntag. »Nous renvoyons des réfugiés en Italie mais nous acceptons un même nombre de personnes sauvées en mer« .

     »Mais Salvini dit maintenant : je ne signerai que si l’Allemagne soutient la position de l’Italie sur le droit d’asile dans l’Union européenne". Rome demande une réforme du traité de Dublin afin que soit organisée une répartition des nouveaux arrivants dans l’ensemble de l’UE et non plus l’obligation de rester dans le pays où ils sont arrivés en Europe.

    https://www.tdg.ch/monde/L-Italie-fermera-ses-aeroports-aux-migrants/story/27268662

    Commentaire sur twitter :

    Charter deportation from Germany to Italy planned for Tuesday, but Salvini now saying that Italy is going to “close the airports” to “non-authorised charters”

    https://twitter.com/twentyone_miles/status/1049015499219263489

    Et comme dit Philippe sur twitter, l’Italie devient une #île :


    #péninsule

    #Italie #Salvini #fermeture #fermeture_des_aéroports #Dublin #renvois_Dublin #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Allemagne

    cc @isskein @reka

    • Quelques questions, car ce n’est pas du tout clair pour moi les termes de ce fantomatique accord :

      On peut lire :

      « Le ministre italien avait alors expliqué qu’il avait reçu des assurances de la part de l’Allemagne que pour chaque migrant renvoyé en Italie les autorités allemandes accepteraient un demandeur d’asile en Italie. »

      « L’accord a été négocié et suit les mêmes principes que celui avec la Grèce »« , a dit M. Seehofer au Welt am Sonntag. »Nous renvoyons des réfugiés en Italie mais nous acceptons un même nombre de personnes sauvées en mer« .

      —> Mais qui sont ces « migrants renvoyés en Italie », si ce n’est des dublinés ? Et qui sont ces « réfugiés renvoyés en Italie » ? Si c’est des réfugiés, donc des personnes avec un statut reconnu, ils ne peuvent pas être renvoyés en Italie, j’imagine...
      —> Et les « personnes sauvées en mer » ? Il s’agit d’un nombre de personne déterminé, qui n’ont pas déjà été catégorisés en « migrants » ou « demandeurs d’asile » ?

      Et puis :

      « L’Allemagne et l’Italie travaillent à un #accord aux termes duquel des migrants résidant en Allemagne pourraient être renvoyés en Italie, pays où ils ont déposé une demande d’asile. L’accord n’a pas été signé pour le moment. »

      —> ce n’est pas déjà Dublin, ça ? C’est quoi si ce n’est pas Dublin ?

      #accord_UE-Turquie (bis)

      ping @i_s_

    • v. aussi le fil de discussion sur twitter de Matteo Villa :

      Sui voli #charter dalla Germania all’Italia non bisogna fare confusione, né cedere alla disinformazione.
      (1) Si tratta di “dublinati”, persone che hanno fatto primo ingresso in 🇪🇺 dall’Italia, non migranti fermati alla frontiera tedesca e rispediti in Italia in modi spicci. Finché non cambiamo Dublino, gli accordi sono questi.
      2) Non è certo qualcosa di eccezionale. Tra 2014 e 2017, la Germania ha fatto più di 50.000 richieste di trasferimento verso l’Italia applicando le regole Dublino.
      (3) Non è neanche mistero che il sistema Dublino non funzioni. Sulle oltre 50.000 richieste da parte tedesca dal 2014, l’Italia ha effettuato solo circa 12.000 trasferimenti. Meno di 1 su 4 alla fine torna in 🇮🇹.
      (4) una volta effettuato il trasferimento verso l’Italia, il richiedente asilo non è detenuto. Può quindi tentare di spostarsi di nuovo verso il Paese che lo ha riportato indietro.
      (5) Utilizzare voli charter rispetto a voli di linea è uno strappo diplomatico? Dipende. Tecnicamente, senza il consenso dell’Italia l’aereo non potrebbe neppure partire.
      (6) Vogliamo fare tutto questo casino per 40/100 persone? Davvero?

      https://twitter.com/emmevilla/status/1048951274677460993

    • Migranti, la Germania riporta 40 profughi a Roma con volo charter

      L’arrivo del primo #charter dalla Germania, con a bordo 40 migranti cosiddetti «secondari» respinti dal governo tedesco, è previsto all’aeroporto di Fiumicino giovedì prossimo, l’11 ottobre. Nonostante le smentite ufficiali del Viminale, un’intesa è stata dunque raggiunta. Adesso che la notizia è pubblica, però, bisognerà vedere cosa succederà nelle prossime ore. «Non farò favori elettorali alla Merkel», aveva detto il mese scorso Matteo Salvini all’ultimo vertice europeo sull’immigrazione.

      Così, anche se formalmente il ministero dell’Interno non può opporsi, potrebbe essere la polizia di frontiera italiana, per motivi legati al piano di volo, a non autorizzare l’atterraggio o lo sbarco dei passeggeri. È la prima volta, infatti, che la Germania si serve di un charter per riportare in Italia i «dublinanti», cioè quei migranti che sbarcano e chiedono asilo da noi, ma poi se ne vanno da uomini liberi nel resto d’Europa. In base al Trattato di Dublino, però, quando vengono rintracciati possono essere rimandati indietro, perché le norme dell’accordo prevedono appunto che sia il Paese di primo approdo a valutarne la domanda d’asilo e quindi a farsi carico dello straniero fino all’esito della procedura.

      Finora, però, il rientro dei «dublinanti» in Italia si svolgeva con viaggi di singoli migranti su aerei di linea. Dalla Francia, per esempio, ne arrivano così una ventina ogni mese. E dalla Germania, fino a oggi, una media di 25: tutti selezionati dopo una lunga istruttoria, quindi accompagnati a bordo dalla polizia tedesca fino all’atterraggio in Italia, qui infine presi in consegna dalle nostre forze dell’ordine e portati in un centro d’accoglienza.

      Ma il governo tedesco ora ha deciso di accelerare le operazioni: l’Ufficio federale per l’immigrazione e i rifugiati ha già inviato decine di lettere ai migranti arrivati in Germania passando per l’Italia, avvisandoli che saranno riportati presto nel primo Paese d’ingresso in Europa.

      Un giro di vite deciso a prescindere dal patto sui migranti fra Italia e Germania da tempo in discussione e che il nostro ministro dell’Interno, Matteo Salvini, continua ad escludere di aver mai firmato. Da Berlino, però, lo danno già per stipulato e a condizioni precise: la Germania può rimandare in Italia i migranti che attraversano il confine, garantendo in cambio la sua disponibilità a rivedere i termini dei ricollocamenti. Nei giorni scorsi, però, lo stesso Salvini era stato chiaro, parlando di «accordo a saldo zero»: in cambio cioè del ritorno in Italia dei «dublinanti» il nostro Paese invierà a Berlino un analogo numero di profughi da accogliere. «Firmerò l’accordo quando sarà chiaro che non ci sarà un solo immigrato in più a nostro carico», aveva detto. E dal Viminale, infatti, continuano a dire che la firma del ministro non c’è.

      Ma ora l’intesa apparentemente trovata sul charter in arrivo l’11 ottobre infittisce il giallo. E l’opposizione attacca: «Biglietti già fatti — ha twittato il deputato del Pd Filippo Sensi — nei prossimi giorni la Germania riporterà in Italia molti profughi, quanti? Matteo Salvini aveva tuonato che l’accordo con il suo amico Seehofer non c’era. Chi mente?». E Alessia Morani, Pd, commenta su Fb: «L’amico tedesco di Salvini, il sovranista Seehofer, vuole rimandare in Italia i profughi coi voli charter. Queste sono le conseguenze dell’accordo di giugno del premier Conte e della politica isolazionista di Salvini: si apparenta con chi alza i muri contro di noi, invece che fare accordi per la redistribuzione dei richiedenti asilo in Europa. La ricetta sovranista sta complicando la gestione dei migranti. Stanno creando il caos e questa incapacità la pagheranno gli italiani».

      https://roma.corriere.it/notizie/cronaca/18_ottobre_06/primo-volo-charter-profughi-dublino-merkel-salvini-6c4cd2a8-c9a4-11e8-

      Quelques explications de plus dans cet article :

      È la prima volta, infatti, che la Germania si serve di un charter per riportare in Italia i «dublinanti» (...) Finora, però, il rientro dei «dublinanti» in Italia si svolgeva con viaggi di singoli migranti su aerei di linea.

      –-> donc, ce qui est nouveau c’est le fait que l’Allemagne renvoie les « dublinés » via charter, alors qu’avant ces renvois étaient effectués sur des vols de ligne.

      Le fameux accord, qui ressemble à celui entre la Turquie et l’UE, devrait prévoir ceci :

      la Germania può rimandare in Italia i migranti che attraversano il confine, garantendo in cambio la sua disponibilità a rivedere i termini dei ricollocamenti.

      –-> l’Allemagne peut renvoyer en Italie les migrants qui traversent la frontière, en garantissant, en échange, sa disponibilité à revoir les termes des #relocalisation

      Salvini sur ce point :

      Salvini era stato chiaro, parlando di «accordo a saldo zero»: in cambio cioè del ritorno in Italia dei «dublinanti» il nostro Paese invierà a Berlino un analogo numero di profughi da accogliere

      –-> Salvini demande un « accord avec un solde zéro » : en échange du retour des dublinés en Italie, l’Italie enverra à Berlin un nombre analogue de réfugiés à accueillir.

      Le journal rapporte les mots de Salvini qui dit ne pas avoir signé d’accord avec l’Allemagne :

      dal Viminale, infatti, continuano a dire che la firma del ministro non c’è.

      ... mais vu qu’il y a un charter qui devrait arriver à Rome le 11 octobre... et donc on se demande si cet accord a été signé...
      Du coup, c’est la polémique : qui ment ? Seehofer ou Salvini ?

      –------------------

      Nouveau terme, @sinehebdo :

      40 migranti cosiddetti «secondari»

      –-> « #migrants_secondaires », ça doit faire référence aux #mouvements_secondaires... que l’UE cherche par tout les moyens de combattre, mais qui, en réalité, avec ses politiques, les créent... les associations et quelques chercheurs/ses utilisent plutôt le terme #Migrerrants (#migrerrance)
      #terminologie #vocabulaire #mots

    • Berlin dément avoir le projet de renvoyer des migrants en Italie

      Les autorités allemandes ont démenti dimanche avoir le projet de renvoyer en Italie des migrants résidant en Allemagne comme le rapportait un quotidien italien, information qui avait provoqué un regain de tension entre Berlin et Rome.

      Le quotidien La Repubblica rapportait samedi que l’office allemand pour les réfugiés avait adressé « des dizaines de lettres » à des migrants les informant d’un possible transfert vers l’Italie via des vols charters. Le premier vol est prévu mardi prochain.

      Cette information a provoqué une vive réaction de la part du ministre italien de l’Intérieur Matteo Salvini qui a menacé de fermer tous les aéroports de son pays aux avions de ligne non autorisés transportant des migrants en provenance d’Allemagne.

      « Aucun vol de transfert n’est prévu vers l’Italie dans les prochains jours », a déclaré un porte-parole du ministère allemand de l’Intérieur dans un courrier électronique.

      L’Allemagne et l’Italie travaillent à un accord aux termes duquel des migrants résidant en Allemagne pourraient être renvoyés en Italie, pays où ils ont déposé une demande d’asile. L’accord n’a pas été signé pour le moment.

      « Si des gens pensent, à Berlin ou à Bruxelles, qu’ils vont pouvoir balancer des dizaines de migrants en Italie par des vols charters non autorisés, ils doivent savoir qu’il n’y a pas et n’y aura pas d’aéroports disponibles », a dit Salvini dans un communiqué.

      « Nous fermerons les aéroports comme nous avons fermé les ports », a-t-il dit.

      Le ministre allemand de l’Intérieur Horst Seehofer affirmait en septembre qu’un accord avait été trouvé avec l’Italie et qu’il devait être signé prochainement. Salvini avait démenti le lendemain, exigeant de nouvelles concessions de la part de l’Allemagne.

      Le ministre italien avait alors expliqué qu’il avait reçu des assurances de la part de l’Allemagne que pour chaque migrant renvoyé en Italie les autorités allemandes accepteraient un demandeur d’asile en Italie.

      Matteo Salvini exigeait deux autres concessions - une révision du traité de Dublin sur la gestion des demandes d’asile dans le pays d’arrivée et la fin de la mission navale européenne #Sophia qui porte secours aux migrants en Méditerranée.

      Seehofer a appelé la chancelière allemande Angela Merkel et le président du Conseil italien Giuseppe Conte à intervenir pour sortir de l’#impasse.

      « L’accord a été négocié et suit les mêmes principes que celui avec la Grèce », a dit Seehofer au Welt am Sonntag. « Nous renvoyons des réfugiés en Italie mais nous acceptons un même nombre de personnes sauvées en mer ».

      « Mais Salvini dit maintenant : je ne signerai que si l’Allemagne soutient la position de l’Italie sur le droit d’asile dans l’Union européenne », poursuit Seehofer.

      Rome demande une réforme du traité de Dublin afin que soit organisée une répartition des nouveaux arrivants dans l’ensemble de l’UE et non plus l’obligation de rester dans le pays où ils sont arrivés en Europe

      https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/071018/berlin-dement-avoir-le-projet-de-renvoyer-des-migrants-en-italie
      #opération_Sophia




  • Le monde dans nos tasses

    « Thé ? Café ? Chocolat ? » Cette litanie du matin, formulée dans tous les hôtels du monde, évoque à chacun un rituel quotidien immuable : celui du petit déjeuner. Qui peut en effet imaginer se réveiller sans l’odeur stimulante d’un café, la chaleur enrobante d’un thé ou la douceur réconfortante d’un chocolat chaud ?
    Et pourtant, ces #boissons, pour nous si familières, n’ont rien d’européennes. Ni le caféier, ni le théier, ni le cacaoyer ne poussent dans les contrées tempérées. Alors comment ces produits ont-ils fait irruption dans nos tasses, et ce dès le XVIIIe siècle, au point de devenir nos indispensables complices des premières heures du jour ?
    En retraçant l’étonnante histoire du petit déjeuner, de la découverte des denrées exotiques à leur exploitation, de leur transformation à leur diffusion en Europe et dans le monde, c’est toute la grande histoire de la mondialisation et de la division Nord/Sud que Christian Grataloup vient ici nous conter.
    Ainsi chaque matin, depuis trois siècles, en buvant notre thé, notre café ou notre chocolat, c’est un peu comme si nous buvions le Monde…


    https://www.armand-colin.com/le-monde-dans-nos-tasses-trois-siecles-de-petit-dejeuner-9782200612283
    #livre #petit-déjeuner #mondialisation #globalisation #Grataloup #Christian_Grataloup #géohistoire #géographie_de_la_mondialisation #thé #café #cacao #chocolat #alimentation

    #ressources_pédagogiques

    • Tea if by sea, cha if by land: Why the world only has two words for tea

      With a few minor exceptions, there are really only two ways to say “tea” in the world. One is like the English term—té in Spanish and tee in Afrikaans are two examples. The other is some variation of cha, like chay in Hindi.

      Both versions come from China. How they spread around the world offers a clear picture of how globalization worked before “globalization” was a term anybody used. The words that sound like “cha” spread across land, along the Silk Road. The “tea”-like phrasings spread over water, by Dutch traders bringing the novel leaves back to Europe.

      The term cha (茶) is “Sinitic,” meaning it is common to many varieties of Chinese. It began in China and made its way through central Asia, eventually becoming “chay” (چای) in Persian. That is no doubt due to the trade routes of the Silk Road, along which, according to a recent discovery, tea was traded over 2,000 years ago. This form spread beyond Persia, becoming chay in Urdu, shay in Arabic, and chay in Russian, among others. It even made its way to sub-Saharan Africa, where it became chai in Swahili. The Japanese and Korean terms for tea are also based on the Chinese cha, though those languages likely adopted the word even before its westward spread into Persian.

      But that doesn’t account for “tea.” The Chinese character for tea, 茶, is pronounced differently by different varieties of Chinese, though it is written the same in them all. In today’s Mandarin, it is chá. But in the Min Nan variety of Chinese, spoken in the coastal province of Fujian, the character is pronounced te. The key word here is “coastal.”

      The te form used in coastal-Chinese languages spread to Europe via the Dutch, who became the primary traders of tea between Europe and Asia in the 17th century, as explained in the World Atlas of Language Structures. The main Dutch ports in east Asia were in Fujian and Taiwan, both places where people used the te pronunciation. The Dutch East India Company’s expansive tea importation into Europe gave us the French thé, the German Tee, and the English tea.

      Yet the Dutch were not the first to Asia. That honor belongs to the Portuguese, who are responsible for the island of Taiwan’s colonial European name, Formosa. And the Portuguese traded not through Fujian but Macao, where chá is used. That’s why, on the map above, Portugal is a pink dot in a sea of blue.

      A few languages have their own way of talking about tea. These languages are generally in places where tea grows naturally, which led locals to develop their own way to refer to it. In Burmese, for example, tea leaves are lakphak.

      The map demonstrates two different eras of globalization in action: the millenia-old overland spread of goods and ideas westward from ancient China, and the 400-year-old influence of Asian culture on the seafaring Europeans of the age of exploration. Also, you just learned a new word in nearly every language on the planet.


      https://qz.com/1176962/map-how-the-word-tea-spread-over-land-and-sea-to-conquer-the-world
      #mots #vocabulaire #terminologie #cartographie #visualisation


  • Projet de centre pour migrants : utile pour qui ?

    Un #centre_administratif_national_pour_les_migrants_en_transit sera prochainement installé au centre 127bis à Steenokkerzeel, annoncaient ce lundi le ministre de l’Intérieur, Jan Jambon (N-VA), et le Secrétaire d’Etat à la migration, Theo Francken (N-VA). Toutes les personnes qui pénètrent illégalement en Belgique dans l’optique de se rendre au Royaume-Uni y seront emmenées.

    https://www.rtbf.be/info/belgique/detail_projet-de-centre-pour-migrants-utile-pour-la-police-ou-pour-les-migrants
    de la #novlangue... pour masquer la réalité, la multiplication de structures carcérales pour migrants !

    #mots #terminologie #vocabulaire
    #enfermement #détention_administrative #rétention #centres #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Belgique

    cc @reka


  • Le marché du bio pèse 8 milliards d’euros en 2017 avec un taux de croissance 13 % par rapport à l’année précédente, selon la Coface. Et même si la taille du gâteau augmente, offrant pour l’instant des potentiels de croissance pour tous, il y a derrière cette guerre économique une guerre pour préserver l’image du bio.
    On peut comprendre l’inquiétude des acteurs historiques du bio face à cette banalisation galopante. L’arrivée des multinationales de l’alimentaire dans le monde du bio ne peut que conduire à une perte de valeur symbolique pour le consommateur. La banalisation d’un marché conduit inévitablement à une baisse des prix et du consentement à payer plus cher pour le consommateur. Ce qui est rare est cher et précieux, et inversement.

    Cette crainte de dilution du bio est à l’origine de l’avis que le Conseil économique, social et environnemental (Cese) a adopté en janvier 2018. Cet avis recommande la création d’un label bio, local et équitable. Un label qui selon eux reviendrait aux sources des valeurs de la bio, et qui distinguerait le bio industriel du bio originel, et qui se placerait au-dessus du label européen.

    A la clé, un surplus de complexité pour le consommateur et des débats sans fin sur ce qui relève du vrai ou du faux bio. Sans parler de la guerre sémantique entre « la bio » qui serait porteuse des valeurs fondatrices de l’agriculture biologique, et « le bio » pour qui qualifierait tout ce qui a un lien avec de l’industriel.

    https://www.lesechos.fr/idees-debats/cercle/cercle-184932-la-guerre-du-bio-est-declaree-2191455.php
    #bio #distribution


  • « Je ne suis pas féministe, mais... »

    Cet abécédaire, long entretien filmé de #Christine_Delphy avec Sylvie Tissot, explore en 26 lettres les concepts clefs de la théorie féministe (Genre, Travail domestique…) tout en revenant sur les épisodes de la vie de Delphy, ses rencontres et les événements historiques auxquels elle a participé. Il figure, avec le film Je ne suis pas féministe mais…, dans un coffret DVD. Nous souhaitons aujourd’hui le rendre accessible en intégralité au plus grand nombre. Le voici, de A comme Amitié à Z comme Zizi, qui rythmera, en feuilleton, le cours de votre été.

    http://lmsi.net/-Je-ne-suis-pas-feministe-mais,201-

    #féminisme #vocabulaire #mots #terminologie #film #dictionnaire

    • Bon, c’est plus pratique, alors je fais le taf de tout compiler.

      A comme Amitié
      Qu’est-ce que le féminisme a à voir avec l’amitié, et même avec l’amour ? Si le féminisme désenchante certaines relations, notamment les relations hétérosexuelles, il naît à la faveur de rencontres, joyeuses, intenses et créatrices. C’est ce dont témoigne Christine Delphy dans la première lettre, qui fait écho aux liens (entre sœurs, entre féministes, entre générations, souvent d’accord mais pas toujours) à l’origine de ce projet.
      https://vimeo.com/190077328

      B comme Beauvoir
      Dans une émission enregistrée en 1985, Christine Delphy, née pendant la seconde guerre mondiale, est invitée avec Simone de Beauvoir, auteure du Deuxième sexe publié en 1949, pour discuter de leur engagement féministe. Simone de Beauvoir fait partie des rencontres qui ont compté dans la trajectoire de Delphy et son soutien a été crucial pour les militantes du MLF. Comment s’est fait ce croisement de générations, ce passage de relais, et quelle forme exactement a pris ce soutien ?
      https://vimeo.com/191829142

      C comme Communautarisme
      Qu’est-ce que le communautarisme ? Ou plutôt de quoi parle-t-on quand on brandit le spectre du « communautarisme » ? Analyse d’un mot piège qui, comme l’« intégration », permet tout simplement de ne pas parler de racisme et d’incriminer ses victimes.
      https://vimeo.com/192669431

      D comme Désengagement
      Les contradictions font partie de l’expérience de toutes les féministes : être en couple et subir l’inégalité dans la répartition des tâches domestiques, avoir des enfants et s’éloigner des modes de vie alternatifs, etc. Que faire de ces contradictions et nous rendent-elles moins féministes ?
      https://vimeo.com/197268717

      E comme Enfant
      Le désir d’enfant n’a rien de naturel, mais l’obligation d’en avoir, pour une femme tout particulièrement, est très sociale.
      https://vimeo.com/198319954

      F comme Famille
      La famille, en distribuant des rôles à chacun et chacune de ses membres, crée des hiérarchies. Christine Delphy raconte comment elle a pris conscience dès l’enfance des inégalités entre les hommes et les femmes.
      https://vimeo.com/199863783

      G comme Genre
      Il est souvent reproché aux mouvements féministes et homosexuels d’abolir la différence des sexes, voire le sexe tout court. Les femmes et les hommes sont-ils si différents, et le cas échéant est-ce la nature ou le conditionnement social qui explique ladite différence ? C’est pour poser ces questions, et y répondre, que les féministes se sont emparées des concepts de sexe biologique, de sexe social, et de genre.
      https://vimeo.com/200877823

      H comme Harcèlement
      Christine Delphy revient ici sur l’affaire Anita Hill / Clarence Thomas, et plus largement sur les affaires de harcèlement sexuel et leur traitement, aux Etats-Unis et en France. L’occasion de déboulonner quelques clichés sur « le puritanisme américain » et la « culture française de la séduction »… et de souligner le déni français en la matière, et l’indigence des politiques publiques.
      https://vimeo.com/202398537

      I comme IVG
      Christine Delphy revient ici sur la rédaction, la publication et l’impact du « Manifeste des 343 » pour le droit à disposer de son corps, dont elle fut l’une des principales initiatrices.
      https://vimeo.com/205679327

      J comme Joie et Rabat-Joie
      Manque d’humour, autoritarisme, mocheté... Les féministes font face à de constantes stigmatisations, dont elles doivent toujours se défendre. Et avant tout, « elles n’aiment pas les hommes ». Comment comprendre ce lieu commun ?
      https://vimeo.com/207696763

      K comme Kilo
      Derrière les injonctions pesant sur les femmes (être mince sans l’être trop, sexy mais sans "faire pute"), se cache l’idée que leur corps doit toujours rester désirable et accessible aux hommes.
      https://vimeo.com/207696890

      L comme Libéralisme
      « Comment articulez-vous la lutte féministe à la lutte des classes ? Et d’ailleurs êtes-vous vraiment anti-capitalistes ? » : telles sont les questions auxquelles les féministes sont souvent sommées de répondre. Christine Delphy revient sur sa trajectoire politique et les relations conflictuelles qu’elles a entretenues avec les représentants auto-proclamés de la classe ouvrière.
      https://vimeo.com/208708456

      M comme Militant
      Christine Delphy revient sur l’amitié singulière que certains hommes militants portent aux féministes : soutien à la cause mais efforts soutenus pour la cadrer, et rappeler inlassablement aux femmes qu’elles ne sauraient, sans eux, s’émanciper correctement.
      https://vimeo.com/208709972

      N comme Non Mixité
      Le fait de se réunir entre elles, sans hommes, a permis aux militantes du MLF de respirer, de libérer leur parole, de mieux se comprendre, de réaliser leur commune condition et de réfléchir aux moyens de lutter. Delphy analyse ici comment la remise en question de la non mixité, parfois par les femmes elles-mêmes, peut relever d’un sentiment d’infériorité intériorisé.
      https://vimeo.com/212714658

      O comme Outre-Atlantique
      Dans ses analyses critiques des discours en France, Delphy montre que les États-Unis apparaissent souvent comme le grand repoussoir, notamment quand il s’agit de leurs luttes progressistes contre les discriminations.
      https://vimeo.com/215490856

      P comme Parité
      « J’étais bien pour les résultats de la parité, mais pas avec les argumentaires essentialistes ». Christine Delphy défend ici les politiques de parité homme femme au nom du principe simple de « l’action positive », affirmative action, connue – et décriée – en France sous le nom de « discrimination positive ».
      https://vimeo.com/215490901

      Q comme Questions féministes
      Fondatrice avec Simone de Beauvoir de la revue Questions féministes, parue entre 1977 et 1980, puis de Nouvelles questions féministes, qui parait depuis 1981, Christine Delphy a consacré de nombreuses années à l’animation et à l’organisation de ce travail collectif, à la fois scientifique et militant. Une double identité souvent mal acceptée...
      https://vimeo.com/217254245

      R comme Religion et engagement féministe
      Christine Delphy revient ici sur la loi de 2004 interdisant le voile dans les écoles publiques, une loi qu’elle qualifie de « loi d’exclusion », d’inspiration « néo-colonialiste ». L’occasion d’interroger aussi une « laïcité » trafiquée, et la singulière injonction à « s’habiller comme tout le monde ».
      https://vimeo.com/218672199

      R comme Religion et oppression des femmes
      Christine Delphy critique ici les tendances anti-religieuses qui se sont manifestées dans les campagnes « anti-voile », et plus largement l’idéalisme qui consiste à se focaliser sur des « idéologies » plutôt contre des « structures sociales ».
      https://vimeo.com/217909564

      S comme Sexe
      Le féminisme matérialiste et son indispensable analyse des mécanismes de domination sont-ils incompatibles avec les approches queer et l’attention qu’elles accordent aux formes individuelles de subversion ? Celles-ci nous font-elles forcément oublier les mécanismes structurels d’oppression ? Comment tenir compte, alors, des subjectivités, des désirs, des pratiques sexuelles ou des parcours identitaires qui – du changement de sexe pour les personnes trans au sexe tarifé par les travailleuses du sexe, en passant par le SM – suscitent de vifs débats chez les féministes ? Faut-il simplement les défendre comme des droits humains fondamentaux, faut-il les investir d’une signification politique ? Déclinée en 4 moments, la lettre S apporte une contribution à ces débats qui ne peuvent progresser qu’à condition d’affirmer un soutien résolu aux personnes discriminées et stigmatisées, et de donner la priorité aux alliances et aux espaces de rencontre plutôt qu’à l’exclusion.

      S comme Sexe et pouvoir
      Abolir le genre est l’horizon d’émancipation du féminisme matérialiste. Christine Delphy reproche à la théorie queer de l’abandonner, mais aussi d’occulter la dimension de pouvoir, tout particulièrement dans le domaine de la sexualité, où se déploie aussi la domination masculine.
      https://vimeo.com/228474271

      S comme Sexe tarifé
      Y a-t-il quelque chose de spécifique dans les relations de pouvoir qui se déploient dans la prostitution ? Christine Delphy revient sur un des ressorts de sa position abolitionniste : la volonté de soustraire la vie sexuelle et amoureuse des femmes aux relations de dépendance. Mais quelles sont les solutions concrètes ? Et si l’on veut « punir », comment le faire sans pénaliser les prostituées ?
      https://vimeo.com/226949098

      S comme Changement de sexe
      Moins travaillé par Christine Delphy que la question de la prostitution, le débat sur la question trans est abordé ici à travers l’articulation avec la question du genre et de son abolition. Les obstacles que rencontrent les transexuel-le-s pour changer de sexe, l’opprobre qu’ils et elles encourent pour questionner le caractère « naturel » des catégories « homme » ou « femme », n’ont-ils rien à voir avec ce que combat le féminisme ?
      https://vimeo.com/223011288

      S comme Hétéro-sexualité
      Christine Delphy revient sur l’évolution de sa position sur l’institution de l’hétérosexualité. Elle évoque le rôle des hétérosexuelles dans le mouvement féministe, regrettant qu’elles n’aient pas davantage compris que la répression de l’homosexualité était partie prenante de l’oppression des femmes, hétéros aussi.
      https://vimeo.com/219745359

      T comme Travail domestique - Mode de production domestique
      Le féminisme matérialiste qu’ont développé Christine Delphy, Colette Guillaumin et d’autres, met au coeur de l’analyse l’exploitation spécifique des femmes : pas seulement sur le marché du travail, mais aussi dans la sphère domestique. Christine Dephy explique ici la révolution théorique consistant, en dépit des résistances des marxistes mais avec certains outils du marxisme, à penser les femmes comme une classe.
      https://vimeo.com/225763092

      T comme Travail domestique et Famille
      Qu’est-ce qu’est exactement le travail domestique ? Pas seulement une liste de tâches – ce qu’on associe communément au travail ménager. C’est un travail effectué pour autrui, les hommes, et de façon non rémunérée, gratuite. Le féminisme matérialiste développe une nouvelle vision de la famille hétérosexuelle, où s’instituent des rapports de pouvoir. Cette analyse reste d’une grande pertinence aujourd’hui : même actives professionnellement, les femmes sont toujours tenues d’effectuer ce travail d’entretien du foyer.
      https://vimeo.com/223763647

      U comme Universalisme
      Dans son livre Un universalisme si particulier. Féminisme et exception française, Christine Delphy évoque la prétention très singulière des élites françaises à faire de leur pays une incarnation de l’universel et de l’universalisme, et souligne ce que cette prétention comporte d’arrogance – et souvent de racisme et de sexisme.

      V comme Viol
      Reprenant l’expression du journaliste Jean-François Kahn déclarant que l’« affaire DSK » était tout au plus « un troussage de domestique », Christine Dephy coordonne en 2011 un recueil de textes qui analysent le traitement médiatique de cette affaire en France. Elle revient ici sur le classisme, le racisme et le sexisme qui se sont exprimés à cette occasion, assimilant notamment le viol au libertinage. Elle explique aussi que l’accord entre Nafissatou Diallo et Dominique Strauss-Kahn suite au procès civil est, contrairement à ce qu’on affirmé les élites françaises, un aveu de culpabilité de ce dernier.
      https://vimeo.com/229813360

      W comme Wittig
      Christine Delphy revient ici sur la difficile acceptation de son homosexualité à la fin des années 50 et dans les années 60, notamment au sein de sa famille, puis sur les réactions suscitées, au sein du MLF, par la fondation du premier groupe non mixte de lesbiennes. Elle raconte enfin les formes de discriminations qu’elle a subies tout au long de sa carrière au CNRS.
      https://vimeo.com/236219888

      XY comme Différence des sexes
      L’idée d’une différence irréductible est l’argument ultime pour contrer ou relativiser les demandes d’égalité : les hommes et les femmes seraient par nature différents, et donc nécessairement conduits à occuper des rôles différents dans la société. Christine Delphy réfute ici ce faux argument.
      https://vimeo.com/237636887


  • #Birmanie. Les #Rohingyas sont victimes d’un génocide selon l’ONU

    Un rapport des Nations unies accuse les généraux birmans de commettre un génocide contre la minorité musulmane du pays. 700 000 Rohingyas ont fui vers le Bangladesh depuis l’an dernier.

    https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/birmanie-les-rohingyas-sont-victimes-dun-genocide-selon-lonu
    #Rohingya #génocide #mots #terminologie #ONU #Myanmar #minorités

    v. le #rapport :

    Report of the Independent International Fact - Finding Mission on Myanmar

    The Mission concluded, given these considerations on the inference of genocidal intent, that there is sufficient information to warrant the investigation and prosecution of s enior officials in the Tatmadaw chain of command, so that a competent court can determine their liability for genocide in relation to the situation in Rakhine State.

    https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/FFM-Myanmar/A_HRC_39_64.pdf?smid=nytcore-ios-share

    cc @reka



  • Suite du Roman national

    Dunoyer était capable de produire un nombre incalculable de phrases contenant toutes les mots citoyen – république – Etat – nation, la seule fonction de ces phrases était en vérité de combiner et recombiner ces quelques mots à l’infini. Le sens importait peu, seule comptait la production d’énoncés sommaires où chacun de ces vocables de deux ou trois syllabes sonnait comme un coup de gong abrutissant l’auditeur dont la cervelle était tout à coup saturée de propos mécaniques. À vrai dire, ce n’était pas Dunoyer qui avait créé cette mode qui consistait à employer le mot citoyen à toutes les sauces. Il y avait désormais des fêtes citoyennes, des actions citoyennes, des journées citoyennes, des actions de nettoyage citoyennes, il y avait même des banques citoyennes, des entreprises citoyennes, et la police elle-même pouvait se prétendre citoyenne puisqu’elle était au service des citoyens.

    http://oeuvresouvertes.net/spip.php?article3985


  • Master a roadman’s vocabulary and your teenager might be easier to understand… | Vanessa Thorpe | From the Observer | The Guardian
    https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2018/jul/08/may-i-have-a-word-roadman-street-teen-speak

    When a “roadman” (a streetwise young person) out for a stroll trips over a kerb and temporarily loses his composure, possibly dropping his iPhone, you might hear his companion cry out: “Oh. Peak for you!”

    To those over 30, it sounds a strange reaction. The “peak” of what, exactly? Embarrassment? In fact, these days this is a heartfelt commiseration, as readers familiar with current street slang will have recognised. For “peak” now means bad and, specifically, a “random” bit of bad luck, and any roadman, or rebellious teenager (are there other kinds?), understands this. Just like the word “sick”, which switched from meaning ill to something extremely good some while ago, “peak” has changed sides.

    #vocabulaire #terinologie #mots #langue #anglais

    • #terminologie

      Je suis en train de travailler sur une méthode d’indonésien de 1978 et elle varie pas mal de celle que j’utilise au quotidien, qui date de 2012. Non seulement leurs auteurs ont fait des choix perso mais en plus la langue a beaucoup changé. Un peu de simplification de la syntaxe mais surtout un lexique nouveau, dû aux besoins des gens et à leur créativité. Ça tombe bien, mon prof est terminologue.


  • « PRINCE 3 TU VAS NOUS MANQUER » /.../ « 95 - 44 ON T’OUBLIE PAS LE LOUP 3 »
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/valkphotos/42517909724

    Flickr

    ValK. a posté une photo :

    Marche blanche en hommage a #Aboubakar, assassiné par la #police le 3 juillet. #Nantes, quartier du #Breil, le 5 juillet 2018.

    #aboubakarfofana #abubakar #manifestation #nantes #politique #valk #assassinat #ecrits #graff #graffiti #meurtre #mots #quartiers #rassemblement #social #solidarite #soutien #streetart #tag #violencedetat #violencespolicieres #france



  • EU leaders consider centers outside bloc to process refugees

    Draft conclusions for the European Council summit next week propose the creation of ‘disembarkation platforms.’

    European Council President Donald Tusk has proposed that EU leaders create “regional disembarkation platforms” outside the European Union, where officials could quickly differentiate between refugees in need of protection and economic migrants who would potentially face return to their countries of origin.

    The proposal is an effort to break the acute political crisis over migration and asylum that has bedeviled EU leaders since 2015 — and even threatened in recent days to topple the German government — even as the numbers of arrivals have plummeted since the peak of the crisis.

    The disembarkation platform concept — which officials said would have to be implemented in cooperation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) — could create a formal mechanism by which the EU can bridge the divide between hard-line leaders calling for tough border controls and those insisting that EU nations obey international law and welcome refugees in need of protection.

    But the idea could also open EU leaders to criticism that they are outsourcing their political problem by creating centers for people seeking entry in countries on the periphery of the bloc. Among the potential partner nations are Tunisia and Albania, but officials say it is far too soon to speculate.

    The idea to create such facilities was suggested in 2016 by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, the strongest critic of the EU’s policies on migration — especially on the relocation of refugees across Europe.

    More recently, French President Emmanuel Macron has endorsed the idea, and on Sunday Italian Foreign Minister Enzo Moavero said Italy wants to officially put the idea on the table at the European Council summit.

    According to the draft guidelines, the new sites would “establish a more predictable framework for dealing with those who nevertheless set out to sea and are rescued in Search And Rescue Operations.”

    The conclusions state: “Such platforms should provide for rapid processing to distinguish between economic migrants and those in need of international protection, and reduce the incentive to embark on perilous journeys.”
    https://www.politico.eu/article/regional-disembarkation-platforms-eu-leaders-consider-camps-outside-bloc-to

    Nouveau #mots, nouvelle absurdité #disembarkation_platform...!!!
    #tri #migrations #migrants_économiques #réfugiés #catégorisation #hotspots #externalisation #novlangue
    #regional_disembarkation_platforms #Tunisie #Albanie #plateformes_régionales_de_désembarquement

    cc @reka @isskein @i_s_

    • European Council meeting (28 J une 2018) – Draft conclusions

      In order to establish a more predictable framework for dealing with those who nevertheless set out to sea and are rescued in Search And Rescue Operations, the European Council supports the development of the concept of regional disembarkation platforms in close cooperation with UNHCR and IOM. Such platforms should provide for rapid processing to distinguish between economic migrants and those in need of international protection , and reduce the incentive to embark on perilous journeys.

      https://g8fip1kplyr33r3krz5b97d1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/draftEucoConclusionsJune.pdf
      #HCR #OIM #IOM

    • Une idée qui vient de la Hongrie...

      From protest to proposal : Eastern Europe tries new migration tactic

      “Asylum procedures should be completed outside the EU in closed and protected hotspots before the first entry on the territory of the EU,” states Orbán’s plan. “Third countries should be supported in establishing a system of reception and management of migratory flows … which should foresee careful on-site screening of refugees and economic migrants,” reads Renzi’s.

      https://www.politico.eu/article/viktor-orban-hungary-slovakia-from-protest-to-propose-eastern-europe-tries-

    • La UE estudia instalar centros de clasificación de inmigrantes en el norte de África

      Un borrador de documento para la cumbre afirma que la idea podría facilitar «un procesamiento rápido que distinga entre migrantes económicos y refugiados»

      La Unión Europea estudia la idea de construir centros para el procesamiento de inmigrantes en el norte de África en un intento por disuadir a la gente de emprender viajes a través del Mediterráneo que puedan poner en riesgo su vida, según indica un documento al que ha tenido acceso The Guardian.

      El Consejo Europeo de líderes de la UE «apoya el desarrollo del concepto de plataformas de desembarque regional», según señala un borrador de conclusiones de la cumbre europea que se llevará a cabo la próxima semana.

      La UE quiere estudiar la viabilidad de instalar estos centros en el norte de África, donde comienza la mayoría de los viajes de los inmigrantes que quieren llegar a suelo europeo. «Estas plataformas podrían facilitar un procesamiento rápido que distinga entre migrantes económicos y aquellos que necesitan protección internacional, y así reducir los incentivos a embarcarse en viajes peligrosos», sostiene el documento.

      La inmigración es un tema prioritario en la agenda de la próxima cumbre de dos días que se iniciará el 28 de junio. Los líderes de la UE intentarán llegar a un consenso sobre cómo manejar la crisis de los miles de refugiados e inmigrantes que llegan a Europa cada mes.

      Los líderes de Alemania y Francia, Angela Merkel y Emmanuel Macron, se han reunido este martes cerca de Berlín para fijar una posición común respecto a la inmigración y la eurozona, en medio de los temores sobre el desmoronamiento del proyecto europeo.

      Antes de la reunión, el ministro de Hacienda francés, Bruno Le Maire, afirmó que Europa está «en proceso de desintegración». «Vemos Estados que se están cerrando, intentando encontrar soluciones nacionales a problemas que requieren soluciones europeas», señaló. Así, llamó a construir «un nuevo proyecto europeo sobre inmigración», así como sobre asuntos económicos y financieros «que consoliden a Europa en un mundo en el que Estados Unidos está a un lado, China al otro y nosotros quedamos atrapados en el medio».

      El ministro de Interior alemán, Horst Seehofer, de línea dura, está presionando a la canciller Angela Merkel para que diseñe un plan europeo para finales de mes. Alemania sigue siendo el país europeo que más solicitudes de asilo recibe. Si no hay avance a nivel europeo, Seehofer quiere que la policía de las fronteras alemanas comience a negar la entrada a los inmigrantes.

      No queda claro cómo se llevaría a la práctica la propuesta europea de «plataformas de desembarque regional», o dónde se instalarían.

      En 2016, la UE llegó a un acuerdo con Turquía que redujo drásticamente el flujo migratorio, pero al bloque le ha resultado más difícil trabajar con los gobiernos del norte de África, especialmente con Libia, punto de partida de la mayoría de las embarcaciones que intentan llegar a Europa por el Mediterráneo.

      La Comisión Europea ha rechazado la posibilidad de llegar a un acuerdo con Libia parecido al de Turquía, debido a la inestabilidad del país. Sin embargo, el anterior Gobierno de Italia pactó con las milicias y tribus libias y colaboró para reconstituir la guardia costera libia. Estas acciones han contribuido a reducir drásticamente el número de personas que intenta cruzar el Mediterráneo, pero los críticos han denunciado un aumento en las violaciones de los derechos humanos.

      Según el documento filtrado, la UE prefiere construir los centros en colaboración con ACNUR, la agencia de la ONU para los refugiados, y con la Organización Internacional para la Migración, otro organismo relacionado con la ONU que con anterioridad ha criticado la escasez de rutas legales que tienen los inmigrantes y refugiados africanos para llegar a Europa.

      https://www.eldiario.es/theguardian/UE-instalar-procesamiento-inmigrantes-Africa_0_783922573.html

    • Commentaire d’Emmanuel Blanchard, via la mailing-list Migreurop :

      Au contraire de ce que suggère le titre choisi par ce journaliste (article ci-dessous), la proposition de créer ces plateformes de débarquement n’est pas vraiment « étonnante » tant elle ressemble aux « #processings_centers » et autres « #centres_d'identification » dont les projets ressurgissent régulièrement depuis le début des années 2000. Il y a cependant des évolutions (ces centres étaient pensés pour cantonner les exilés avant qu’ils prennent la mer et pas pour débarquer les boat-people secourus en mer) et le danger se rapproche : maintenant que ces camps existent sous le nom de hotpsots dans les iles grecques, il apparaît possible de les étendre dans des pays extérieurs ayant besoin du soutien financier ou politique de l’UE.

    • Europe Pushes to Outsource Asylum, Again

      With Dublin reform stalled, European leaders began to cast around for new ideas to solve the ongoing political crisis on migration and settled on a recurring proposition: the creation of asylum processing centres beyond the (strengthened) borders of the European Union.

      What exactly is up for discussion remains unclear. The plans championed by various EU leaders are diverse, yet the details remain fuzzy. What they have in common is a near-universal focus on shifting responsibility for dealing with refugees and migrants upstream. The idea of external processing looks good on paper, particularly in demonstrating to skeptical voters that governments have control over migration flows. But leaders also hope that by reducing inflows to the European Union, they will face less pressure to compromise on sharing responsibility for asylum within the bloc.

      The devil is in the detail. Proposals to externalize the processing of asylum claims are not new, but have largely fallen flat. Previous leaders balked at the idea of such elaborate constructions, especially when confronted with their significant practical complications. But public pressure to further slow arrivals of refugee and migrant boats has mounted in many countries, and leaders feel compelled to find an agreement. The result is a debate on migration increasingly divorced from reality.

      But before sitting down to the negotiating table, EU leaders may want to reflect on the exact model they wish to pursue, and the tradeoffs involved. Critically, does the concept of “regional disembarkation platforms” set out in the draft European Council conclusions offer a potential solution?

      Key Design Questions

      From Austria’s so-called Future European Protection System, to the “centres of international protection in transit countries” suggested by Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, to an outlier idea from the Danish Prime Minister to create centres to host failed asylum seekers in “undesirable” parts of Europe —a variety of models for externalization have been floated in recent weeks.

      Several proposals also envisage the simultaneous creation of joint processing centres within the European Union, coupled with the use of reception centres that restrict residents’ freedom of movement. While it is still unclear how such a plan would unfold, this commentary focuses on the external dimension alone.

      Where Would People Be Stopped and Processed?

      The proposals differ regarding where in the journey they would stop migrants and potential asylum seekers. French President Emmanuel Macron has vaguely referred to centres in key transit countries, such as Niger, Libya, and Chad, as well as closer to regions of origin. Others have focused more squarely on the North African coast.

      Centres operating far away from the European Union would likely function as a form of resettlement, stopping people en route (or even prior to the journey), and offering selected individuals an additional channel of EU entry in hopes that this would discourage the use of smugglers. Indeed, nascent EU efforts to resettle refugees evacuated from Libya to Niger (under the Evacuation Transit Mechanism, or ETM), demonstrate how this might work. At the other extreme, the model championed by Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz would see migrants and refugees returned to “safe zones” in Africa, where they would stay, even after arriving at the external EU border.

      The latter concept is problematic under current EU and international law. By returning arrivals to third countries without giving them the opportunity to submit an asylum claim, governments would be likely to run afoul of the EU Asylum Procedures Directive, as well as the European Convention on Human Rights, which prohibits signatories from the “collective expulsion of aliens.” European Court of Human Rights case law also precludes the pushback of migrants rescued by European boats while crossing the Mediterranean. Conversely, however, if migrants and potential asylum seekers are stopped before entering EU waters, and without the involvement of European-flagged vessels, then no EU Member State has formal legal responsibility.

      A framework for regional cooperation on the disembarkation of migrant boats—being developed by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) —may offer a middle ground. While details are scarce, it seems likely that the proposal would focus first on the development of a system for determining who would rescue migrants crossing the Mediterranean, and where they would be landed. Absent consensus within the European Union on responsibility sharing for asylum claims, UNHCR would attempt to create a new framework for responsibility sharing with both Northern and Southern Mediterranean states on search and rescue. However, to prove palatable to partners, such a scheme would require strong EU support, not least through the creation of regional disembarkation centres across North Africa where migrants and refugees “pulled back” from their journey would be sent. This approach would sidestep the application of EU law. To be viable, the European Union would likely need to offer North African partner states some assurance of support, including resettling some of those found in need of protection (as with the Niger ETM).

      Who Would Do the Processing?

      Once asylum seekers are pulled back, there is the question of who would make determinations regarding their protection. There are three options.

      First, Member States’ own asylum agencies could adjudicate protection claims, as Macron has occasionally suggested. Aside from the logistical challenges of seconding officials outside Europe, the question quickly arises as to who would adjudicate which applications? Member States have very different asylum systems, which produce markedly different outcomes for applicants, and would need extensive coordination.

      As a result, there is growing interest in developing an EU asylum agency capable of undertaking assessments on behalf of Member States. This appears a neat solution. However, governments would have to agree joint procedures and standards for processing claims and have confidence in the decisions made by through a joint processing arrangement. This is, if anything, an option only in the long term, as it would be years before any such agency is operational.

      Should the regional disembarkation idea gain ground, the European Union would have no legal responsibility to undertake assessment. Most Member States would be likely to consider UNHCR a key partner to manage any external process. But doing so could require UNHCR to redeploy limited staff resources from existing resettlement operations or from pressing humanitarian situations elsewhere. Moreover, outsourcing to UNHCR could still raise the issue of trust and transferability of decisions. Many Member States remain reluctant to rely solely on UNHCR to select refugees for resettlement, preferring to send their own teams to do the final selection.

      What Happens Next?

      The issue of what happens to people after their protection claims are assessed remains at the crux of questions around the feasibility of external processing. Proposals here differ starkly.

      On the one hand, some proposals would allow those recognized as in need of protection to subsequently enter the European Union. This is the option that—even if the European Union has circumvented any legal responsibility—would be deemed necessary to host countries as it would give them assurance that they are not overly burdened with providing protection. But doing so would require Member States to agree on some sort of distribution system or quotas for determining who would be settled where—crashing back into a responsibility-sharing problem that has plagued the European Union.

      By contrast, proposals that would explicitly not allow entry to anyone who had attempted to travel to Europe via the Mediterranean, taking a page from Australia’s playbook, are meant to assuage fears that such centres would become magnets for new travellers. Those with protection needs brought to such centres would be settled in countries outside the bloc. The challenges with this model centre squarely on the difficulty finding a “safe” country that would allow the settlement of potentially unlimited number of protection beneficiaries. Neither is likely to be the case in any arrangements the European Union would seek to make with external countries.

      Finally, there is the troubling question of what to do with those denied status or resettlement in the European Union. While the International Organization for Migration (IOM) or another agency might be able to help facilitate voluntary return, some might not be able to return home or may have been denied resettlement but nonetheless have protection needs. They are at risk of becoming a population in limbo, with long-term implications for their well-being and for the host country.


      https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/europe-pushes-outsource-asylum-again
      #schéma #visualisation

    • "L’UE devrait demander à la Tunisie ou l’Algérie d’accueillir des migrants"

      Afin d’éviter toute complicité des ONG, #Stephen_Smith propose notamment une participation des pays du sud de la Méditerranée. « L’Europe se bat un peu la coulpe et a l’impression que tout est pour elle. Or, la Libye a beaucoup de pays voisins. Pourquoi n’a-t-on pas songé à demander le soutien de la Tunisie ou de l’Algérie ? Habituellement, en cas de naufrage, la règle veut que les voyageurs soient transportés vers la prochaine terre sûre. Et, à partir de la Libye, cette terre n’est pas l’Italie. »

      http://www.rts.ch/info/monde/9678271--l-ue-devrait-demander-a-la-tunisie-ou-l-algerie-d-accueillir-des-migran
      #Tunisie #Algérie

    • Macron y Pedro Sánchez proponen «centros cerrados de desembarco» para los inmigrantes que lleguen a Europa

      Con el apoyo de Pedro Sánchez, el presidente francés expone su apuesta para la gestión de las llegadas de migrantes a las costas del sur de Europa

      En estos centros se tratarían los expedientes de los demandantes de asilo o se tramitaría su devolución a los países de origen

      https://www.eldiario.es/desalambre/Macron-propone-centros-desembarco-inmigrantes_0_785321746.html
      #Espagne

    • EU admits no African country has agreed to host migration centre

      The European Union’s most senior migration official has admitted that no north African country has yet agreed to host migrant screening centres to process refugee claims.

      Details of an EU plan to prevent migrants drowning at sea emerged on Thursday after Italy criticised the agenda of an emergency summit for not offering enough to help it cope with arrivals.

      Dimitris Avramopoulos, the European commissioner for migration, said the EU wanted to “intensify cooperation” with Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Niger and Morocco, as he announced the intention to create a “regional disembarkation scheme”.
      Malta’s ’barbaric’ finch traps ruled illegal by EU court
      Read more

      So far no African country had agreed to host screening centres, he confirmed. “It has to be discussed with these countries, he said. “An official proposal has not been put on the table.”

      The idea for offshore migrant processing centres remains sketchy, with numerous political, practical and legal questions unanswered. It remains unclear, for example, whether migrants on a rescue ship in European waters could be returned to a north African country.

      Tahar Cherif, the Tunisian ambassador to the EU said: “The proposal was put to the head of our government a few months ago during a visit to Germany, it was also asked by Italy, and the answer is clear: no!

      “We have neither the capacity nor the means to organise these detention centres. We are already suffering a lot from what is happening in Libya, which has been the effect of European action.”

      He said his country was facing enough problems with unemployment, without wishing to add to them while Niger said its existing centres taking migrants out of detention camps in Libya are already full.

      The idea for the centres was thrown into the mix of EU migration policy before a series of crucial summits on migration in the next week.

      About 10 EU leaders will meet in Brussels on Sunday in a hastily convened emergency meeting aimed at preventing the collapse of the German coalition government.

      But the Italian government has been angered by draft conclusions for the summit, which stress the need to counter “secondary movements” – an issue that affects Germany.

      Under EU rules, a member state usually has responsibility for asylum seekers who have arrived in its territory, a regulation that has put frontline states Italy and Greece under huge pressure.

      But claimants often move to a second EU state, seeking a faster decision or to unite with family members.

      So-called “secondary movements” is the issue driving a wedge between Germany’s ruling coalition. The Bavarian CSU party has set the chancellor, Angela Merkel, a deadline of two weeks to find a solution. The interior minister, Horst Seehofer, has threatened to send away migrants at the border – a breach of EU rules that threatens to unravel the common asylum system.

      Tensions are running high after Italy’s prime minister, Giuseppe Conte, said he was not ready to discuss secondary movements “without having first tackled the emergency of ‘primary movements’ that Italy has ended up dealing with alone”.

      Italy’s far-right interior minister, Matteo Salvini, said: “If anyone in the EU thinks Italy should keep being a landing point and refugee camp, they have misunderstood.”

      The election of a populist government in Italy, combined with tensions in Germany’s ruling coalition, has created a political storm over migration despite the sharp fall in arrivals. In the first six months of this year 15,570 people crossed into Italy, a 77% drop on last year.

      The European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, reluctantly agreed to host the weekend summit to help Merkel, after her governing coalition came close to breaking point.

      Avramopoulos stressed that the summit would be about “consultations” to prepare the ground for decisions to be taken by all 28 EU leaders at a European council meeting next Thursday.

      Warning that the future of the EU’s border-free travel area was at stake, Avramopoulos said: “The European leadership of today will be held accountable in the eyes of future generations if we allow all these forces of populism to blow up what has been achieved”.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/21/eu-admits-no-african-country-has-agreed-to-host-migration-centre

    • IOM-UNHCR Proposal to the European Union for a Regional Cooperative Arrangement Ensuring Predictable Disembarkation and Subsequent Processing of Persons Rescued at Sea

      Approximately 40,000 refugees and migrants have arrived in Europe via maritime routes in 2018 to date. This is almost six times less than over the same period in 2016, following a peak in arrivals by sea in 2015. According to EUROSTAT, approximately 30 per cent of those arriving on the European shores were in need of international protection; moreover, some have faced extreme hardship and abuse at the hands of unscrupulous traffickers during the journey.

      Despite the reduced arrival rates, new challenges resulting from divergent EU Member State views have revealed a need to revisit regional arrangements to relieve front line states from having the sole responsibility for the disembarkation and further processing of people rescued at sea.

      IOM and UNHCR stand ready to support a common approach, and call on all countries in the Mediterranean region to come together to implement a predictable and responsible disembarkation mechanism in a manner that prioritizes human rights and safety first, delinked from the subsequent processing of status and related follow-up responsibilities, post-disembarkation, for those rescued in international waters.

      It is increasingly recognized that disembarkation cannot be the sole responsibility of one country or regional grouping. It should be a shared responsibility across the Mediterranean Basin, with due respect for the safety and dignity of all people on the move. A comprehensive approach is required to realize effective and sustainable responses.

      People on the move to and through the Mediterranean have different migratory status, with the majority of them not qualifying for international or subsidiary protection. Addressing the drivers of forced displacement and irregular migration needs to be given renewed attention through effective conflict-prevention and crisis settlement processes, strengthening good governance, rule of law, and respect for human rights efforts, stabilization and recovery, as well as poverty reduction.

      Priority efforts need to focus on strengthening protection capacities in regions of origin, including through developing sustainable asylum systems; providing sufficient needs-based support for humanitarian operations and adopting a development-oriented approach to assistance; as well as expanding opportunities for resettlement, family reunification and safe pathways for refugees which are currently well below existing needs and pledges being made. Efforts toward opening safe and regular pathways for migrants need also to be undertaken (family reunification, labour and education opportunities, humanitarian visas for vulnerable migrants).

      Against this background, with a focus on the immediate disembarkation concerns at hand, the current proposal for a regional disembarkation mechanism aims to ensure that:

      People rescued-at-sea in international waters are quickly disembarked in a predictable manner in line with international maritime law, in conditions that uphold respect for their rights including non-refoulement, and avoid serious harm or other risks;
      Responsible post-disembarkation processing, supported – as appropriate- by IOM and UNHCR, leads to rapid and effective differentiated solutions and reduces onward movement through an effective cooperative arrangement.

      Functioning of the mechanism is premised on a set of principles and common objectives:

      The effective functioning of maritime commerce requires ships’ masters to have full confidence in prompt and predictable disembarkation;
      Efforts to reduce loss of life at sea are maximized, in line with existing international obligations and frameworks, and saving lives remains the international community’s priority;
      Strengthened efforts to build the capacity of Coast Guards in Mediterranean countries (not just in Libya) to perform effective rescue operations in their respective SAR;
      National Maritime Rescue Coordination Centres (MRCC) are able to carry out their work effectively for the purposes of search and rescue operations based on long- standing and effective practices to save lives;
      People rescued at sea in the Mediterranean are quickly disembarked in safe ports in a predictable manner in line with established rescue at sea arrangements and international maritime law, coordinated through the responsible MRCCs;
      Measures for cooperative arrangements to support States providing for disembarkation are well-established;
      The right to seek asylum is safeguarded, and the human rights of all individuals such as non-refoulement are respected, including the right not to be disembarked in or transferred to a place where there is a risk of persecution, torture, or other serious harm;
      Efforts to address human smuggling and trafficking are reinvigorated, including measures to ensure protection and/or referrals for victims of trafficking and ensuring the effective prosecution of those involved in / or facilitating human trafficking or smuggling;
      Rescue at sea capacity coordinated by effective MRCCs that operate in accordance with international law is reinforced.

      As such, the proposal does not affect existing legal norms and responsibilities applicable under international law (Note 1) Rather it seeks to facilitate their application in accordance with a regional collaborative approach and the principle of international cooperation. This proposal relies on functional arrangements for intra-EU solidarity in managing all consequences of rescue, disembarkation and processing. It also relies on operational arrangements which would need to be sought and formalised through a set of understandings among all concerned States.

      https://www.iom.int/news/iom-unhcr-proposal-european-union-regional-cooperative-arrangement-ensuring-pre

      Question : c’est quoi la différence entre la proposition IOM/HCR et la proposition UE ?

    • THE LEGAL AND PRACTICAL FEASIBILITY OF DISEMBARKATION OPTIONS

      This note presents a first assessment of the legal and practical feasibility of the three different scenarios on disembarkation presented at the Informal Working Meeting of 24 June 2018. Under international maritime law, people rescued at sea must be disembarked at a place of safety. International law sets out elements of what a place of safety can be and how it can be designated, without excluding the possibility of having regional arrangements for disembarkation.


      https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/migration-disembarkation-june2018_en.pdf
      #scénario

    • #Palerme :
      ❝La Commission régionale de l’Urbanisme a rejeté le projet de pré-faisabilité du “#hotspot” à Palerme, confirmant l’avis du Conseil municipal de Palerme. L’avis de la Commission régionale reste technique. Le maire de Palerme a rappelé que « la ville de Palerme et toute sa communauté sont opposés à la création de centres dans lesquels la dignité des personnes est violée (...). Palerme reste une ville qui croit dans les valeurs de l’accueil, de la solidarité et des rencontres entre les peuples et les cultures, les mettant en pratique au quotidien. En cela, notre “non” à l’hotspot n’est pas et ne sera pas seulement un choix technique, mais plutôt un choix relatif à des principes et des valeurs ».
      > Pour en savoir plus (IT) : http://www.palermotoday.it/politica/hotspot-zen-progetto-bocciato-regione.html

      –-> Reçu via la mailing-list Migreurop

    • Ne dites pas que ce sont des #camps !

      Les camps devraient être la solution. C’est en Afrique, peut-être en Libye ou au Niger, que les migrants seront arrêtés avant qu’ils puissent commencer leur dangereux voyage en mer vers l’Europe. Ainsi l’a décidé l’UE. Des camps attendront également les réfugiés qui réussiraient toutefois à arriver dans un pays de l’UE. Des camps sur le sol européen. Où seront-ils établis ? Cela n’est pas encore défini, mais ce seront des installations fermées et surveillées parce que les détenus devront être « enregistrés » et les personnes non autorisées seront expulsées. Ils ne pourront pas s’enfuir.

      L’intérêt pour les camps concerne également les responsables politiques allemands. Le gouvernement allemand veut élargir le no man’s land à la frontière germano-autrichienne afin que les réfugiés puissent être arrêtés avant d’entrer officiellement en Allemagne et avoir ainsi droit à une procédure d’asile régulière. Une « fiction de non-entrée » est créée, comme le stipule précisément l’accord. Un État qui magouille. Pendant ce temps, la chancelière Angela Merkel a déclaré que personne ne sera détenu plus de quarante-huit heures, même dans le no man’s land. Il reste encore à voir si l’Autriche y accédera. Le plan est pour l’instant plus un fantasme qu’une politique réalisable, ce qui est bien pire. Bien sûr, tous ces centres fermés de rassemblement de migrants ne peuvent pas être appelés camps. Cela évoquerait des images effrayantes : les camps de concentration nazis, le système des goulags soviétiques, les camps de réfugiés palestiniens de plusieurs générations, le camp de détention de Guantánamo.

      Non, en Allemagne, ces « non-prisons » devraient être appelées « centres de transit ». Un terme amical, efficace, pratique, comme la zone de transit d’un aéroport où les voyageurs changent d’avion. Un terme inventé par les mêmes personnes qui désignent le fait d’échapper à la guerre et à la pauvreté comme du « tourisme d’asile ». Les responsables politiques de l’UE sont encore indécis quant à la terminologie de leurs camps. On a pu lire le terme de « centres de protection » mais aussi celui de « plateformes d’atterrissage et de débarquement », ce qui fait penser à une aventure et à un voyage en mer.

      Tout cela est du vernis linguistique. La réalité est que l’Europe en est maintenant à créer des camps fermés et surveillés pour des personnes qui n’ont pas commis de crime. Les camps vont devenir quelque chose qui s’inscrit dans le quotidien, quelque chose de normal. Si possible dans des endroits lointains et horribles, si nécessaire sur place. Enfermer, compter, enregistrer.

      La facilité avec laquelle tout cela est mis en œuvre est déconcertante. Deux ans seulement après que le public européen a condamné l’Australie pour ses camps brutaux de prisonniers gérés par des sociétés privées sur les îles de Nauru et Manus, dans l’océan Pacifique, nous sommes prêts à abandonner nos inhibitions. Pourquoi ne pas payer les Libyens pour intercepter et stocker des personnes ?

      Derrière le terme allemand « Lager » (« camp ») se cache un ancien mot correspondant à « liegen », qui signifie « être allongé ». Les camps sont ainsi faits pour se reposer. Aujourd’hui, le terme de « camp » implique quelque chose de temporaire : un camp n’est que pour une courte période, c’est pourquoi il peut aussi être rustique, comme un camp de vacances pour les enfants ou un dortoir. Des camps d’urgence sont mis en place après des catastrophes, des inondations, des glissements de terrain, des guerres. Ils sont là pour soulager les souffrances, mais ne doivent pas être permanents.

      Si les responsables politiques participent activement à l’internement de personnes dans des camps en l’absence de catastrophe, alors il s’agit d’autre chose. Il s’agit de contrôle, d’#ordre, de #rééducation, de #domination. Les puissances coloniales tenaient des camps, depuis les camps de barbelés des Britanniques au Kenya jusqu’aux camps de Héréros dans le Sud-Ouest africain. C’est dans des camps que les États-Unis ont enfermé des Américains d’origine japonaise pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Les responsables de ces camps n’avaient pas pour préoccupation le logement, mais bien la garde et la gestion de « personnes problématiques ».

      Dans de tels camps, la #violence extrême et la #déshumanisation des détenus allaient et vont généralement de pair avec une gestion froide. Exploiter un camp nécessite de l’#organisation. La technologie de #contrôle à distance aide le personnel à commettre des atrocités et transforme des gens ordinaires en criminels. Dans son essai controversé « Le siècle des camps », le regretté sociologue #Zygmunt_Bauman qualifie le camp de symptôme de #modernité. Pour lui, l’association d’une #exclusion_brutale et d’une #efficacité dans l’ordre semblable à celle d’un jardinier est une caractéristique de notre époque.

      Que Bauman fasse des camps de concentration nazis un « distillat » d’un problème majeur et moderne pour sa thèse lui a justement valu des critiques. Il ignore la singularité de l’Holocauste. Contrairement aux camps coloniaux, les camps de concentration étaient en effet des camps d’extermination qui n’avaient plus pour fonction d’apprêter des groupes ou de les rééduquer, ni même de les dissuader. Il s’agissait de « violence pour elle-même », comme l’écrit le sociologue #Wolfgang_Sofsky, de folie de la #pureté et d’éradication des personnes #indésirables.

      L’Europe croit être à l’abri de cette folie. Pour les gouvernants allemands, le slogan « Plus jamais de camps en Allemagne » est un slogan ridicule parce qu’il évoque des images qui n’ont rien à voir avec le présent. Dans les différents camps de migrants en Europe et à l’extérieur, il n’est certes pas question d’une extermination mais « seulement » de contrôle de l’accès et de #dissuasion. C’est ce dernier objectif qui est explicitement recherché : répandre dans le monde l’idée de camps de l’horreur au lieu du paradis européen.

      Mais il n’y a pas de raison de maintenir la sérénité. L’analyse de Zygmunt Bauman parlait de la mince couche de #civilisation par-dessus la #barbarie. La leçon tirée de l’expérience des camps du XXe siècle est la suivante : « Il n’y a pas de société ordonnée sans #peur et sans #humiliation ». La #pensée_totalitaire peut à nouveau prospérer, même dans les sociétés apparemment démocratiques.

      https://www.tdg.ch/monde/europe/dites-camps/story/31177430
      #totalitarisme

      Et ce passage pour lequel je suis tentée d’utiliser le tag #frontières_mobiles (#Allemagne et #Autriche) :

      L’intérêt pour les camps concerne également les responsables politiques allemands. Le gouvernement allemand veut élargir le no #man’s_land à la frontière germano-autrichienne afin que les réfugiés puissent être arrêtés avant d’entrer officiellement en Allemagne et avoir ainsi droit à une procédure d’asile régulière. Une « #fiction_de_non-entrée » est créée, comme le stipule précisément l’accord.

      Et sur la question de la #terminologie (#mots #vocabulaire) :

      Bien sûr, tous ces #centres_fermés de rassemblement de migrants ne peuvent pas être appelés camps. Cela évoquerait des images effrayantes : les camps de concentration nazis, le système des goulags soviétiques, les camps de réfugiés palestiniens de plusieurs générations, le camp de détention de Guantánamo.

      Non, en Allemagne, ces « #non-prisons » devraient être appelées « #centres_de_transit ». Un terme amical, efficace, pratique, comme la zone de transit d’un aéroport où les voyageurs changent d’avion. Un terme inventé par les mêmes personnes qui désignent le fait d’échapper à la guerre et à la pauvreté comme du « #tourisme_d’asile ». Les responsables politiques de l’UE sont encore indécis quant à la terminologie de leurs camps. On a pu lire le terme de « #centres_de_protection » mais aussi celui de « #plateformes_d’atterrissage_et_de_débarquement », ce qui fait penser à une aventure et à un voyage en mer.

      Tout cela est du #vernis_linguistique. La réalité est que l’Europe en est maintenant à créer des camps fermés et surveillés pour des personnes qui n’ont pas commis de crime. Les camps vont devenir quelque chose qui s’inscrit dans le quotidien, quelque chose de normal. Si possible dans des endroits lointains et horribles, si nécessaire sur place. Enfermer, compter, enregistrer.

      #shopping_de_l'asile #normalisation

    • L’#Autriche veut proscrire toute demande d’asile sur le territoire de l’Union européenne

      A la veille d’une réunion, jeudi, entre les ministres de l’intérieur de l’UE sur la question migratoire, Vienne déclare vouloir proposer un changement des règles d’asile pour que les demandes soient étudiées hors d’Europe.

      https://mobile.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2018/07/10/l-autriche-veut-proscrire-toute-demande-d-asile-sur-le-territoire-de-

    • Record deaths at sea: will ‘regional disembarkation’ help save lives?
      ❝What is the aim of European policy on Mediterranean migration?

      Europe’s strategic ambition is clear: reduce the number of people who embark on journeys across the Mediterranean by boat. The more European countries struggle to share responsibility for those who are rescued at sea and brought to Europe, the stronger the desire to dissuade migrants from getting on a boat in the first place. Moreover, stemming the departures is said to be the only way of reducing the death toll.

      The challenge, as the European Council put it, is to ‘eliminate the incentive to embark’ on journeys across the Mediterranean. And the new migration agreement proposes a solution: setting up ‘regional disembarkation platforms’ outside the European Union. The logic is that if people rescued at sea are sent back to the coast they left, nobody will take the risk and pay the cost of getting on smugglers’ boats.
      Would this even work?

      Addressing the challenges of irregular migration is truly difficult. Still, it is baffling how the proposal for regional disembarkation platforms is embroiled in contradictions. The agreement itself is scant on specifics, but the challenges will surface as the policy makers have to make key decisions about how these platforms would work.

      First, will they be entry points for seeking asylum in Europe? The agreement suggests that the platforms might play this role. But if the platforms are entry points to the European asylum procedure, they will attract thousands of refugees who currently have no other option to apply for asylum in Europe than paying smugglers to set out to sea.

      This scenario raises a second question: what will be the possible ways of accessing the platforms? If they are reserved for refugees who have paid smugglers and are rescued at sea, access to protection will be just as reliant on smugglers as it is today. But if anyone can come knocking on the gate to the platforms, without having to be rescued first, the asylum caseload would swell. Such an outcome would be unacceptable to EU member states. As a recent EC note remarked, ‘to allow individuals to “apply” for asylum outside the EU […] is currently neither possible nor desirable.

      These two questions lay out the basic scenarios for how the regional disembarkation platforms would operate. Thinking through these scenarios it’s not clear if these platforms can ever be workable. Moreover, putting these platforms in place directly contradicts the European Council’s stated objectives:

      – dissuading smuggling journeys
      – distinguishing individual cases in full respect of international law
      – not creating a pull factor

      How does this relate to broader EU policies on migration?

      In some way, regional disembarkation platforms are a logical next step along the course the EU has been pursuing for years now. To stop refugees and other migrants from reaching its shores, the EU has been using a multi-pronged approach. On the one hand, the bloc has increased the use of aid to tackle the ‘root causes’ of migration – the logic being that if potential migrants are given other opportunities (e.g. skills training), they will be deterred from leaving. Similarly, information campaigns targeting aspiring migrants seek to deter people from setting out on dangerous journeys.

      Another major focus has been that of externalisation of border management – basically shifting border management to countries outside the EU: a key component of the EU-Turkey Deal is Turkey agreeing to take back refugees who crossed into Greece. Externalisation serves two purposes: keeping migrants physically out of Europe, but also as a deterrence measure sending potential migrants the implicit message that it won’t be easy to come to Europe.

      Regional disembarkation platforms are part of this process of externalisation. But there are key differences that make this proposal more extreme than policies pursued so far. Other externalization measures have aimed at preventing potential asylum seekers from reaching the point where they become eligible to launch a claim in Europe. The platforms will apparently serve a different role, by enabling the physical return of asylum seekers who have become Europe’s responsibility after being rescued by European ships in international waters.
      What do we know about efforts to deter irregular migration?

      The dim outlook for regional disembarkation platforms reflects more general limitations of deterrence measures in migration policy. Using decades worth of data, Michael Clemens and colleagues have shown that along the US-Mexico border greater deterrence and enforcement efforts have only reduced irregular migration when accompanied by greater legal migration pathways. Research by ODI has shown that information about deterrence measures and anti-migration messages rarely featured in migrant decision-making process. We will explore this further in our upcoming MIGNEX research project, which includes large-scale analyses of the drivers of migration in ten countries of origin and transit.
      Blocking access to asylum is not a life-saving measure

      The European Council presents regional disembarkation platforms as a strategy for ‘preventing tragic loss of life’. The irony of this argument is that these platforms will only deter sea crossings if they are dead ends where people who are rescued at sea are barred from seeking asylum in Europe. It is difficult to see how such a setup would be legally feasible, or indeed, ‘in line with our principles and values’, as the Council states.

      If the legal obstacles were overcome, there may indeed be fewer deaths at sea. But some of the deaths would simply occur out of sight instead. Refugees flee danger. Blocking access to seeking asylum puts more lives at risk and cannot be justified as a measure to save lives at sea.

      For now, the European Council glosses over the dilemmas that the regional disembarkation platforms will create. Facing the realities of the situation would not make perfect solutions appear, but it would enable an open debate in search of a defensible and effective migration policy.


      $https://blogs.prio.org/2018/07/record-deaths-at-sea-will-regional-disembarkation-help-save-lives

    • Austrian Presidency document: “a new, better protection system under which no applications for asylum are filed on EU territory”

      A crude paper authored by the Austrian Presidency of the Council of the EU and circulated to other Member States’s security officials refers disparagingly to “regions that are characterised by patriarchal, anti-freedom and/or backward-looking religious attitudes” and calls for “a halt to illegal migration to Europe” and the “development of a new, better protection system under which no applications for asylum are filed on EU territory,” with some minor exceptions.

      See: Austrian Presidency: Informal Meeting of COSI, Vienna, Austria, 2-3 July 2018: Strengthening EU External Border Protection and a Crisis-Resistant EU Asylum System (pdf): http://www.statewatch.org/news/2018/jul/EU-austria-Informal-Meeting-%20COSI.pdf

      The document was produced for an ’Informal Meeting of COSI’ (the Council of the EU’s Standing Committee on Operational Cooperation on Internal Security) which took place on 2 and 3 July in Vienna, and the proposals it contains were the subject of numerous subsequent press articles - with the Austrian President one of the many who criticised the government’s ultra-hardline approach.

      See: Austrian president criticises government’s asylum proposals (The Local, link); Austrian proposal requires asylum seekers to apply outside EU: Profil (Reuters, link); Right of asylum: Austria’s unsettling proposals to member states (EurActiv, link)

      Some of the proposals were also discussed at an informal meeting of the EU’s interior ministers on Friday 13 July, where the topic of “return centres” was also raised. The Luxembourg interior minister Jean Asselborn reportedly said that such an idea “shouldn’t be discussed by civilized Europeans.” See: No firm EU agreement on Austrian proposals for reducing migration (The Local, link)

      The Austrian Presidency paper proposes:

      "2.1. By 2020

      By 2020 the following goals could be defined:

      Saving as many human lives as possible;
      Clear strengthening of the legal framework and the operational capabilities of FRONTEX with respect to its two main tasks: support in protecting the Union’s external border and in the field of return;
      Increasing countering and destruction of people smugglers’ and human traffickers‘ business models;
      Significant reduction in illegal migration;
      More sustainable and more effective return measures as well as establishment of instruments that foster third countries’ willingness to cooperate on all relevant aspects, including the fight against people smuggling, providing protection and readmission;
      Development of a holistic concept for a forward-looking migration policy (in the spirit of a “whole of government approach“) and a future European protection system in cooperation with third countries that is supported by all and does not overburden all those involved – neither in terms of resources nor with regard to the fundamental rights and freedoms they uphold.

      2.2. By 2025

      By 2025 the following goals could be realised:

      Full control of the EU’s external borders and their comprehensive protection have been ensured.
      The new, better European protection system has been implemented across the EU in cooperation with third countries; important goals could include:
      no incentives anymore to get into boats, thus putting an end to smuggled persons dying in the Mediterranean;
      smart help and assistance for those in real need of protection, i.e. provided primarily in the respective region;
      asylum in Europe is granted only to those who respect European values and the fundamental rights and freedoms upheld in the EU;
      no overburdening of the EU Member States’ capabilities;
      lower long-term costs;
      prevention of secondary migration.
      Based on these principles, the EU Member States have returned to a consensual European border protection and asylum policy.”

      And includes the following statements, amongst others:

      “...more and more Member States are open to exploring a new approach. Under the working title “Future European Protection System” (FEPS) and based on an Austrian initiative, a complete paradigm shift in EU asylum policy has been under consideration at senior officials’ level for some time now. The findings are considered in the “Vienna Process” in the context of which the topic of external border protection is also dealt with. A number of EU Member States, the EU Commission and external experts contribute towards further reflections and deliberations on these two important topics.”

      “...ultimately, there is no effective EU external border protection in place against illegal migration and the existing EU asylum system does not enable an early distinction between those who are in need of protection and those who are not.”

      “Disembarkment following rescue at sea as a rule only takes place in EU Member States. This means that apprehensions at sea not only remain ineffective (non-refoulement, examination of applications for asylum), but are exploited in people smugglers’ business models.”

      “Due to factors related to their background as well as their poor perspectives, they [smuggled migrants] repeatedly have considerable problems with living in free societies or even reject them. Among them are a large number of barely or poorly educated young men who have travelled to Europe alone. Many of these are particularly susceptible to ideologies that are hostile to freedom and/or are prone to turning to crime.

      As a result of the prevailing weaknesses in the fields of external border protection and asylum, it is to be expected that the negative consequences of past and current policies will continue to be felt for many years to come. As experience with immigration from regions that are characterised by patriarchal, anti-freedom and/or backward-looking religious attitudes has shown, problems related to integration, safety and security may even increase significantly over several generations.”

      See: Austrian Presidency: Informal Meeting of COSI, Vienna, Austria, 2-3 July 2018: Strengthening EU External Border Protection and a Crisis-Resistant EU Asylum System (pdf)

      http://www.statewatch.org/news/2018/jul/eu-austrian-pres-asylum-paper.htm

    • Libya rejects EU plan for refugee and migrant centres

      Blow to Italy as Tripoli snubs proposal to set up processing centres in Africa

      Libya has rejected a EU plan to establish refugee and migrant processing centres in the country, adding that it would not be swayed by any financial inducements to change its decision.

      The formal rejection by the Libyan prime minister, Fayez al-Sarraj, is a blow to Italy, which is regarded as being close to his Tripoli administration.

      In June, Italy proposed reception and identification centres in Africa as a means of resolving divisions among European governments.

      The impasse came as the EU said it was willing to work as a temporary crisis centre to oversee the distribution of refugees and migrants from ships landing in Europe from Libya. Italy has said it is not willing to open its ports and may even reject those rescued by the EU Sophia search and rescue mission, a position that has infuriated other EU states.

      Speaking to the German newspaper Bild, Serraj said: “We are absolutely opposed to Europe officially wanting us to accommodate illegal immigrants the EU does not want to take in.”

      He dismissed accusations that Libya’s coastguard had shot at aid workers in ships trying to rescue people from the Mediterranean.

      “We save hundreds of people off the coast of Libya every day – our ships are constantly on the move,” he said. In practice, Libya is already running detention camps, largely as holding pens, but they are not run as EU processing centres for asylum claims.

      European foreign ministers agreed at a meeting on Monday to do more to train the Libyan coastguard by setting up the EU’s own training team inside Libya.

      The European parliament president, Antonio Tajani, said after a trip to Niger, one of the chief funnels for people into Libya, that the EU needed to plough more money into the Sahel region to reduce the need to leave the area. He said the number of people reaching Libya from Niger was collapsing.

      Tajani said: “Until 2016, 90% of irregular migrants travelled through the Niger to Libya and Europe. In just two years, Niger reduced migration flows by 95%, from over 300,000 to about 10,000 in 2018.”

      He said he would host a European conference in Brussels in October to support democratic elections in Libya scheduled for December.

      At the same time, Italy is to host a further conference in Rome in September seen as a follow-on to a conference held in May by the French president, Emmanuel Macron, that led to a commitment to hold elections this year.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/20/libya-rejects-eu-plan-for-migrant-centres?CMP=Share_iOSApp_OtherSpeakin

    • UNHCR ed OIM discutono con la Commissione europea sulle piattaforme di sbarco, ma gli stati dicono no.

      Lunedì 30 luglio si svolgerà a Ginevra un incontro di rappresentanti dell’UNHCR e dell’OIM con la Commissione Europea per discutere sulle piattaforme di sbarco che Bruxelles vorrebbe imporre nei paesi di transito, come gli stati nordafricani, e negli stati di sbarco, soprattutto in Italia. Per selezionare rapidamente migranti economici e richiedenti asilo, e dunque procedere al respingimento immediato dei primi, senza alcuna garanzia di difesa, ed all’avvio delle procedure di asilo, per gli altri, senza alcuna garanzia di resettlement o di relocation ( ricollocazione) in un paese diverso da quello di primo ingresso. La Commissione dichiara che, soltanto dopo avere trovato un “approccio comune a livello europeo “, si rivolgeranno proposte ai paesi terzi. Gli stati nordafricani hanno però respinto in blocco questa proposta, e le autorità locali dei paesi di primo ingresso più interessati dagli sbarchi, confernano la loro opposizione a nuovi Hotspot. Le risorse previste per questa esternalizzazione delle frontiere sono ridicole. Per non parlare dei costi in termini di vite e di sfregio dei diritti umani.

      Un progetto che si salda strettamente con l’incremeno degli aiuti alla sedicente Guardia costiera “libica”, alla quale si affida già adesso, nella prassi quotidiana, un numero sempre più elevato di intercettazioni in acque internazionali, di fatto respingimenti collettivi, perchè realizzati con il coordinamento e l’assistenza di unità militari della Marina italiana che ha una base a Tripoli, nell’ambito della missione Nauras. Intanto la accresciuta assistenza italiana alla Marina ed alla Guardia costiera di Tripoli rischia di contribuire all’inasprimento del conflitto tra le diverse milizie ed allontana le probabilità di una reale pacificazione, premessa indispensabile per lo svolgimento delle elezioni. Le stesse milizie che continuano a trattenere in Libia, in condizioni disumane, centinaia di migliaia di persone.

      Dietro la realizzazione delle “piattaforme di sbarco” in Nordafrica, proposte anche dal Consiglio europeo del 28 giugno scorso, il ritiro dalle responsabilità di coordinamento dei soccorsi in acque internazionali da parte degli stati che fin qui ne sono stati responsabili in conformità al diritto internazionale generalmente riconosciuto. Per ragioni diverse, nè la Tunisia, ne la Libia, possono essere riconosciuti come “paesi terzi sicuri” con porti di sbarco che siano qualificabili come place of safety. Come avveniva fino a qualche mese fa, secondo il diritto internazionale, dopo i soccorsi in acque internazionali, i naufraghi vanno sbarcati non nel porto più vicino, na nel porto sicuro più vicino. Ma questa regola, a partire dal caso della nave Aquarius di SOS Mediterraneè, il 10 giugno scorso, è stata continuamente violata dal governo italiano e dalle autorità amministrative e militari che questo governo controlla. Molto grave, ma prevedibile, il comportamento di chiusura da parte di Malta, che continua a trattenere sotto sequstro due navi umanitarie, la Lifeline e la Seawatch. Sempre più spesso le dispute tra stati che negano a naufraghi un porto sicuro di sbarco rischiano di fare altre vittime

      La soluzione che si prospetta adesso con la nave SAROST 5,dopo gli appelli delle ONG tunisine, lo sbarco a Zarzis dei migranti soccorsi il 15 luglio, un caso eccezionale ben diverso da altri soccorsi operati in precedenza in acque internazionali, non costituisce un precedente, perchè la SAROST 5 batte bandiera tunisina. Dunque i naufraghi a bordo della nave si trovavano già in territorio tunisino subito dopo il loro recupero in mare. In futuro, quando i soccorsi in acque internazionali saranno comunque operati da imbarcazioni miitari o private ( incluse le ONG) con diversa bandiera, il problema del porto sicuro di sbarco si proporrà in termini ancora più gravi, con un ulteriore incremento delle vittime e delle sofferenze inflitte ai sopravvissuti, a fronte dei dinieghi degli stati che non rispettano il diritto internazionale ed impediscono la individuazione, nei tempi più rapidi, di un vero “place of safety”.

      Nel 2013 il caso del mercantile turco SALAMIS, che sotto cooordinamento della Centrale operativa (IMRCC) di Roma, aveva soccorso naufraghi a sud di Malta, in acque internazionali, si era concluso con lo sbarco in Italia, in conformità del diritto internazionale. Con lo sbarco dei migranti soccorsi dalla SAROST 5 nel porto di Zarzis,in Tunisia, per ragioni di emergenza sanitaria, si consuma invece una ennesima violazione del diritto internazionale, dopo i rifiuti frapposti dalle autorità italiane e maltesi. Stati che creano sofferenze, come strumento politico e di propaganda, fino al punto da costringere i comandanti delle navi a dichiarare lo stato di emergenza. Alla fine il governo tunisino, nel giorno della fiducia al governo e dell’insediamento del nuovo ministro dell’interno, ha ceduto alle pressioni internazionali, ed ha accettato per ragioni umanitarie lo sbarco di persone che da due settimane erano bloccate a bordo di un rimorchiatore di servizio ad una piattaforma petrolifera, in condizioni psico-fisiche sempre più gravi. Un trattamento inumano e degradante imposto da quelle autorità e di quegli stati che, immediatamente avvertiti dal comandante della SAROST 5 quando ancora si trovava in acque internazionali, hanno respinto la richiesta di garantire in tempi più rapidi ed umani un porto di sbarco sicuro.

      Di fronte al probabile ripetersi di altri casi di abbandono in acque internazionali, con possibili pressioni ancora più forti sulla Tunisia, è importante che l’UNHCR e l’OIM impongano agli stati membri ed all’Unione Europea il rispetto del diritto internazionale e l’obbligo di soccorso in mare, nel modo più immediato. Le prassi amministraive di “chiusura dei porti” non sono sorrette ada alcuna base legale, e neppure sono concretizzate in provvedimenti amministrativi, motivati ed impugnabili davanti ad una qualsiasi autorità giurisdizionale. Non si può continuare a governare tratendo in inganno il corpo elettorale, distorcendo persino le posizioni delle grandi organizzazioni internazionali. Fino ad un mese fa sia l’UNHCR che l’OIM avevano respinto la proposta della Commissione che voleva creare piattaforme di sbarco al di fuori dei confini europei. Una proposta che adesso viene ripresentata con vigore ancora maggiore, sotto la presidenza UE affidata all’Austria di Kurz, con la spinta di Orban e di Salvini verso la “soluzione finale” verso migranti ed ONG.

      Le Nazioni Unite conoscono bene la situazione in Libia. Occorre garantire a tutti i naufraghi soccorsi in acque internazionali un porto sicuro di sbarco, che non deve essere quello più vicino, se non offre la piena garanzia di una tutela effettiva dei diritti fondamentali e del diritto di chiedere asilo delle persone sbarcate. Non basta la presenza fisica di operatori dell’UNHCR e dell’OIM in alcuni punti di sbarco, come si sta verificando da mesi in Tripolitania, per riconoscere l’esistenza di un place of safety in paesi che anche secondo le grandi istituzioni internazionali, come per i tribunali italiani, non sono in grado di garantire place of safety in conformità alle Convenzioni internazionali.

      Se si dovesse decidere di riportare i migranti intercettati in acque internazionali e sbarcati nei paesi nordafricani, ammesso che posa succedere( anche se i migranti considerati “illegali” in Nordafrica saranno costretti a firmare una richiesta di resettlement, se non di rimpatrio volontario), magari per essere riportati indietro in un campo profughi in Niger, sarebbero violati i principi base di protezione delle persone, in quanto eseri umani, ai quali si ispirano le Convenzioni internazionali e la Costituzione italiana. La Convenzione di Ginevra non esclude il diritto dei richeidenti asilo a rivolgersi ad paese piuttosto che ad un altro. L’evacuazione dalle aree di crisi non esclude il diritto di accesso alle frontiere di un paese europeo perchè la richiesta di asilo sua valutata con le garanzie sostanziali e procedurali previste dalla normativa interna e sovranazionale.

      Se l’UNHCR e l’OIM cederanno alle pressioni dei governi, diventeranno complici degli abusi che i migranti continuano a subire nei paesi del nordafrica nei quali vengono respinti e detenuti.

      Le Organizzazioni non governative che, insieme ai naufraghi che soccorrono, continuano ad essere bersaglio di una campagna di odio che non accenna ad attenuarsi, continueranno, nei limiti dei propri mezzi a denunciare quanto accade ed a soccorrere le persone che in acque internazionali potranno raggiungere prima che facciano naufragio. La loro attività di ricerca e salvataggio appare tuttavia fortemente ridotta, anche per la illegittima “chiusura dei porti” decisa dal governo italiano, in assenza di qualsiasi provvedimento che ne fornisca una base legale, tale almeno da potere essere impugnato. Una lesione forse irreversibile dello stato di diritto (rule of law) alle frontiere marittime.Una responsabilità ancora maggiore per le autorità militari alle quali sarebbe affidato il coordinamento delle attività di ricerca e soccorso in mare (SAR). La percentuale delle vittime calcolate sul numero dei migranti che ancora riescono a fuggire dalla Libia non è mai stata tanto alta. Non si deve ridurre il valore del rispetto della vita umana alla riduzione numerica degli arrivi o dei soccorsi in mare.

      Dietro la conclamata esigenza di contrastare i trafficanti si cela una micidiale arma elettorale che sta permettendo il capovolgimento della narrazione dei fatti e la criminalizzazione della solidarietà. Il ruolo delle città dell’accoglienza e dei rappresentanti politici che ancora si oppongono a questa deriva disumana contro i migranti e le ONG, devono passare dalle parole ai fatti e dare concretezza alle dichiarazioni di solidarietà ed all’impegno di aprire i porti, ed aprire le città. Tutti i cittadini solidali sono chiamati ad esporsi in prima persona, saldando il ruolo delle autonomie locali con la capacità di autorganizzazione. Sarà una stagione lunga e dolorosa di conflitto, senza una rappresentanza polkitica capace di praticare una vera opposizione. Ma non ci sono possibilità di mediazione con chi dimostra di valutare una parte dell’umanità come “untermenschen” ( sottouomini), praticando l’abbandono in mare ed il respingimento collettivo verso luoghi di internamento e tortura, in modo da creare le premesse per una discriminazione istituzionale che nei territori si sta già traducendo in una violenza diffusa contro i più deboli. Oggi tocca ai migranti, dai naufraghi a quelli accolti nei centri in Italia, domani saranno nel mirino le componenti minoritarie dell’intera popolazione.

      https://www.a-dif.org/2018/07/29/unhcr-ed-oim-discutono-con-la-commissione-europea-sulle-piattaforme-di-sbarco

    • Libya rejects establishment of reception centres for irregular migrants on its territory

      Foreign Minister of the Presidential Council’s government Mohamed Sayala said Libya refuses the idea of setting up reception centres for irregular migrants on its territory, as did Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco.

      “The country’s immigrant housing centres are sheltering around 30,000 immigrants, and Libya has cooperated with the European Union to return migrants to their countries of origin, but some countries refused to receive them,” Sayala said to the Austrian newspaper Die Presse.

      “Libya has signed agreements with Chad, Niger and Sudan to enhance the security of the crossing borders in order to curb the flow of migrants,” the Foreign Minister added.

      https://www.libyaobserver.ly/inbrief/libya-rejects-establishment-reception-centres-irregular-migrants-its-t

    • Juncker says N.Africa migrant “camps” not on EU agenda

      European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said on Friday that a suggestion that the European Union might try to set up migrant camps in North Africa was no longer on the agenda.

      EU member states are in disagreement over how the bloc should deal with tens of thousands of migrants arriving every year in Europe, the bulk of them by sea from Turkey and North Africa.

      In June, a summit of all EU leaders asked the Commission to study ways to set up “regional disembarkation platforms” in North African countries, including Tunisia, for migrants rescued by European vessels in the Mediterranean.

      However, there has been little appetite in Africa and EU officials have long questioned the legality and practicality of such camps — a view underlined in Juncker’s blunt reply.

      “This is no longer on the agenda and never should have been,” Juncker told a news conference in Tunis with Tunisian Prime Minister Youssef Chahed.

      http://news.trust.org/item/20181026131801-1t7he

    • Juncker says North Africa migrant ’camps’ not on EU agenda

      European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said on Friday that a suggestion that the European Union might try to set up migrant camps in North Africa was no longer on the agenda.

      EU member states are in disagreement over how the bloc should deal with tens of thousands of migrants arriving every year in Europe, the bulk of them by sea from Turkey and North Africa.

      In June, a summit of all EU leaders asked the Commission to study ways to set up “regional disembarkation platforms” in North African countries, including Tunisia, for migrants rescued by European vessels in the Mediterranean.

      However, there has been little appetite in Africa and EU officials have long questioned the legality and practicality of such camps — a view underlined in Juncker’s blunt reply.

      “This is no longer on the agenda and never should have been,” Juncker told a news conference in Tunis with Tunisian Prime Minister Youssef Chahed.


      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-africa/juncker-says-north-africa-migrant-camps-not-on-eu-agenda-idUSKCN1N01TU

    • Refugee centers in Tunisia ’out of the question’, president says

      The Tunisian President, Beji Caid Essebsi, has said his country will not host EU refugee reception centers. He also told DW that Tunisia was a safe country, despite a terrorist attack in the capital earlier this week.

      President Essebsi made the statement in Berlin, where he attended Chancellor Angela Merkel’s African business summit. In an interview with DW’s Dima Tarhini, the 91-year-old leader said opening refugee reception centers in countries such as Tunisia was “out of the question.”

      “Tunisia has much more experience with refugees than many European countries. After the Libyan revolution, more than 1.3 million refugees from various countries streamed into Tunisia. Fortunately, most of them returned to their home countries with our help. Europe has never experienced anything comparable. And we, unlike Europe, do not have the capacities to open reception centers. Every country needs to pull its own weight on this issue.”

      The European Union wants greater cooperation on migration with North African nations Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Niger and Morocco. Earlier this year, the EU migration commissioner announced a plan for a “regional disembarkation scheme”. Under the proposed deal, African countries would host migrant screening centers to process refugee claims. The Tunisian government has already expressed opposition to the idea.

      Despite terrorism, a ’safe country’

      During President Essebsi’s visit to Berlin, a 30-year-old woman blew herself up with a homemade bomb in the Tunisian capital, injuring at least eight people.

      “We thought we had eradicated terrorism, but it turns out that it still exists and that it can strike in the heart of the capital,” President Essebsi said in a statement to the press.

      The suicide attack led to renewed questions about whether Tunisia should be considered a safe country of origin for asylum seekers.

      Tarhini: In Germany, in the context of repatriating asylum-seekers, it has been questioned just how safe Tunisia really is. Tunisia is considered a safe North African country. What is your opinion on this?

      Beji Caid Essebsi: "Tunisia is a safe country; that is the truth. It is much safer than many other countries. Regarding refugees and the problem that they pose for Europe and other regions: Tunisia guarantees the freedom of its citizens, no matter what their conduct. If Tunisians abroad do something wrong and are sent back, then we will take them in. But not citizens of other countries.

      http://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/13062/refugee-centers-in-tunisia-out-of-the-question-president-says?ref=tw
      #Tunisie
      ping @_kg_

    • Les plateformes de débarquement pour migrants enterrées ?

      « Les Plateformes de débarquement en Afrique ne sont plus à l’ordre du jour et n’auraient jamais dû l’être », a déclaré le président de la Commission européenne Juncker, ce 26 octobre, lors d’une conférence de presse à Tunis avec le Premier ministre tunisien, Youssef Chahed .

      Etonnant ? Rembobinons la bande-son 4 mois en arrière...

      Les plateformes de débarquement sont une proposition de la Commission européenne faite, à Bruxelles, le 28 juin lors d’un Conseil européen. Son objectif était d’empêcher l’arrivée des personnes migrantes, dites irrégulières, sur le sol européen. Comment ? En les bloquant, en amont, dans des centres fermés, le temps d’examiner leur profil et demande. Et en y débarquant systématiquement les naufragés repêchés en Méditerranée. Ces plates-formes seraient situées sur les côtes africaines notamment en Tunisie et au Maroc. L’Egypte a été également évoquée.

      Cette proposition s’inscrivait dans l’approche dominante de « l’externalisation » de la gestion des frontières prônée de façon croissante par les institutions européennes et ses membres depuis une vingtaine d’années. Depuis 2015, cette approche constitue l’une des orientations majeures des politiques migratoires européennes.

      Pourquoi dès lors, la Commission fait-elle marche arrière quant à ce projet ? Plusieurs raisons peuvent être avancées.

      La première réside dans le fait que cette approche n’atteint pas ses objectifs (endiguer les départs et augmenter les expulsions des personnes en situation irrégulière). Il suffit de voir la situation dans les hotspots d’Italie et de Grèce depuis 2015. A Moria, sur l’île de Lesbos, MSF parle de crise humanitaire due au surpeuplement, aux infrastructures et conditions d’accueil déplorables, ainsi qu’à l’insécurité mettant à mal l’ensemble des droits fondamentaux des personnes, notamment ceux des femmes et des mineurs. Les plus vulnérables se retrouvent dans un cul-de-sac.
      « Moria est devenu pour beaucoup un lieu de transit prolongé le temps que leur demande d’asile soit étudiée », souligne Dimitris Vafeas, le directeur adjoint du camp de Moria. D’autres exemples sont ceux du Niger ou encore de la Libye qui laissent les personnes migrantes dans une situation « d’encampement » permanent ou d’errance circulaire sans fin, faute de voies légales de migrations.

      La seconde explication trouve sa source dans le fait que cette approche ne respecte pas le droit international. En effet, d’une part, selon la Convention de Genève, chacun a le droit de quitter son pays et de demander l’asile dans un pays où sa sécurité sera assurée. Le droit international, s’il autorise un pays à refuser l’immigration, prohibe l’instauration du délit d’émigration : la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme stipule ainsi en son article 13 le droit de « quitter tout pays y compris le sien ». De plus, le droit maritime prévoit que tout naufragé sauvé en mer doit être conduit vers le port proche le plus sûr, ce qui implique que les personnes rescapées au large des côtes européennes doivent y être conduite. Enfin, plusieurs pays, à commencer par la Libye, ne représentent en aucun cas des « lieux sûrs », au regard des conditions auxquelles y font face les migrants. Même au Maroc, il y a quelques semaines, le GADEM, association marocaine de défense des droits de l’homme, sortait un rapport dramatique faisant état des violences multiples qu’encourent les personnes migrantes au Maroc.

      La troisième raison est que la majorité des pays en développement ne veulent pas entendre parler de ces plates-formes. Ils accueillent déjà 85 % des personnes réfugiées alors que l’Europe n’en accueille que 6%. Les pays africains tentent donc de faire bloc afin d’installer un rapport de force face aux Européens. Ils savent qu’ils sont désormais des acteurs incontournables du dossier migratoire sur la scène internationale. Cependant, les sommes mises sur la table, tels que les budgets de l’APD, risquent à terme d’effriter ce bloc d’argile, même si ces montants doivent être mis en regard des transferts des diasporas (remittances), nettement plus importants et qui rendent donc les dirigeants des pays d’origine enclins à favoriser les migrations.

      Il est donc temps, vu cet échec, que la Commission européenne change de cap et axe ses politiques non pas sur l’externalisation des questions de l’asile et de la migration, mais sur le renforcement de la solidarité intra-européenne dans l’accueil et sur la mise en œuvre de nouvelles voies sûre et légales de migration. Cela lui permettrait, enfin, de respecter le droit international et de consacrer son APD à la réalisation des Objectifs de développement plutôt qu’à la lutte contre les migrations, fussent-elles irrégulières.

      https://www.cncd.be/Les-plateformes-de-debarquement

    • L’UE bat partiellement en retraite sur les hotspots en Afrique

      Le Conseil voulait débarquer les migrants sauvés en Méditerranée sur les côtes africaines. Face à l’opposition des États africains, le projet a été abandonné, mais l’UE fait toujours pression sur les pays de transit.

      Au sommet du Conseil de juin dernier, les dirigeants européens ont demandé à la Commission d’étudier la possibilité d’instaurer des « plateformes de débarquement régionales » en Afrique, afin d’y envoyer les migrants repêchés par des bateaux européens en Méditerranée.

      L’initiative a tourné court. Dans les jours qui ont suivi le sommet, le Maroc et l’Union africaine se sont mobilisés pour assurer un rejet généralisé des « hotspots » sur les territoires africains.

      Nasser Bourita, le ministre marocain aux Affaires étrangères, a accusé les dirigeants européens de réagir de manière excessive, et souligné que le nombre de migrants tentant d’entrer en Europe a largement chuté. À ce jour, ils sont 80 000 à être arrivés cette année, contre 300 000 en 2016.

      La société civile s’est aussi opposée au projet, estimant que ces camps de migrants seraient contraires aux engagements de l’UE en termes de droits de l’Homme.

      Lors d’une visite en Tunisie le 26 octobre, Jean-Claude Juncker, président de la Commission européenne, a assuré que l’UE ne tentait pas de mettre en place des camps de réfugiés dans le nord de l’Afrique. « Ce n’est plus au programme, et ça n’aurait jamais dû l’être », a-t-il indiqué lors d’une conférence de presse avec le Premier ministre tunisien, Youssef Chahed.

      Une semaine après, la porte-parole de la Commission, Natasha Bertaud, a expliqué que l’exécutif européen préférait à présent parler d’« arrangements de débarquement régionaux ». L’UE a donc commencé à préparer des accords spécifiques avec chacun des pays concernés, dont un échange de financements contre un meilleur contrôle migratoire. Le but est ainsi d’empêcher les migrants d’arriver en Europe.

      Accords en négociations

      Depuis le mois de septembre, des discussions sont en cours entre Bruxelles et le gouvernement égyptien d’Abdel Fattah al-Sissi. Un accord « cash contre migrants » devrait être finalisé avant le sommet UE-Ligue arabe qui aura lieu en février au Caire.

      S’il parait évident que l’Europe ne répétera pas son offre de 4 milliards à la Turquie, l’Égypte devrait demander une aide considérable et des prêts avantageux en échange d’un durcissement du contrôle migratoire. Des accords similaires devraient être conclus avec le Maroc, la Tunisie et la Libye.

      Le timing n’est pas dû au hasard, puisque Abdel Fattah al-Sissi succédera en janvier au Rwandais Paul Kagame à la présidence de l’Union africaine, et que le sommet de février sera centré sur l’immigration.

      Ce n’est pourtant pas parce que l’idée des « hotspots » a été abandonnée que les pays africains échappent aux pressions européennes.

      Le 1er novembre, Reuters indiquait que le ministère marocain des Affaires étrangères avait mis en place une nouvelle obligation pour les ressortissants du Congo Brazzaville, de Guinée et du Mali, qui devront à présent demander un permis de voyage quatre jours avant leur arrivée au Maroc. La plupart des migrants espérant atteindre l’Europe via le Maroc sont guinéens ou maliens.

      L’Espagne fait en effet pression sur Rabat pour réduire le nombre d’arrivées de migrants, notamment via ses enclaves de Ceuta et Melilla.

      Redéfinitions à venir

      Par ailleurs, les conditions de renvoi des migrants seront redéfinies dans le texte qui remplacera l’accord de Cotonou, mais il est clair que l’Europe ne voudra pas les rendre plus strictes. Les discussions entre l’UE et les pays d’Afrique, des Caraïbes et du Pacifique, viennent de commencer.

      L’accord, qui expire en 2020, prévoit que les États africains réintègrent les migrants qui n’obtiennent pas l’autorisation de rester en Europe, une mesure qui n’a cependant pas été mise en pratique. « Les dirigeants africains ne respecteront jamais ces articles sur la migration », indique une source proche des négociations.

      L’Union africaine n’est pas parvenue à unir ses membres pour négocier le successeur de l’accord de Cotonou sur la base d’une position commune face à l’UE, mais les avis sont plus convergents sur la question migratoire. Selon une représentante de la société civile, son plan d’action sur l’immigration est « l’un des meilleurs documents sur la migration ».

      Contrairement à l’UE, divisée entre des pays plutôt accueillants et d’autres comme la Hongrie, la Pologne ou l’Italie, qui défendent des règles extrêmement strictes, les membres de l’Union africaine sont sur la même longueur d’onde sur le sujet. « L’UE n’est pas en position de négocier sur l’immigration, mais l’Union africaine l’est », conclut cette même source.

      Pour montrer à ses citoyens qu’elle agit, l’UE pourrait donc finir par mettre en place des arrangements de contrôle migratoire fragmentés et chers.

      https://www.euractiv.fr/section/migrations/news/eu-lowers-its-ambitions-on-african-migration-control