• Greece: Government Hit with Interim Measures and Introducing New List of Safe Country of Origin

    The Greek government adopted on January 4 a Joint Ministerial Decision that declares twelve countries as safe countries of origin. This includes Albania, Algeria, Armenia, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, India, Morocco, Senegal, Togo, Tunisia and Ukraine.

    Introducing a list of safe countries of origin is one measure foreseen by the new International Protection Act (IPA) which has been heavily criticised for introducing several restrictions on individual rights and procedural guarantees in the Greek asylum system. Article 83(9) IPA foresees that applicants originating from a safe country of origin are subject to accelerated procedures.

    Until last week, there was no national list of safe countries in Greece and the rules relating to safe countries of origin in Greek law were not applied in practice.

    https://reliefweb.int/report/greece/greece-government-hit-interim-measures-and-introducing-new-list-safe-coun
    #pays-sûrs #liste #Grèce #pays_sûrs #Albanie #Algérie #Arménie #Gambie #Géorgie #Ghana #Inde #Maroc #Sénégal #Togo #Tunisie #Ukraine #asile #migrations #réfugiés

  • A Dakar, l’immigration s’invite dans les débats entre gouvernements français et sénégalais

    Après une longue séquence polémique dans l’hexagone, le thème de l’immigration s’est invité dimanche au 4e séminaire intergouvernemental entre la France et le Sénégal à Dakar, où Edouard Philippe est arrivé pour s’entretenir aussi avec le président Macky Sall de la lutte antijihadiste au Sahel.

    Deux ans après la dernière édition de ces rencontres de haut niveau, à Matignon, M. Philippe et six de ses ministres sont arrivés dimanche dans la capitale sénégalaise pour nourrir la relation « singulière » entre les deux pays, dixit le chef du gouvernement.

    Quatre feuilles de route sont sur la table de ce séminaire : elles portent sur les enjeux de sécurité et de défense ; l’éducation, la jeunesse et la formation ; l’émergence du Sénégal ; la mobilité et la migration.

    Sept semaines après un débat au Parlement français sur l’immigration voulu par Emmanuel Macron, qui a notamment abouti à de nouvelles mesures concernant l’offre de soins et la future instauration de quotas d’immigration professionnelle, l’issue des négociations entre les deux gouvernements sera attendue.

    « La migration doit être choisie et non subie, telle est notre conviction », a résumé M. Philippe, qui a été accueilli à la mi-journée par M. Sall au palais présidentiel.

    Selon Matignon, « la pression venant du Sénégal », pays à la fois de départ et de transit, « reste élevée » sur l’immigration irrégulière, alors que le pays est jugé « sûr ».

    « Le Sénégal est au 15e rang des nationalités interpellées pour les 9 premiers mois de l’année 2019 », assure-t-on encore de même source, tout en notant que les demandes d’asile ont augmenté de « plus de 50% » l’an passé.

    Parmi les leviers dont dispose la France, l’aide publique au développement, dont le budget total doit atteindre 0,55% du PIB en 2022. Environ 2 milliards d’euros de cette aide ont été distribués au Sénégal depuis 2007 : des « efforts » qui doivent « produire des résultats sur l’immigration irrégulière », souligne Matignon.

    « La coopération entre nos deux pays est bonne mais elle peut encore s’améliorer dans la logique d’engagement réciproque », a insisté M. Philippe dimanche.

    Concernant l’immigration légale, Matignon salue la « vraie dynamique », « de l’ordre de 7% », d’admission d’étudiants sénégalais (12.500 en 2019) dans l’enseignement supérieur français.

    – Trois patrouilleurs vendus -

    M. Philippe a aussi mis en avant dimanche son souhait « d’augmenter le nombre de passeports talents », réservés aux étrangers disposant de certaines qualifications, « et de visas de circulation de longue durée ». Il s’est aussi engagé à réduire de moitié dès début 2020 les délais de traitement des demandes de visas.

    Sur le volet économique, alors que la France est le premier partenaire commercial et le premier investisseur étranger au Sénégal, un accord a été signé pour la vente de trois patrouilleurs hauturiers du groupe français Kership. Un contrat de plusieurs centaines de millions d’euros qui se double de la vente de missiles du groupe européen basé en France MBDA.

    La cérémonie comportera une dimension symbolique avec la restitution du sabre d’El Hadj Oumar Tall, un chef de guerre et érudit musulman qui a conquis au XIXe siècle un immense territoire à cheval sur le Sénégal, la Guinée et le Mali, et a lutté contre l’armée coloniale française.

    « Comment ne pas voir également dans ce sabre le sang que les tirailleurs sénégalais ont versé au côté des soldats français pour défendre notre pays », a souligné M. Philippe.

    Dans un contexte sécuritaire très dégradé au Sahel marqué par plusieurs attaques jihadistes, les questions militaires rebondiront lundi lors de l’ouverture du Forum international de Dakar sur la paix et la sécurité en Afrique.

    Le Sénégal, qui partage des frontières avec la Mauritanie et le Mali, « joue un rôle très important de c ?ur de réseau », estime-t-on à Matignon. Alors que les attaques menacent de se propager, le Sénégal, membre de la Mission des Nations unies au Mali (Minusma), fait office de « pôle de stabilité ».

    « Les terribles événements survenus au Mali depuis le début du mois de novembre montrent que les groupes qui se revendiquent de l’Etat islamique résistent encore et qu’il ne faut pas baisser la garde », a averti M. Philippe dimanche.

    Et Dakar, qui doit porter l’effectif de son armée de terre de 20.000 à 30.000 hommes d’ici à 2025 « a vocation à faire partie du partenariat pour la sécurité et la stabilité (au Sahel) annoncé lors du G7 de Biarritz » en août, dont « les modalités sont en cours d’élaboration », ajoute-t-on à Matignon. A ce titre, le Sénégal pourra apporter un soutien aux forces du G5 Sahel (Mali, Niger, Mauritanie, Tchad et Burkina Faso).

    https://www.courrierinternational.com/depeche/dakar-senegal-et-france-saccordent-pour-lutter-contre-limmigr

    #externalisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #externalisation #France #Sénégal #migration_choisie #migration_subie #pays_sûr #développement #étudiants #étudiants_sénégalais #passeports_talents #visas

    ajouté à la métaliste sur le lien entre migrations et développement :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/811609

  • Italy presents plan to accelerate expulsion of migrants

    Italy presented a scheme on Friday to accelerate the expulsion of migrants who have no right to stay in the country, cutting the time it takes to decide on whether an asylum seeker must return home.

    Immigration flows helped fuel the rise of Italy’s far-right League party, whose leader Matteo Salvini imposed a crackdown on arrivals while he was interior minister until August.

    Salvini closed Italy’s ports to migrant rescue ships, threatening the charities operating them with fines of up to 1 million euros ($1.10 million) if they tried to dock.

    After the League unexpectedly quit the government in a failed bid to trigger an early election, its former ally the 5-Star Movement formed a coalition with the center-left Democratic Party, ushering in a less aggressive approach to immigration.

    The new government has already agreed with four other EU states a scheme to distribute people saved in the Mediterranean, and it hopes its plan to send back those already in Italy will defuse accusations by Salvini that it is soft on immigration.

    “I do not believe that redistributing migrants to other European countries is the final solution”, 5-Star leader and Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio told a news conference.

    Under the new decree, the time to examine asylum requests of migrants who come from a list of 13 “safe” European and African countries, including Tunisia and Albania, will be reduced from two years to four months.

    If the request is rejected, the expulsion procedure will be immediately triggered.

    “More than one third of those who arrived in Italy in 2019 comes from these countries,” Di Maio said.

    Fewer than 8,000 migrants came to Italy by sea in 2019, down 62% from 2018 and down 92% compared to 2017, official data show. However, expulsions fell far short of Salvini’s electoral promises.

    The League leader said he would repatriate 100,000 migrants in his first year in power, followed by another 400,000 during the rest of his five-year term in office, but Interior Minister Luciana Lamorgese told parliament this month that only 5,244 people had been repatriated this year up to Sept 22.

    Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte welcomed the new plan as “a great step forward” and said he was confident it would produce more rapid repatriations.

    “Italy has always been inefficient in this,” Conte said.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-italy-expulsion/italy-presents-plan-to-accelerate-expulsion-of-migrants-idUSKBN1WJ1YH
    #Italie #expulsions #migrations #réfugiés #machine_à_expulser #sans-papiers #déboutés #renvois

    • Analyse de Matteo Villa sur twitter

      Oggi l’Italia ha varato una lista di 13 paesi considerati sicuri.

      Non significa che sarà più semplice rimpatriare, ma che aumenteranno ulteriormente gli stranieri irregolari presenti in Italia.

      Seguitemi, ve lo spiego.

      Cos’è successo.

      Con un decreto interministeriale è stata varata una lista di 13 paesi (NON “porti”, come è stato detto) considerati sicuri.

      L’azione è consentita dal #DecretoSicurezza (oggi legge), varato dal precedente Governo a ottobre dell’anno scorso.

      Quali sono i 13 paesi che sono stati designati come “sicuri”?

      Tutti quelli dei Balcani occidentali, l’Ucraina, e alcuni paesi dell’Africa settentrionale e subsahariana.

      Li trovate in arancione su questa mappa (il giallo ve lo spiego tra poco).

      Tra i paesi dell’Unione europea, altri 12 hanno una loro lista di “paesi sicuri”.
      Li trovate in blu scuro in questa carta.

      Oggi, il tredicesimo diventa l’Italia.

      Insomma, siamo in buona compagnia.

      Tornando alla carta del mondo, in arancione ho indicato i 13 paesi extra-europei designati come sicuri dall’Italia.

      In giallo, invece, trovate tutti i paesi designati come sicuri da almeno un altro paese UE, ma non da noi.

      Poteva andare molto peggio (Turchia, Nigeria, Etiopia).

      Cosa succede se designi un paese come sicuro?

      Chi chiede asilo in Italia possedendo la nazionalità di uno dei «paesi sicuri» avrà davanti a sé molti più ostacoli.

      Di fatto, aumenterà ulteriormente il tasso di diniego delle protezioni.

      La conseguenza? Aumentano gli irregolari.

      L’aumento degli irregolari sarà probabilmente piccolo rispetto all’effetto dell’abolizione della protezione umanitaria nel 2018.

      Ma andrà a complicare una situazione già molto precaria, anziché regolarizzare parte di chi oggi è qui e qui resterà.

      https://www.ispionline.it/it/pubblicazione/i-nuovi-irregolari-italia-21812

      Sì, ma i rimpatri?

      Sul fronte dei rimpatri, designare un paese come sicuro non cambia nulla.

      Se un paese terzo già collaborava con noi (per es.,
      🇹🇳
      Tunisia), continuerà a farlo.

      Se un paese terzo non collaborava (per es.,
      🇬🇭
      Ghana), continuerà a non farlo.

      Del resto, se c’entrassero in qualche modo i rimpatri sorgerebbe spontanea una domanda: perché includere nella lista dei «sicuri» paesi che, in media, hanno già un tasso di rimpatrio superiore rispetto a quelli esclusi dalla lista?

      La realtà è una: convincere i paesi dell’Africa subsahariana a collaborare sui rimpatri è difficile.

      L’Italia ha tassi in linea con quelli di altri grandi paesi, come Francia e Germania, che hanno «leve» (legami post-coloniali, commercio, aiuti) ben maggiori delle nostre.

      CONCLUSIONE.

      La lista di «paesi sicuri»:

      ☑️
      è consentita da un decreto adottato dal precedente governo;
      ☑️
      aumenterà il numero degli stranieri irregolari presenti in Italia;
      ☑️
      non avrà alcun effetto sui rimpatri.

      https://twitter.com/emmevilla/status/1180135437358243840?s=19
      #cartographie #visualisation #pays_sûrs #clandestinisation #illégalisation #statistiques #chiffres #Matteo_Villa

  • Accord de Malte

    Nelle bozze dell’accordo di Malta si chiede a chi fa soccorso in mare di «conformarsi alle istruzioni dei competenti Centri di Coordinamento del Soccorso», e di «non ostruire» le operazioni della «Guardia costiera libica».

    Primo: la formula vi suona già sentita?

    Già, quando l’anno scorso il governo italiano negoziò fino a tarda notte al Consiglio europeo di giugno, le conclusioni contenevano queste parole:

    «Le imbarcazioni (...) non devono ostruire le operazioni della Guardia costiera libica».

    Nella bozza dell’accordo di Malta si va persino oltre, perché alle imbarcazioni di ricerca e soccorso si chiedono due cose:

    (1) non ostruite la Guardia costiera libica;
    (2) conformatevi alle richieste dello RCC competente.

    Quanto all’ostruzione delle operazioni della Guardia costiera libica, non si ricorda un caso recente.

    Al contrario, è generalmente la Guardia costiera libica a usare comportamenti aggressivi.
    @VITAnonprofit metteva in fila un po’ di fatti nel 2017.

    http://www.vita.it/it/article/2017/11/08/mediterraneo-tutti-gli-attacchi-della-guardia-costiera-libica-alle-ong/145042

    Ovviamente, non è che la Guardia costiera libica sia sempre aggressiva. C’è chi fa il suo lavoro in maniera professionale, chi no.

    Il punto è un altro: spesso non sappiamo chi operi dove. Come spiega @lmisculin, la Guardia costiera libica non esiste: https://www.ilpost.it/2017/08/26/guardia-costiera-libica

    Passando al «conformarsi alle istruzioni dei competenti Centri di Coordinamento del Soccorso», il discorso diventa ancora più spinoso.

    Si arriva rapidamente a un paradosso clamoroso, consentito da un diritto internazionale che ha più buchi di un groviera.

    Questo: la Libia è l’unico paese al mondo ad avere costituito un proprio Centro di Coordinamento del Soccorso (a giugno 2018) e, allo stesso tempo, a non essere considerato da @Refugees
    un «luogo sicuro» per lo sbarco delle persone soccorse.

    Pensateci un attimo: se soccorro qualcuno in quel tratto di mare amplissimo che è la zona #SAR libica, il diritto internazionale mi obbliga a contattare lo RCC libico.

    Ma lo stesso diritto internazionale obbliga lo #RCC libico a NON INDICARE SÉ STESSO come luogo di sbarco!

    Cosa succede di solito, invece? Prendiamo #OceanViking.

    Il 17 settembre dopo un salvataggio, manda un’email allo RCC libico chiedendo un «luogo sicuro» di sbarco.

    Dopo diverse ore, dalla Libia rispondono: perfetto, venite da noi, ad al Khums.

    Sarebbe un respingimento.

    Non è un evento raro, anzi, accade costantemente: se e quando lo RCC libico risponde, indica un suo porto come «luogo sicuro».

    Da #OceanViking rispondono che non si può fare. Certo che no: sbarcare le persone in Libia sarebbe un respingimento.

    Notate l’estrema pazienza.

    In questa situazione di estrema incertezza, chiedere a chi effettua soccorsi nel tratto di mare in cui il coordinamento del soccorso è tecnicamente di competenza libica di «conformarsi» senza condizioni alle richieste di Tripoli rischia di legittimare i respingimenti.

    CONCLUSIONE /1.

    «Non ostruire» le operazioni della «Guardia costiera libica» è una richiesta corretta solo se molto qualificata.

    Dipende da molte condizioni, prima tra tutte di quale Guardia costiera libica stiamo parlando, e da come si stia comportando.

    CONCLUSIONE /2.

    Con il suo linguaggio tranchant, la bozza di Malta chiede a chi effettua un soccorso in zona SAR libica di «conformarsi» alle richieste libiche.

    Senza specificare altro, gli Stati europei stanno implicitamente chiedendo alle Ong di effettuare respingimenti.

    source : https://twitter.com/emmevilla/status/1177518357773307904?s=19
    #Matteo_Villa
    #accord_de_Malte #sauvetage #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #Méditerranée #gardes_côtes_libyens #Méditerranée #port_sûr #pays_sûr #mer_Méditerranée

    ping @isskein

  • Réfugiés : du #Niger à la #Dordogne

    La France a adhéré en 2017 à l’#Emergency_Transit_Mechanism, programme humanitaire exceptionnel permettant à des réfugiés évacués d’urgence de #Libye (reconnus « particulièrement vulnérables ») d’être pris en charge dès le Niger, et réinstallés dans des #pays_sûrs. Comment cela passe-t-il aujourd’hui ?

    De nouveaux naufrages cette semaine au large de la Libye nous rappellent à quel point est éprouvant et risqué le périple de ceux qui tentent de rejoindre l’Europe après avoir fui leur pays. Partagée entre des élans contradictoires, compassion et peur de l’invasion, les pays de l’Union européenne ont durci leur politique migratoire, tout en assurant garantir le droit d’asile aux réfugiés. C’est ainsi que la #France a adhéré à l’Emergency Transit Mechanism (#ETM), imaginé par le #HCR fin 2017, avec une étape de transit au Niger.

    Le Haut-Commissariat des Nations unies pour les Réfugiés (HCR) réinstalle chaque années des réfugiés présents dans ses #camps (Liban, Jordanie, Tchad ou encore Niger) dans des pays dits ‘sûrs’ (en Europe et Amérique du Nord). La réinstallation est un dispositif classique du HCR pour des réfugiés « particulièrement vulnérables » qui, au vu de la situation dans leur pays, ne pourront pas y retourner.

    Au Niger, où se rend ce Grand Reportage, cette procédure est accompagnée d’un dispositif d’#évacuation_d’urgence des #prisons de Libye. L’Emergency Transit Mechanism (ETM) a été imaginé par le HCR fin 2017, avec une étape de #transit au Niger. Nouvelle frontière de l’Europe, pour certains, le pays participe à la #sélection entre migrants et réfugiés, les migrants étant plutôt ‘retournés’ chez eux par l’Organisation Internationale des Migrants (#OIM).

    Sur 660 000 migrants et 50 000 réfugiés (placés sous mandat HCR) présents en Libye, 6 600 personnes devraient bénéficier du programme ETM sur deux ans.

    La France s’est engagé à accueillir 10 000 réinstallés entre septembre 2017 et septembre 2019. 7 000 Syriens ont déjà été accueillis dans des communes qui se portent volontaires. 3 000 Subsahariens, dont une majorité évacués de Libye, devraient être réinstallés d’ici le mois de décembre.

    En Dordogne, où se rend ce Grand Reportage, des communes rurales ont fait le choix d’accueillir ces réfugiés souvent abîmés par les violences qu’ils ont subis. Accompagnés pendant un an par des associations mandatées par l’Etat, les réfugiés sont ensuite pris en charge par les services sociaux locaux, mais le rôle des bénévoles reste central dans leur installation en France.

    Comment tout cela se passe-t-il concrètement ? Quel est le profil des heureux élus ? Et quelle réalité les attend ? L’accompagnement correspond-il à leurs besoins ? Et parviennent-ils à s’intégrer dans ces villages français ?

    https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/grand-reportage/refugies-du-niger-a-la-dordogne
    #audio #migrations #asile #réfugiés #réinstallation #vulnérabilité #retour_volontaire #IOM #expulsions #renvois #externalisation #tri #rural #ruralité #accueil
    ping @isskein @pascaline @karine4 @_kg_ @reka

    Ajouté à cette métaliste sur l’externalisation :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/731749#message765335

  • USA : Dublin façon frontière Mexique/USA

    Faute d’accord avec le #Guatemala (pour l’instant bloqué du fait du recours déposé par plusieurs membres de l’opposition devant la Cour constitutionnelle) et le #Mexique les désignant comme des « #pays_sûr », les USA ont adopté une nouvelle réglementation en matière d’#asile ( « #Interim_Final_Rule » - #IFR), spécifiquement pour la #frontière avec le Mexique, qui n’est pas sans faire penser au règlement de Dublin : les personnes qui n’auront pas sollicité l’asile dans un des pays traversés en cours de route avant d’arriver aux USA verront leur demande rejetée.
    Cette règle entre en vigueur aujourd’hui et permet donc le #refoulement de toute personne « who enters or attempts to enter the United States across the southern border, but who did not apply for protection from persecution or torture where it was available in at least one third country outside the alien’s country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence through which he or she transited en route to the United States. »
    Lien vers le règlement : https://www.dhs.gov/news/2019/07/15/dhs-and-doj-issue-third-country-asylum-rule
    Plusieurs associations dont ACLU (association US) vont déposer un recours visant à le faire invalider.
    Les USA recueillent et échangent déjà des données avec les pays d’Amérique centrale et latine qu’ils utilisent pour débouter les demandeurs d’asile, par exemple avec le Salvador : https://psmag.com/social-justice/homeland-security-uses-foreign-databases-to-monitor-gang-activity

    Reçu via email le 16.07.2019 de @pascaline

    #USA #Etats-Unis #Dublin #Dublin_façon_USA #loi #Dublin_aux_USA #législation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #El_Salvador

    • Trump Administration Implementing ’3rd Country’ Rule On Migrants Seeking Asylum

      The Trump administration is moving forward with a tough new asylum rule in its campaign to slow the flow of Central American migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. Asylum-seeking immigrants who pass through a third country en route to the U.S. must first apply for refugee status in that country rather than at the U.S. border.

      The restriction will likely face court challenges, opening a new front in the battle over U.S. immigration policies.

      The interim final rule will take effect immediately after it is published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, according to the departments of Justice and Homeland Security.

      The new policy applies specifically to the U.S.-Mexico border, saying that “an alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States across the southern border after failing to apply for protection in a third country outside the alien’s country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence through which the alien transited en route to the United States is ineligible for asylum.”

      “Until Congress can act, this interim rule will help reduce a major ’pull’ factor driving irregular migration to the United States,” Homeland Security acting Secretary Kevin K. McAleenan said in a statement about the new rule.

      The American Civil Liberties Union said it planned to file a lawsuit to try to stop the rule from taking effect.

      “This new rule is patently unlawful and we will sue swiftly,” Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU’s national Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement.

      Gelernt accused the Trump administration of “trying to unilaterally reverse our country’s legal and moral commitment to protect those fleeing danger.”

      The strict policy shift would likely bring new pressures and official burdens on Mexico and Guatemala, countries through which migrants and refugees often pass on their way to the U.S.

      On Sunday, Guatemala’s government pulled out of a meeting between President Jimmy Morales and Trump that had been scheduled for Monday, citing ongoing legal questions over whether the country could be deemed a “safe third country” for migrants who want to reach the U.S.

      Hours after the U.S. announced the rule on Monday, Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard said it was a unilateral move that will not affect Mexican citizens.

      “Mexico does not agree with measures that limit asylum and refugee status for those who fear for their lives or safety, and who fear persecution in their country of origin,” Ebrard said.

      Ebrard said Mexico will maintain its current policies, reiterating the country’s “respect for the human rights of all people, as well as for its international commitments in matters of asylum and political refuge.”

      According to a DHS news release, the U.S. rule would set “a new bar to eligibility” for anyone seeking asylum. It also allows exceptions in three limited cases:

      “1) an alien who demonstrates that he or she applied for protection from persecution or torture in at least one of the countries through which the alien transited en route to the United States, and the alien received a final judgment denying the alien protection in such country;

      ”(2) an alien who demonstrates that he or she satisfies the definition of ’victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons’ provided in 8 C.F.R. § 214.11; or,

      “(3) an alien who has transited en route to the United States through only a country or countries that were not parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol, or the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”

      The DHS release describes asylum as “a discretionary benefit offered by the United States Government to those fleeing persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.”

      The departments of Justice and Homeland Security are publishing the 58-page asylum rule as the Trump administration faces criticism over conditions at migrant detention centers at the southern border, as well as its “remain in Mexico” policy that requires asylum-seekers who are waiting for a U.S. court date to do so in Mexico rather than in the U.S.

      In a statement about the new rule, U.S. Attorney General William Barr said that current U.S. asylum rules have been abused, and that the large number of people trying to enter the country has put a strain on the system.

      Barr said the number of cases referred to the Department of Justice for proceedings before an immigration judge “has risen exponentially, more than tripling between 2013 and 2018.” The attorney general added, “Only a small minority of these individuals, however, are ultimately granted asylum.”

      https://www.npr.org/2019/07/15/741769333/u-s-sets-new-asylum-rule-telling-potential-refugees-to-apply-elsewhere

    • Le journal The New Yorker : Trump est prêt à signer un accord majeur pour envoyer à l’avenir les demandeurs d’asile au Guatemala

      L’article fait état d’un projet de #plate-forme_externalisée pour examiner les demandes de personnes appréhendées aux frontières US, qui rappelle à la fois une proposition britannique (jamais concrétisée) de 2003 de créer des processing centers extra-européens et la #Pacific_solution australienne, qui consiste à déporter les demandeurs d’asile « illégaux » de toute nationalité dans des pays voisins. Et l’article évoque la « plus grande et la plus troublante des questions : comment le Guatemala pourrait-il faire face à un afflux si énorme de demandeurs ? » Peut-être en demandant conseil aux autorités libyennes et à leurs amis européens ?

      –-> Message reçu d’Alain Morice via la mailling-list Migreurop.

      Trump Is Poised to Sign a Radical Agreement to Send Future Asylum Seekers to Guatemala

      Early next week, according to a D.H.S. official, the Trump Administration is expected to announce a major immigration deal, known as a safe-third-country agreement, with Guatemala. For weeks, there have been reports that negotiations were under way between the two countries, but, until now, none of the details were official. According to a draft of the agreement obtained by The New Yorker, asylum seekers from any country who either show up at U.S. ports of entry or are apprehended while crossing between ports of entry could be sent to seek asylum in Guatemala instead. During the past year, tens of thousands of migrants, the vast majority of them from Central America, have arrived at the U.S. border seeking asylum each month. By law, the U.S. must give them a chance to bring their claims before authorities, even though there’s currently a backlog in the immigration courts of roughly a million cases. The Trump Administration has tried a number of measures to prevent asylum seekers from entering the country—from “metering” at ports of entry to forcing people to wait in Mexico—but, in every case, international obligations held that the U.S. would eventually have to hear their asylum claims. Under this new arrangement, most of these migrants will no longer have a chance to make an asylum claim in the U.S. at all. “We’re talking about something much bigger than what the term ‘safe third country’ implies,” someone with knowledge of the deal told me. “We’re talking about a kind of transfer agreement where the U.S. can send any asylum seekers, not just Central Americans, to Guatemala.”

      From the start of the Trump Presidency, Administration officials have been fixated on a safe-third-country policy with Mexico—a similar accord already exists with Canada—since it would allow the U.S. government to shift the burden of handling asylum claims farther south. The principle was that migrants wouldn’t have to apply for asylum in the U.S. because they could do so elsewhere along the way. But immigrants-rights advocates and policy experts pointed out that Mexico’s legal system could not credibly take on that responsibility. “If you’re going to pursue a safe-third-country agreement, you have to be able to say ‘safe’ with a straight face,” Doris Meissner, a former commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, told me. Until very recently, the prospect of such an agreement—not just with Mexico but with any other country in Central America—seemed far-fetched. Yet last month, under the threat of steep tariffs on Mexican goods, Trump strong-armed the Mexican government into considering it. Even so, according to a former Mexican official, the government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador is stalling. “They are trying to fight this,” the former official said. What’s so striking about the agreement with Guatemala, however, is that it goes even further than the terms the U.S. sought in its dealings with Mexico. “This is a whole new level,” the person with knowledge of the agreement told me. “In my read, it looks like even those who have never set foot in Guatemala can potentially be sent there.”

      At this point, there are still more questions than answers about what the agreement with Guatemala will mean in practice. A lot will still have to happen before it goes into force, and the terms aren’t final. The draft of the agreement doesn’t provide much clarity on how it will be implemented—another person with knowledge of the agreement said, “This reads like it was drafted by someone’s intern”—but it does offer an exemption for Guatemalan migrants, which might be why the government of Jimmy Morales, a U.S. ally, seems willing to sign on. Guatemala is currently in the midst of Presidential elections; next month, the country will hold a runoff between two candidates, and the current front-runner has been opposed to this type of deal. The Morales government, however, still has six months left in office. A U.N.-backed anti-corruption body called the CICIG, which for years was funded by the U.S. and admired throughout the region, is being dismantled by Morales, whose own family has fallen under investigation for graft and financial improprieties. Signing an immigration deal “would get the Guatemalan government in the U.S.’s good graces,” Stephen McFarland, a former U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala, told me. “The question is, what would they intend to use that status for?” Earlier this week, after Morales announced that he would be meeting with Trump in Washington on Monday, three former foreign ministers of Guatemala petitioned the country’s Constitutional Court to block him from signing the agreement. Doing so, they said, “would allow the current president of the republic to leave the future of our country mortgaged, without any responsibility.”

      The biggest, and most unsettling, question raised by the agreement is how Guatemala could possibly cope with such enormous demands. More people are leaving Guatemala now than any other country in the northern triangle of Central America. Rampant poverty, entrenched political corruption, urban crime, and the effects of climate change have made large swaths of the country virtually uninhabitable. “This is already a country in which the political and economic system can’t provide jobs for all its people,” McFarland said. “There are all these people, their own citizens, that the government and the political and economic system are not taking care of. To get thousands of citizens from other countries to come in there, and to take care of them for an indefinite period of time, would be very difficult.” Although the U.S. would provide additional aid to help the Guatemalan government address the influx of asylum seekers, it isn’t clear whether the country has the administrative capacity to take on the job. According to the person familiar with the safe-third-country agreement, “U.N.H.C.R. [the U.N.’s refugee agency] has not been involved” in the current negotiations. And, for Central Americans transferred to Guatemala under the terms of the deal, there’s an added security risk: many of the gangs Salvadorans and Hondurans are fleeing also operate in Guatemala.

      In recent months, the squalid conditions at borderland detention centers have provoked a broad political outcry in the U.S. At the same time, a worsening asylum crisis has been playing out south of the U.S. border, beyond the immediate notice of concerned Americans. There, the Trump Administration is quietly delivering on its promise to redraw American asylum practice. Since January, under a policy called the Migration Protection Protocols (M.P.P.), the U.S. government has sent more than fifteen thousand asylum seekers to Mexico, where they now must wait indefinitely as their cases inch through the backlogged American immigration courts. Cities in northern Mexico, such as Tijuana and Juarez, are filling up with desperate migrants who are exposed to violent crime, extortion, and kidnappings, all of which are on the rise.This week, as part of the M.P.P., the U.S. began sending migrants to Tamaulipas, one of Mexico’s most violent states and a stronghold for drug cartels that, for years, have brutalized migrants for money and for sport.

      Safe-third-country agreements are notoriously difficult to enforce. The logistics are complex, and the outcomes tend not to change the harried calculations of asylum seekers as they flee their homes. These agreements, according to a recent study by the Migration Policy Institute, are “unlikely to hold the key to solving the crisis unfolding at the U.S. southern border.” The Trump Administration has already cut aid to Central America, and the U.S. asylum system remains in dire need of improvement. But there’s also little question that the agreement with Guatemala will reduce the number of people who reach, and remain in, the U.S. If the President has made the asylum crisis worse, he’ll also be able to say he’s improving it—just as he can claim credit for the decline in the number of apprehensions at the U.S. border last month. That was the result of increased enforcement efforts by the Mexican government acting under U.S. pressure.

      There’s also no reason to expect that the Trump Administration will abandon its efforts to force the Mexicans into a safe-third-country agreement as well. “The Mexican government thought that the possibility of a safe-third-country agreement with Guatemala had fallen apart because of the elections there,” the former Mexican official told me. “The recent news caught top Mexican officials by surprise.” In the next month, the two countries will continue immigration talks, and, again, Mexico will face mounting pressure to accede to American demands. “The U.S. has used the agreement with Guatemala to convince the Mexicans to sign their own safe-third-country agreement,” the former official said. “Its argument is that the number of migrants Mexico will receive will be lower now.”

      https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trump-poised-to-sign-a-radical-agreement-to-send-future-asylum-seekers-to
      #externalisation

    • After Tariff Threat, Trump Says Guatemala Has Agreed to New Asylum Rules

      President Trump on Friday again sought to block migrants from Central America from seeking asylum, announcing an agreement with Guatemala to require people who travel through that country to seek refuge from persecution there instead of in the United States.

      American officials said the deal could go into effect within weeks, though critics vowed to challenge it in court, saying that Guatemala is itself one of the most dangerous countries in the world — hardly a refuge for those fleeing gangs and government violence.

      Mr. Trump had been pushing for a way to slow the flow of migrants streaming across the Mexican border and into the United States in recent months. This week, the president had threatened to impose tariffs on Guatemala, to tax money that Guatemalan migrants in the United States send back to family members, or to ban all travel from the country if the agreement were not signed.

      Joined in the Oval Office on Friday by Interior Minister Enrique Degenhart of Guatemala, Mr. Trump said the agreement would end what he has described as a crisis at the border, which has been overwhelmed by hundreds of thousands of families fleeing violence and persecution in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala.
      Sign up for The Interpreter

      Subscribe for original insights, commentary and discussions on the major news stories of the week, from columnists Max Fisher and Amanda Taub.

      “These are bad people,” Mr. Trump told reporters after a previously unannounced signing ceremony. He said the agreement would “end widespread abuse of the system and the crippling crisis on our border.”

      Officials did not release the English text of the agreement or provide many details about how it would be put into practice along the United States border with Mexico. Mr. Trump announced the deal in a Friday afternoon Twitter post that took Guatemalan politicians and leaders at immigration advocacy groups by surprise.

      Kevin K. McAleenan, the acting secretary of homeland security, described the document signed by the two countries as a “safe third” agreement that would make migrants ineligible for protection in the United States if they had traveled through Guatemala and did not first apply for asylum there.

      Instead of being returned home, however, the migrants would be sent back to Guatemala, which under the agreement would be designated as a safe place for them to live.

      “They would be removable, back to Guatemala, if they want to seek an asylum claim,” said Mr. McAleenan, who likened the agreement to similar arrangements in Europe.
      Editors’ Picks
      Buying a Weekend House With Friends: Is It Really a Good Idea?
      Bob Dylan and the Myth of Boomer Idealism
      True Life: I Got Conned by Anna Delvey

      The move was the latest attempt by Mr. Trump to severely limit the ability of refugees to win protection in the United States. A new regulation that would have also banned most asylum seekers was blocked by a judge in San Francisco earlier this week.

      But the Trump administration is determined to do everything it can to stop the flow of migrants at the border, which has infuriated the president. Mr. Trump has frequently told his advisers that he sees the border situation as evidence of a failure to make good on his campaign promise to seal the border from dangerous immigrants.

      More than 144,200 migrants were taken into custody at the southwest border in May, the highest monthly total in 13 years. Arrests at the border declined by 28 percent in June after efforts in Mexico and the United States to stop migrants from Central America.

      Late Friday, the Guatemalan government released the Spanish text of the deal, which is called a “cooperative agreement regarding the examination of protection claims.” In an earlier statement announcing the agreement, the government had referred to an implementation plan for Salvadorans and Hondurans. It does not apply to Guatemalans who request asylum in the United States.

      By avoiding any mention of a “safe third country” agreement, President Jimmy Morales of Guatemala appeared to be trying to sidestep a recent court ruling blocking him from signing a deal with the United States without the approval of his country’s congress.

      Mr. Morales will leave office in January. One of the candidates running to replace him, the conservative Alejandro Giammattei, said that it was “irresponsible” for Mr. Morales to have agreed to an accord without revealing its contents first.

      “It is up to the next government to attend to this negotiation,” Mr. Giammattei wrote on Twitter. His opponent, Sandra Torres, had opposed any safe-third-country agreement when it first appeared that Mr. Morales was preparing to sign one.

      Legal groups in the United States said the immediate effect of the agreement will not be clear until the administration releases more details. But based on the descriptions of the deal, they vowed to ask a judge to block it from going into effect.

      “Guatemala can neither offer a safe nor fair and full process, and nobody could plausibly argue otherwise,” said Lee Gelernt, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who argued against other recent efforts to limit asylum. “There’s no way they have the capacity to provide a full and fair procedure, much less a safe one.”

      American asylum laws require that virtually all migrants who arrive at the border must be allowed to seek refuge in the United States, but the law allows the government to quickly deport migrants to a country that has signed a “safe third” agreement.

      But critics said that the law clearly requires the “safe third” country to be a truly safe place where migrants will not be in danger. And it requires that the country have the ability to provide a “full and fair” system of protections that can accommodate asylum seekers who are sent there. Critics insisted that Guatemala meets neither requirement.

      They also noted that the State Department’s own country condition reports on Guatemala warn about rampant gang activity and say that murder is common in the country, which has a police force that is often ineffective at best.

      Asked whether Guatemala is a safe country for refugees, Mr. McAleenan said it was unfair to tar an entire country, noting that there are also places in the United States that are not safe.

      In 2018, the most recent year for which data is available, 116,808 migrants apprehended at the southwest border were from Guatemala, while 77,128 were from Honduras and 31,636 were from El Salvador.

      “It’s legally ludicrous and totally dangerous,” said Eleanor Acer, the senior director for refugee protection at Human Rights First. “The United States is trying to send people back to a country where their lives would be at risk. It sets a terrible example for the rest of the world.”

      Administration officials traveled to Guatemala in recent months, pushing officials there to sign the agreement, according to an administration official. But negotiations broke down in the past two weeks after Guatemala’s Constitutional Court ruled that Mr. Morales needed approval from lawmakers to make the deal with the United States.

      The ruling led Mr. Morales to cancel a planned trip in mid-July to sign the agreement, leaving Mr. Trump fuming.

      “Now we are looking at the BAN, Tariffs, Remittance Fees, or all of the above,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter on July 23.

      Friday’s action suggests that the president’s threats, which provoked concern among Guatemala’s business community, were effective.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/26/world/americas/trump-guatemala-asylum.html

    • Este es el acuerdo migratorio firmado entre Guatemala y Estados Unidos

      Prensa Libre obtuvo en primicia el acuerdo que Guatemala firmó con Estados Unidos para detener la migración desde el Triángulo Norte de Centroamérica.

      Estados Unidos y Guatemala firmaron este 26 de julio un “acuerdo de asilo”, después de que esta semana el presidente Donald Trump amenazara a Guatemala con imponer aranceles para presionar por la negociación del convenio.

      Según Trump, el acuerdo “va a dar seguridad a los demandantes de asilo legítimos y a va detener los fraudes y abusos en el sistema de asilo”.

      El acuerdo fue firmado en el Despacho Oval de la Casa Blanca entre Kevin McAleenan, secretario interino de Seguridad Nacional de los Estados Unidos, y Enrique Degenhart, ministro de Gobernación de Guatemala.

      “Hace mucho tiempo que hemos estado trabajando con Guatemala y ahora podemos hacerlo de la manera correcta”, dijo el mandatario estadounidense.

      Este es el contenido íntegro del acuerdo:

      ACUERDO ENTRE EL GOBIERNO DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMÉRICA Y EL GOBIERNO DE LA REPÚBLICA DE GUATEMALA RELATIVO A LA COOPERACIÓN RESPECTO AL EXAMEN DE SOLICITUDES DE PROTECCIÓN

      EL GOBIERNO DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMÉRICA Y EL GOBIERNO DE LA REPÚBLICA DE GUATEMALA, en lo sucesivo de forma individual una “Parte” o colectivamente “las Partes”,

      CONSIDERANDO que Guatemala norma sus relaciones con otros países de conformidad con principios, reglas y prácticas internacionales con el propósito de contribuir al mantenimiento de la paz y la libertad, al respeto y defensa de los derechos humanos, y al fortalecimiento de los procesos democráticos e instituciones internacionales que garanticen el beneficio mutuo y equitativo entre los Estados; considerando por otro lado, que Guatemala mantendrá relaciones de amistad, solidaridad y cooperación con aquellos Estados cuyo desarrollo económico, social y cultural sea análogo al de Guatemala, como el derecho de las personas a migrar y su necesidad de protección;

      CONSIDERANDO que en la actualidad Guatemala incorpora en su legislación interna leyes migratorias dinámicas que obligan a Guatemala a reconocer el derecho de toda persona a emigrar o inmigrar, por lo que cualquier migrante puede entrar, permanecer, transitar, salir y retornar a su territorio nacional conforme a su legislación nacional; considerando, asimismo, que en situaciones no previstas por la legislación interna se debe aplicar la norma que más favorezca al migrante, siendo que por analogía se le debería dar abrigo y cuidado temporal a las personas que deseen ingresar de manera legal al territorio nacional; considerando que por estos motivos es necesario promover acuerdos de cooperación con otros Estados que respeten los mismos principios descritos en la política migratoria de Guatemala, reglamentada por la Autoridad Migratoria Nacional;

      CONSIDERANDO que Guatemala es parte de la Convención sobre el Estatuto de los Refugiados de 1951, celebrada en Ginebra el 28 de julio de 1951 (la “Convención de 1951″) y del Protocolo sobre el Estatuto de los Refugiados, firmado en Nueva York el 31 de enero de 1967 (el “Protocolo de 1967′), del cual los Estados Unidos son parte, y reafirmando la obligación de las partes de proporcionar protección a refugiados que cumplen con los requisitos y que se encuentran físicamente en sus respectivos territorios, de conformidad con sus obligaciones según esos instrumentos y sujetos . a las respectivas leyes, tratados y declaraciones de las Partes;

      RECONOCIENDO especialmente la obligación de las Partes respecto a cumplir el principio de non-refoulement de no devolución, tal como se desprende de la Convención de 1951 y del Protocolo de 1967, así como la Convención contra la Tortura y Otros Tratos o Penas Crueles, Inhumanos o Degradantes, firmada en Nueva York el 10 de diciembre de 1984 (la “Convención contra la Tortura”), con sujeción a las respectivas reservas, entendimientos y declaraciones de las Partes y reafirmando sus respectivas obligaciones de fomentar y proteger los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales en consonancia con sus obligaciones en el ámbito internacional;

      RECONOCIENDO y respetando las obligaciones de cada Parte de conformidad con sus leyes y políticas nacionales y acuerdos y arreglos internacionales;

      DESTACANDO que los Estados Unidos de América y Guatemala ofrecen sistemas de protección de refugiados que son coherentes con sus obligaciones conforme a la Convención de 1951 y/o el Protocolo de 1967;

      DECIDIDOS a mantener el estatuto de refugio o de protección temporal equivalente, como medida esencial en la protección de los refugiados o asilados, y al mismo tiempo deseando impedir el fraude en el proceso de solicitud de refugio o asilo, acción que socava su legitimo propósito; y decididos a fortalecer la integridad del proceso oficial para solicitar el estatuto de refugio o asilo, así como el respaldo público a dicho proceso;

      CONSCIENTES de que la distribución de la responsabilidad relacionada con solicitudes de protección debe garantizar en la práctica que se identifique a las personas que necesitan protección y que se eviten las violaciones del principio básico de no devolución; y, por lo tanto, comprometidos con salvaguardar para cada solicitante del estatuto de refugio o asilo que reúna las condiciones necesarias el acceso a un procedimiento completo e imparcial para determinar la solicitud;

      ACUERDAN lo siguiente:

      ARTÍCULO 1

      A efectos del presente Acuerdo:

      1. “Solicitud de protección” significa la solicitud de una persona de cualquier nacionalidad, al gobierno de una de las Partes para recibir protección conforme a sus respectivas obligaciones institucionales derivadas de la Convención de 1951, del Protocolo de 1967 o de la Convención contra la Tortura, y de conformidad con las leyes y políticas respectivas de las Partes que dan cumplimiento a esas obligaciones internacionales, así como para recibir cualquier otro tipo de protección temporal equivalente disponible conforme al derecho migratorio de la parte receptora.

      2. “Solicitante de protección” significa cualquier persona que presenta una solicitud de protección en el territorio de una de las partes.

      3. “Sistema para determinar la protección” significa el conjunto de políticas, leyes, prácticas administrativas y judiciales que el gobierno de cada parte emplea para decidir respecto de las solicitudes de protección.

      4. “Menor no acompañado” significa un solicitante de protección que no ha cumplido los dieciocho (18) años de edad y cuyo padre, madre o tutor legal no está presente ni disponible para proporcionar atención y custodia presencial en los Estados Unidos de América o en Guatemala, donde se encuentre el menor no acompañado.

      5. En el caso de la inmigración a Guatemala, las políticas respecto de leyes y migración abordan el derecho de las personas a entrar, permanecer, transitar y salir de su territorio de conformidad con sus leyes internas y los acuerdos y arreglos internacionales, y permanencia migratoria significa permanencia por un plazo de tiempo autorizado de acuerdo al estatuto migratorio otorgado a las personas.

      ARTÍCULO 2

      El presente Acuerdo no aplica a los solicitantes de protección que son ciudadanos o nacionales de Guatemala; o quienes, siendo apátridas, residen habitualmente en Guatemala.

      ARTÍCULO 3

      1. Para garantizar que los solicitantes de protección trasladados a Guatemala por los Estados Unidos tengan acceso a un sistema para determinar la protección, Guatemala no retornará ni expulsará a solicitantes de protección en Guatemala, a menos que el solicitante abandone la ‘solicitud o que esta sea denegada a través de una decisión administrativa.

      2. Durante el proceso de traslado, las personas sujetas al presente Acuerdo serán responsabilidad de los Estados Unidos hasta que finalice el proceso de traslado.

      ARTÍCULO 4

      1. La responsabilidad de determinar y concluir en su territorio solicitudes de protección recaerá en los Estados Unidos, cuando los Estados Unidos establezcan que esa persona:

      a. es un menor no acompañado; o

      b. llegó al territorio de los Estados Unidos:

      i. con una visa emitida de forma válida u otro documento de admisión válido, que no sea de tránsito, emitido por los Estados Unidos; o

      ii. sin que los Estados Unidos de América le exigiera obtener una visa.

      2. No obstante el párrafo 1 de este artículo, Guatemala evaluará las solicitudes de protección una por una, de acuerdo a lo establecido y autorizado por la autoridad competente en materia migratoria en sus políticas y leyes migratorias y en su territorio, de las personas que cumplen los requisitos necesarios conforme al presente Acuerdo, y que llegan a los Estados Unidos a un puerto de entrada o entre puertos de entrada, en la fecha efectiva del presente Acuerdo o posterior a ella. Guatemala evaluará la solicitud de protección, conforme al plan de implementación inicial y los procedimientos operativos estándar a los que se hace referencia en el artículo 7, apartados 1 y 5.

      3. Las Partes aplicarán el presente Acuerdo respecto a menores no acompañados de conformidad con sus respectivas leyes nacionales,

      4. Las Partes contarán con procedimientos para garantizar que los traslados de los Estados Unidos a Guatemala de las personas objeto del presente Acuerdo sean compatibles con sus obligaciones, leyes nacionales e internacionales y políticas migratorias respectivas.

      5. Los Estados Unidos tomarán la decisión final de que una persona satisface los requisitos para una excepción en virtud de los artículos 4 y 5 del presente Acuerdo.

      ARTÍCULO 5

      No obstante cualquier disposición del presente Acuerdo, cualquier parte podrá, según su propio criterio, examinar cualquier solicitud de protección que se haya presentado a esa Parte cuando decida que es de su interés público hacerlo.

      ARTÍCULO 6

      Las Partes podrán:

      1. Intercambiar información cuando sea necesario para la implementación efectiva del presente Acuerdo con sujeción a las leyes y reglamentación nacionales. Dicha información no será divulgada por el país receptor excepto de conformidad con sus leyes y reglamentación nacionales.

      2. Las Partes podrán intercambiar de forma habitual información respecto á leyes, reglamentación y prácticas relacionadas con sus respectivos sistemas para determinar la protección migratoria.

      ARTÍCULO 7

      1. Las Partes elaborarán procedimientos operativos estándar para asistir en la implementación del presente Acuerdo. Estos procedimientos incorporarán disposiciones para notificar por adelantado, a Guatemala, el traslado de cualquier persona conforme al presente Acuerdo. Los Estados Unidos colaborarán con Guatemala para identificar a las personas idóneas para ser trasladadas al territorio de Guatemala.

      2. Los procedimientos operativos incorporarán mecanismos para solucionar controversias que respeten la interpretación e implementación de los términos del presente Acuerdo. Los casos no previstos que no puedan solucionarse a través de estos mecanismos serán resueltos a través de la vía diplomática.

      3. Los Estados Unidos prevén cooperar para fortalecer las capacidades institucionales de Guatemala.

      4. Las Partes acuerdan evaluar regularmente el presente Acuerdo y su implementación, para subsanar las deficiencias encontradas. Las Partes realizarán las evaluaciones conjuntamente, siendo la primera dentro de un plazo máximo de tres (3) meses a partir de la fecha de entrada en operación del Acuerdo y las siguientes evaluaciones dentro de los mismos plazos. Las Partes podrán invitar, de común acuerdo, a otras organizaciones pertinentes con conocimientos especializados sobre el tema a participar en la evaluación inicial y/o cooperar para el cumplimiento del presente Acuerdo.

      5. Las Partes prevén completar un plan de implementación inicial, que incorporará gradualmente, y abordará, entre otros: a) los procedimientos necesarios para llevar a cabo el traslado de personas conforme al presente Acuerdo; b) la cantidad o número de personas a ser trasladadas; y c) las necesidades de capacidad institucional. Las Partes planean hacer operativo el presente Acuerdo al finalizarse un plan de implementación gradual.

      ARTÍCULO 8

      1. El presente Acuerdo entrará en vigor por medio de un canje de notas entre las partes en el que se indique que cada parte ha cumplido con los procedimientos jurídicos nacionales necesarios para que el Acuerdo entre en vigor. El presente Acuerdo tendrá una vigencia de dos (2) años y podrá renovarse antes de su vencimiento a través de un canje de notas.

      2. Cualquier Parte podrá dar por terminado el presente Acuerdo por medio de una notificación por escrito a la otra Parte con tres (3) meses de antelación.

      3. Cualquier parte podrá, inmediatamente después de notificar a la otra parte por escrito, suspender por un periodo inicial de hasta tres (3) meses la implementación del presente Acuerdo. Esta suspensión podrá extenderse por periodos adicionales de hasta tres (3) meses por medio de una notificación por escrito a la otra parte. Cualquier parte podrá, con el consentimiento por escrito de la otra, suspender cualquier parte del presente Acuerdo.

      4. Las Partes podrán, por escrito y de mutuo acuerdo, realizar cualquier modificación o adición al presente Acuerdo. Estas entrarán en vigor de conformidad con los procedimientos jurídicos pertinentes de cada Parte y la modificación o adición constituirá parte integral del presente Acuerdo.

      5. Ninguna disposición del presente Acuerdo deberá interpretarse de manera que obligue a las Partes a erogar o comprometer fondos.

      EN FE DE LO CUAL, los abajo firmantes, debidamente autorizados por sus respectivos gobiernos, firman el presente Acuerdo.

      HECHO el 26 de julio de 2019, por duplicado en los idiomas inglés y español, siendo ambos textos auténticos.

      POR EL GOBIERNO DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMÉRICA: Kevin K. McAleenan, Secretario Interino de Seguridad Nacional.

      POR EL GOBIERNO DE LA REPÚBLICA DE GUATEMALA: Enrique A. Degenhart Asturias, Ministro de Gobernación.

      https://www.prensalibre.com/guatemala/migrantes/este-es-el-acuerdo-migratorio-firmado-entre-guatemala-y-estados-unidos

    • Washington signe un accord sur le droit d’asile avec le Guatemala

      Sous la pression du président américain, le Guatemala devient un « pays tiers sûr », où les migrants de passage vers les Etats-Unis doivent déposer leurs demandes d’asile.

      Sous la pression de Donald Trump qui menaçait de lui infliger des sanctions commerciales, le Guatemala a accepté vendredi 26 juillet de devenir un « pays tiers sûr » pour contribuer à réduire le nombre de demandes d’asile aux Etats-Unis. L’accord, qui a été signé en grande pompe dans le bureau ovale de la Maison blanche, en préfigure d’autres, a assuré le président américain, qui a notamment cité le Mexique.

      Faute d’avoir obtenu du Congrès le financement du mur qu’il souhaitait construire le long de la frontière avec le Mexique, Donald Trump a changé de stratégie en faisant pression sur les pays d’Amérique centrale pour qu’ils l’aident à réduire le flux de migrants arrivant aux Etats-Unis, qui a atteint un niveau record sous sa présidence.

      Une personne qui traverse un « pays tiers sûr » doit déposer sa demande d’asile dans ce pays et non dans son pays de destination. Sans employer le terme « pays tiers sûr », le gouvernement guatémaltèque a précisé dans un communiqué que l’accord conclu avec les Etats-Unis s’appliquerait aux réfugiés originaires du Honduras et du Salvador.

      Contreparties pour les travailleurs agricoles

      S’adressant à la presse devant la Maison blanche, le président américain a indiqué que les ouvriers agricoles guatémaltèques auraient en contrepartie un accès privilégié aux fermes aux Etats-Unis.

      Le président guatémaltèque Jimmy Morales devait signer l’accord de « pays tiers sûr » la semaine dernière mais il avait été contraint de reculer après que la Cour constitutionnelle avait jugé qu’il ne pouvait pas prendre un tel engagement sans l’accord du Parlement, ce qui avait provoqué la fureur de Donald Trump.

      Invoquant la nécessité d’éviter des « répercussions sociales et économiques », le gouvernement guatémaltèque a indiqué qu’un accord serait signé dans les prochains jours avec Washington pour faciliter l’octroi de visas de travail agricole temporaires aux ressortissants guatémaltèques. Il a dit espérer que cette mesure serait ultérieurement étendue aux secteurs de la construction et des services.

      Les Etats-Unis sont confrontés à une flambée du nombre de migrants qui cherchent à franchir sa frontière sud, celle qui les séparent du Mexique. En juin, les services de police aux frontières ont arrêté 104 000 personnes qui cherchaient à entrer illégalement aux Etats-Unis. Ils avaient été 144 000 le mois précédent.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/07/27/washington-signe-un-accord-sur-le-droit-d-asile-avec-le-guatemala_5493979_32
      #agriculture #ouvriers_agricoles #travail #fermes

    • Migrants, pressions sur le Mexique

      Sous la pression des États-Unis, le Mexique fait la chasse aux migrants sur son territoire, et les empêche d’avancer vers le nord. Au mois de juin, les autorités ont arrêté près de 24 000 personnes sans papiers.

      Debout sur son radeau, Edwin maugrée en regardant du coin de l’œil la vingtaine de militaires de la Garde Nationale mexicaine postés sous les arbres, côté mexicain. « C’est à cause d’eux si les affaires vont mal », bougonne le jeune Guatémaltèque en poussant son radeau à l’aide d’une perche. « Depuis qu’ils sont là, plus personne ne peut passer au Mexique ».

      Les eaux du fleuve Suchiate, qui sépare le Mexique du Guatemala, sont étrangement calmes depuis le mois de juin. Fini le ballet incessant des petits radeaux de fortune, où s’entassaient, pêle-mêle, villageois, commerçants et migrants qui se rendaient au Mexique. « Mais ça ne change rien, les migrants traversent plus loin », sourit le jeune homme.

      La stratégie du président américain Donald Trump pour contraindre son voisin du sud à réduire les flux migratoires en direction des États-Unis a mis le gouvernement mexicain aux abois : pour éviter une nouvelle fois la menace de l’instauration de frais de douanes de 5 % sur les importations mexicaines, le gouvernement d’Andrés Manuel López Obrador a déployé dans l’urgence 6 500 éléments de la Garde Nationale à la frontière sud du Mexique.
      Des pots-de-vin lors des contrôles

      Sur les routes, les opérations de contrôle sont partout. « Nous avons été arrêtés à deux reprises par l’armée », explique Natalia, entourée de ses garçons de 11 ans, 8 ans et 3 ans. Cette Guatémaltèque s’est enfuie de son village avec son mari et ses enfants, il y a dix jours. Son époux, témoin protégé dans le procès d’un groupe criminel, a été menacé de mort. « Au premier contrôle, nous leur avons donné 1 500 pesos (NDLR, 70 €), au deuxième 2 500 pesos (118 €), pour qu’ils nous laissent partir », explique la mère de famille, assise sous le préau de l’auberge du Père César Augusto Cañaveral, l’une des deux auberges qui accueillent les migrants à Tapachula.

      Conçu pour 120 personnes, l’établissement héberge actuellement plus de 300 personnes, dont une centaine d’enfants en bas âge. « On est face à une politique anti-migratoire de plus en plus violente et militarisée, se désole le Père Cañaveral. C’est devenu une véritable chasse à l’homme dehors, alors je leur dis de sortir le moins possible pour éviter les arrestations ». Celles-ci ont en effet explosé depuis l’ultimatum du président des États-Unis : du 1er au 24 juin, l’Institut National de Migration (INM) a arrêté près de 24 000 personnes en situation irrégulière, soit 1 000 personnes détenues par jour en moyenne, et en a expulsé plus de 17 000, essentiellement des Centraméricains. Du jamais vu.
      Des conditions de détention « indignes »

      À Tapachula, les migrants arrêtés sont entassés dans le centre de rétention Siglo XXI. À quelques mètres de l’entrée de cette forteresse de béton, Yannick a le regard vide et fatigué. « Il y avait tellement de monde là-dedans que ma fille y est tombée malade », raconte cet Angolais âgé de 33 ans, sa fille de 3 ans somnolant dans ses bras. « Ils viennent de nous relâcher car ils ne vont pas nous renvoyer en Afrique, ajoute-il. Heureusement, car à l’intérieur on dort par terre ». « Les conditions dans ce centre sont indignes », dénonce Claudia León Aug, coordinatrice du Service jésuite des réfugiés pour l’Amérique latine, qui a visité à plusieurs reprises le centre de rétention Siglo XXI. « La nourriture est souvent avariée, les enfants tombent malades, les bébés n’ont droit qu’à une seule couche par jour, et on a même recensé des cas de tortures et d’agressions ».

      Tapachula est devenu un cul-de-sac pour des milliers de migrants. Ils errent dans les rues de la ville, d’hôtel en d’hôtel, ou louent chez l’habitant, faute de pouvoir avancer vers le nord. Les compagnies de bus, sommées de participer à l’effort national, demandent systématiquement une pièce d’identité en règle. « On ne m’a pas laissé monter dans le bus en direction de Tijuana », se désole Elvis, un Camerounais de 34 ans qui rêve de se rendre au Canada.

      Il sort de sa poche un papier tamponné par les autorités mexicaines, le fameux laissez-passer que délivrait l’Institut National de Migration aux migrants extra-continentaux, pour qu’ils traversent le Mexique en 20 jours afin de gagner la frontière avec les États-Unis. « Regardez, ils ont modifié le texte, maintenant il est écrit que je ne peux pas sortir de Tapachula », accuse le jeune homme, dépité, avant de se rasseoir sur le banc de la petite cour de son hôtel décati dans la périphérie de Tapachula. « La situation est chaotique, les gens sont bloqués ici et les autorités ne leur donnent aucune information, pour les décourager encore un peu plus », dénonce Salvador Lacruz, coordinateur au Centre des Droits humains Centro Fray Matías de Córdova.
      Explosion du nombre des demandes d’asile au Mexique

      Face à la menace des arrestations et des expulsions, de plus en plus de migrants choisissent de demander l’asile au Mexique. Dans le centre-ville de Tapachula, la Commission mexicaine d’aide aux réfugiés (COMAR), est prise d’assaut dès 4 heures du matin par les demandeurs d’asile. « On m’a dit de venir avec tous les documents qui prouvent que je suis en danger de mort dans mon pays », explique Javier, un Hondurien de 34 ans qui a fait la queue une partie de la nuit pour ne pas rater son rendez-vous.

      Son fils de 9 ans est assis sur ses genoux. « J’ai le certificat de décès de mon père et celui de mon frère. Ils ont été assassinés pour avoir refusé de donner de l’argent aux maras », explique-t-il, une pochette en plastique dans les mains. « Le prochain sur la liste, c’est moi, c’est pour ça que je suis parti pour les États-Unis, mais je vois que c’est devenu très difficile, alors je me pose ici, ensuite, on verra ».

      Les demandes d’asile au Mexique ont littéralement explosé : 31 000 pour les six premiers mois de 2019, c’est trois fois plus qu’en 2018 à la même période, et juin a été particulièrement élevé, avec 70 % de demandes en plus par rapport à janvier. La tendance devrait se poursuivre du fait de la décision prise le 15 juillet dernier par le président américain, que toute personne « entrant par la frontière sud des États-Unis » et souhaitant demander l’asile aux États-Unis le fasse, au préalable, dans un autre pays, transformant ainsi le Mexique, de facto, en « pays tiers sûr ».

      « Si les migrants savent que la seule possibilité de demander l’asile aux États-Unis, c’est de l’avoir obtenu au Mexique, ils le feront », observe Salvador Lacruz. Mais si certains s’accrochent à Tapachula, d’autres abandonnent. Jesús Roque, un Hondurien de 21 ans, « vient de signer » comme disent les migrants centraméricains en référence au programme de retour volontaire mis en place par le gouvernement mexicain. « C’est impossible d’aller plus au nord, je rentre chez moi », lâche-t-il.

      Comme lui, plus de 35 000 personnes sont rentrées dans leur pays, essentiellement des Honduriens et des Salvadoriens. À quelques mètres, deux femmes pressent le pas, agacées par la foule qui se presse devant les bureaux de la COMAR. « Qu’ils partent d’ici, vite ! », grogne l’une. Le mur tant désiré par Donald Trump s’est finalement érigé au Mexique en quelques semaines. Dans les esprits aussi.

      https://www.la-croix.com/Monde/Ameriques/Le-Mexique-verrouille-frontiere-sud-2019-08-01-1201038809

    • US Move Puts More Asylum Seekers at Risk. Expanded ‘#Remain_in_Mexico’ Program Undermines Due Process

      The Trump administration has drastically expanded its “Remain in Mexico” program while undercutting the rights of asylum seekers at the United States southern border, Human Rights Watch said today. Under the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) – known as the “Remain in Mexico” program – asylum seekers in the US are returned to cities in Mexico where there is a shortage of shelter and high crime rates while awaiting asylum hearings in US immigration court.

      Human Rights Watch found that asylum seekers face new or increased barriers to obtaining and communicating with legal counsel; increased closure of MPP court hearings to the public; and threats of kidnapping, extortion, and other violence while in Mexico.

      “The inherently inhumane ‘Remain in Mexico’ program is getting more abusive by the day,” said Ariana Sawyer, assistant US Program researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The program’s rapid growth in recent months has put even more people and families in danger in Mexico while they await an increasingly unfair legal process in the US.”

      The United States will begin sending all Central American asylum-seeking families to Mexico beginning the week of September 29, 2019 as part of the most recent expansion of the “Remain in Mexico” program, the Department of Homeland Security acting secretary, Kevin McAleenan, announced on September 23.

      Human Rights Watch concluded in a July 2019 report that the MPP program has had serious rights consequences for asylum seekers, including high – if not insurmountable – barriers to due process on their asylum claims in the United States and threats and physical violence in Mexico. Human Rights Watch recently spoke to seven asylum seekers, as well as 26 attorneys, migrant shelter operators, Mexican government officials, immigration court workers, journalists, and advocates. Human Rights Watch also observed court hearings for 71 asylum seekers in August and analyzed court filings, declarations, photographs, and media reports.

      “The [MPP] rules, which are never published, are constantly changing without advance notice,” said John Moore, an asylum attorney. “And so far, every change has had the effect of further restricting the already limited access we attorneys have with our clients.”

      Beyond the expanded program, which began in January, the US State Department has also begun funding a “voluntary return” program carried out by the United Nations-affiliated International Organization for Migration (IOM). The organization facilitates the transportation of asylum seekers forced to wait in Mexico back to their country of origin but does not notify US immigration judges. This most likely results in negative judgments against asylum seekers for not appearing in court, possibly resulting in a ban of up to 10 years on entering the US again, when they could have withdrawn their cases without penalty.

      Since July, the number of people being placed in the MPP program has almost tripled, from 15,079 as of June 24, to 40,033 as of September 7, according to the Mexican National Institute of Migration. The Trump administration has increased the number of asylum seekers it places in the program at ports of entry near San Diego and Calexico, California and El Paso, Texas, where the program had already been in place. The administration has also expanded the program to Laredo and Brownsville, Texas, even as the overall number of border apprehensions has declined.

      As of early August, more than 26,000 additional asylum seekers were waiting in Mexican border cities on unofficial lists to be processed by US Customs and Border Protection as part the US practice of “metering,” or of limiting the number of people who can apply for asylum each day by turning them back from ports of entry in violation of international law.

      In total, more than 66,000 asylum seekers are now in Mexico, forced to wait months or years for their cases to be decided in the US. Some have given up waiting and have attempted to cross illicitly in more remote and dangerous parts of the border, at times with deadly results.

      As problematic as the MPP program is, seeking asylum will likely soon become even more limited. On September 11, the Supreme Court temporarily allowed the Trump administration to carry out an asylum ban against anyone entering the country by land after July 16 who transited through a third country without applying for asylum there. This could affect at least 46,000 asylum seekers, placed in the MPP program or on a metering list after mid-July, according to calculations based on data from the Mexican National Institute of Migration. Asylum seekers may still be eligible for other forms of protection, but they carry much higher eligibility standards and do not provide the same level of relief.

      Human Rights Watch contacted the Department of Homeland Security and the US Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review with its findings and questions regarding the policy changes and developments but have not to date received a response. The US government should immediately cease returning asylum seekers to Mexico and instead ensure them meaningful access to full and fair asylum proceedings in US immigration courts, Human Rights Watch said. Congress should urgently act to cease funding the MPP program. The US should manage asylum-seeker arrivals through a genuine humanitarian response that includes fair determinations of an asylum seeker’s eligibility to remain in the US. The US should simultaneously pursue longer-term efforts to address the root causes of forced displacement in Central America.

      “The Trump administration seems intent on making the bad situation for asylum seekers even worse by further depriving them of due process rights,” Sawyer said. “The US Congress should step in and put an end to these mean-spirited attempts to undermine and destroy the US asylum system.”

      New Concerns over the MPP Program

      Increased Barriers to Legal Representation

      Everyone in the MPP has the right to an attorney at their own cost, but it has been nearly impossible for asylum seekers forced to remain in Mexico to get legal representation. Only about 1.3 percent of participants have legal representation, according to the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University, a research center that examined US immigration court records through June 2019. In recent months, the US government has raised new barriers to obtaining representation and accessing counsel.

      When the Department of Homeland Security created the program, it issued guidance that:

      in order to facilitate access to counsel for aliens subject to return to Mexico under the MPP who will be transported to their immigration court hearings, [agents] will depart from the [port of entry] with the alien at a time sufficient to ensure arrival at the immigration court not later than one hour before his or her scheduled hearing time in order to afford the alien the opportunity to meet in-person with his or her legal representative.

      However, according to several attorneys Human Rights Watch interviewed in El Paso, Texas, and as Human Rights Watch observed on August 12 to 15 in El Paso Immigration Court, the Department of Homeland Security and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which manages the immigration court, have effectively barred attorneys from meeting with clients for the full hour before their client’s hearing begins. Rather than having free access to their clients, attorneys are now required to wait in the building lobby on a different level than the immigration court until the court administrator notifies security guards that attorneys may enter.

      As Human Rights Watch has previously noted, one hour is insufficient for adequate attorney consultation and preparation. Still, several attorneys said that this time in court was crucial. Immigration court is often the only place where asylum seekers forced to wait in Mexico can meet with attorneys since lawyers capable of representing them typically work in the US. Attorneys cannot easily travel to Mexico because of security and logistical issues. For MPP participants without attorneys, there are now also new barriers to getting basic information and assistance about the asylum application process.

      Human Rights Watch observed in May a coordinated effort by local nongovernmental organizations and attorneys in El Paso to perform know-your-rights presentations for asylum seekers without an attorney and to serve as “Friend of the Court,” at the judge’s discretion. The Executive Office for Immigration Review has recognized in the context of unaccompanied minors that a Friend of the Court “has a useful role to play in assisting the court and enhancing a respondent’s comprehension of proceedings.”

      The agency’s memos also say that, “Immigration Judges and court administrators remain encouraged to facilitate pro bono representation” because pro bono attorneys provide “respondents with welcome legal assistance and the judge with efficiencies that can only be realized when the respondent is represented.”

      To that end, immigration courts are encouraged to support “legal orientations and group rights presentations” by nonprofit organizations and attorneys.

      One of the attorneys involved in coordinating the various outreach programs at the El Paso Immigration Court said, however, that on June 24 the agency began barring all contact between third parties and asylum seekers without legal representation in both the courtroom and the lobby outside. This effectively ended all know-your-rights presentations and pro bono case screenings, though no new memo was issued. Armed guards now prevent attorneys in the US from interacting with MPP participants unless the attorneys have already filed official notices that they are representing specific participants.

      On July 8, the agency also began barring attorneys from serving as “Friend of the Court,” several attorneys told Human Rights Watch. No new memo has been issued on “Friend of the Court” either.

      In a July 16 email to an attorney obtained by Human Rights Watch, an agency spokesman, Rob Barnes, said that the agency shut down “Friend of the Court” and know-your-rights presentations to protect asylum seekers from misinformation after it “became aware that persons from organizations not officially recognized by EOIR...were entering EOIR space in El Paso.

      However, most of the attorneys and organizations now barred from performing know-your-rights presentations or serving as “Friend of the Court” in El Paso are listed on a form given to asylum seekers by the court of legal service providers, according to a copy of the form given to Human Rights Watch and attorneys and organizations coordinating those services.

      Closure of Immigration Court Hearings to the Public

      When Human Rights Watch observed court hearings in El Paso on May 8 to 10, the number of asylum seekers who had been placed in the MPP program and scheduled to appear in court was between 20 and 24 each day, with one judge hearing all of these cases in a single mass hearing. At the time, those numbers were considered high, and there was chaos and confusion as judges navigated a system that was never designed to provide hearings for people being kept outside the US.

      When Human Rights Watch returned to observe hearings just over three months later, four judges were hearing a total of about 250 cases a day, an average of over 60 cases for each judge. Asylum seekers in the program, who would previously have been allowed into the US to pursue their claims at immigration courts dispersed around the country, have been primarily funneled through courts in just two border cities, causing tremendous pressures on these courts and errors in the system. Some asylum seekers who appeared in court found their cases were not in the system or received conflicting instructions about where or when to appear.

      One US immigration official said the MPP program had “broken the courts,” Reuters reported.

      The Executive Office for Immigration Review has stated that immigration court hearings are generally supposed to be open to the public. The regulations indicate that immigration judges may make exceptions and limit or close hearings if physical facilities are inadequate; if there is a need to protect witnesses, parties, or the public interest; if an abused spouse or abused child is to appear; or if information under seal is to be presented.

      In recent weeks, however, journalists, attorneys, and other public observers have been barred from these courtrooms in El Paso by court administrators, security guards, and in at least one case, by a Department of Homeland Security attorney, who said that a courtroom was too full to allow a Human Rights Watch researcher entry.

      Would-be observers are now frequently told by the court administrator or security guards that there is “no room,” and that dockets are all “too full.”

      El Paso Immigration Court Administrator Rodney Buckmire told Human Rights Watch that hundreds of people receive hearings each day because asylum seekers “deserve their day in court,” but the chaos and errors in mass hearings, the lack of access to attorneys and legal advice, and the lack of transparency make clear that the MPP program is severely undermining due process.

      During the week of September 9, the Trump administration began conducting hearings for asylum seekers returned to Mexico in makeshift tent courts in Laredo and Brownsville, where judges are expected to preside via videoconference. At a September 11 news conference, DHS would not commit to allowing observers for those hearings, citing “heightened security measures” since the courts are located near the border. Both attorneys and journalists have since been denied entry to these port courts.

      Asylum Seekers Describe Risk of Kidnapping, Other Crimes

      As the MPP has expanded, increasing numbers of asylum seekers have been placed at risk of kidnapping and other crimes in Mexico.

      Two of the northern Mexican states to which asylum seekers were initially being returned under the program, Baja California and Chihuahua, are among those with the most homicides and other crimes in the country. Recent media reports have documented ongoing harm to asylum seekers there, including rape, kidnapping, sexual exploitation, assault, and other violent crimes.

      The program has also been expanded to Nuevo Laredo and Matamoros, both in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas, which is on the US State Department’s “do not travel” list. The media and aid workers have also reported that migrants there have experienced physical violence, sexual assault, kidnapping, and other abuses. There have been multiple reports in 2019 alone of migrants being kidnapped as they attempt to reach the border by bus.

      Jennifer Harbury, a human rights attorney and activist doing volunteer work with asylum-seekers on both sides of the border, collected sworn declarations that they had been victims of abuse from three asylum seekers who had been placed in the MPP program and bused by Mexican immigration authorities to Monterrey, Mexico, two and a half hours from the border. Human Rights Watch examined these declarations, in which asylum seekers reported robbery, extortion, and kidnapping, including by Mexican police.

      Expansion to Mexican Cities with Even Fewer Protections

      Harbury, who recently interviewed hundreds of migrants in Mexico, described asylum seekers sent to Nuevo Laredo as “fish in a barrel” because of their vulnerability to criminal organizations. She said that many of the asylum seekers she interviewed said they had been kidnapped or subjected to an armed assault at least once since they reached the border.

      Because Mexican officials are in many cases reportedly themselves involved in crimes against migrants, and because nearly 98 percent of crimes in Mexico go unsolved, crimes committed against migrants routinely go unpunished.

      In Matamoros, asylum seekers have no meaningful shelter access, said attorneys with Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG) who were last there from August 22 to 26. Instead, more than 500 asylum seekers were placed in an encampment in a plaza near the port of entry to the US, where they were sleeping out in the open, despite temperatures of over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Henriette Vinet-Martin, a lawyer with the group, said she saw a “nursing mother sleeping on cardboard with her baby” and that attorneys also spoke to a woman in the MPP program there who said she had recently miscarried in a US hospital while in Customs and Border Protection custody. The attorneys said some asylum seekers had tents, but many did not.

      Vinet-Martin and Claire Noone, another lawyer there as part of the L4GG project, said they found children with disabilities who had been placed in the MPP program, including two children with Down Syndrome, one of them eight months old.

      Human Rights Watch also found that Customs and Border Protection continues to return asylum seekers with disabilities or other chronic health conditions to Mexico, despite the Department of Homeland Security’s initial guidance that no one with “known physical/mental health issues” would be placed in the program. In Ciudad Juárez, Human Rights Watch documented six such cases, four of them children. In one case, a 14-year-old boy had been placed in the program along with his mother and little brother, who both have intellectual disabilities, although the boy said they have family in the US. He appeared to be confused and distraught by his situation.

      The Mexican government has taken some steps to protect migrants in Ciudad Juárez, including opening a large government-operated shelter. The shelter, which Human Rights Watch visited on August 22, has a capacity of 3,000 migrants and is well-stocked with food, blankets, sleeping pads, personal hygiene kits, and more. At the time of the visit, the shelter held 555 migrants, including 230 children, primarily asylum seekers in the MPP program.

      One Mexican government official said the government will soon open two more shelters – one in Tijuana with a capacity of 3,000 and another in Mexicali with a capacity of 1,500.

      Problems Affecting the ‘Assisted Voluntary Return’ Program

      In October 2018, the International Organization for Migration began operating a $1.65 million US State Department-funded “Assisted Voluntary Return” program to assist migrants who have decided or felt compelled to return home. The return program originally targeted Central Americans traveling in large groups through the interior of Mexico. However, in July, the program began setting up offices in Ciudad Juárez, Tijuana, and Mexicali focusing on asylum seekers forced to wait in those cities after being placed in the MPP program. Alex Rigol Ploettner, who heads the International Organization for Migration office in Ciudad Juárez, said that the organization also provides material support such as bunk beds and personal hygiene kits to shelters, which the organization asks to refer interested asylum seekers to the Assisted Voluntary Return program. Four shelter operators in Ciudad Juárez confirmed these activities.

      As of late August, Rigol Ploettner said approximately 500 asylum seekers in the MPP program had been referred to Assisted Voluntary Return. Of those 500, he said, about 95 percent were found to be eligible for the program.

      He said the organization warns asylum seekers that returning to their home country may cause them to receive deportation orders from the US in absentia, meaning they will most likely face a ban on entering the US of up to 10 years.

      The organization does not inform US immigration courts that they have returned asylum seekers, nor are asylum seekers assisted in withdrawing their petition for asylum, which would avoid future penalties in the US.

      “For now, as the IOM, we don’t have a direct mechanism for withdrawal,” Rigol Ploettner said. Human Rights Watch is deeply concerned about the failure to notify the asylum courts when people who are on US immigration court dockets return home and the negative legal consequences for asylum seekers. These concerns are heightened by the environment in which the Assisted Voluntary Return Program is operating. Asylum seekers in the MPP are in such a vulnerable situation that it cannot be assumed that decisions to return home are based on informed consent.

      https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/09/25/us-move-puts-more-asylum-seekers-risk

      via @pascaline

    • Sweeping Language in Asylum Agreement Foists U.S. Responsibilities onto El Salvador

      Amid a tightening embrace of Trump administration policies, last week El Salvador agreed to begin taking asylum-seekers sent back from the United States. The agreement was announced on Friday but details were not made public at the time. The text of the agreement — which The Intercept requested and obtained from the Department of Homeland Security — purports to uphold international and domestic obligations “to provide protection for eligible refugees,” but immigration experts see the move as the very abandonment of the principle of asylum. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, policy analyst at American Immigration Council, called the agreement a “deeply cynical” move.

      The agreement, which closely resembles one that the U.S. signed with Guatemala in July, implies that any asylum-seeker who is not from El Salvador could be sent back to that country and forced to seek asylum there. Although officials have said that the agreements would apply to people who passed through El Salvador or Guatemala en route, the text of the agreements does not explicitly make that clear.

      “This agreement is so potentially sweeping that it could be used to send an asylum-seeker who never transited El Salvador to El Salvador,” said Eleanor Acer, senior director of refugee protection at the nonprofit organization Human Rights First.

      DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

      The Guatemalan deal has yet to take effect, as Guatemala’s Congress claims to need to ratify it first. DHS officials are currently seeking a similar arrangement with Honduras and have been pressuring Mexico — under threats of tariffs — to crack down on U.S.-bound migration.

      The agreement with El Salvador comes after the Supreme Court recently upheld the Trump administration’s most recent asylum ban, which requires anyone who has transited through another country before reaching the border to seek asylum there first, and be denied in that country, in order to be eligible for asylum in the U.S. Meanwhile, since January, more than 42,000 asylum-seekers who filed their claims in the U.S. before the ban took effect have been pushed back into Mexico and forced to wait there — where they have been subjected to kidnapping, rape, and extortion, among other hazards — as the courts slowly weigh their eligibility.

      Reichlin-Melnick called the U.S.-El Salvador deal “yet another sustained attack at our system of asylum protections.” It begins by invoking the international Refugee Convention and the principle of non-refoulement, which is the crux of asylum law — the guarantee not to return asylum-seekers to a country where they would be subjected to persecution or death. Karen Musalo, law professor at U.C. Hastings Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, called that invocation “Orwellian.”

      “The idea that El Salvador is a safe country for asylum-seekers when it is one of the major countries sending asylum-seekers to the U.S., a country with one of the highest homicide and femicide rates in the world, a place in which gangs have control over large swathes of the country, and the violence is causing people to flee in record numbers … is another absurdity that is beyond the pale,” Musalo said.

      “El Salvador is not a country that is known for having any kind of protection for its own citizens’ human rights,” Musalo added. “If they can’t protect their own citizens, it’s absolutely absurd to think that they can protect people that are not their citizens.”

      “They’ve looked at all of the facts,” Reichlin-Melnick said. “And they’ve decided to create their own reality.”

      Last week, the Salvadoran newspaper El Faro reported that the country’s agency that reviews asylum claims only has a single officer. Meanwhile, though homicide rates have gone down in recent months — since outsider president Nayib Bukele took office in June — September has already seen an increase in homicides. Bukele’s calculus in accepting the agreement is still opaque to Salvadoran observers (Guatemala’s version was deeply unpopular in that country), but he has courted U.S. investment and support. The legal status of nearly 200,000 Salvadorans with temporary protected status in the U.S. is also under threat from the administration. This month also saw the symbolic launch of El Salvador’s Border Patrol — with U.S. funding and support. This week, Bukele, who has both sidled up to Trump and employed Trumpian tactics, will meet with the U.S. president in New York to discuss immigration.

      Reichlin-Melnick noted that the Guatemalan and Salvadoran agreements, as written, could bar people not only from seeking asylum, but also from two other protections meant to fulfill the non-refoulement principle: withholding of removal (a stay on deportation) and the Convention Against Torture, which prevents people from being returned to situations where they may face torture. That would mean that these Central American cooperation agreements go further than the recent asylum ban, which still allows people to apply for those other protections.

      Another major difference between the asylum ban and these agreements is that with the asylum ban, people would be deported to their home countries. If these agreements go into effect, the U.S. will start sending people to Guatemala or El Salvador, regardless of where they may be from. In the 1980s, the ACLU documented over 100 cases of Salvadorans who were harmed or killed after they were deported from the U.S. After this agreement goes into effect, it will no longer be just Salvadorans who the U.S. will be sending into danger.

      https://theintercept.com/2019/09/23/el-salvador-asylum-agreement

    • La forteresse Trump ou le pari du mur

      Plus que sur le mur promis pendant sa campagne, Donald Trump semble fonder sa #politique_migratoire sur une #pression_commerciale sur ses voisins du sud, remettant en cause les #échanges économiques mais aussi culturels avec le Mexique. Ce mur ne serait-il donc que symbolique ?
      Alors que l’administration américaine le menaçait de #taxes_douanières et de #guerre_commerciale, le Mexique d’Andres Lopez Obrador a finalement concédé de freiner les flux migratoires.

      Après avoir accepté un #accord imposé par Washington, Mexico a considérablement réduit les flux migratoires et accru les #expulsions. En effet, plus de 100 000 ressortissants centre-américains ont été expulsés du Mexique vers le #Guatemala dans les huit premiers mois de l’année, soit une hausse de 63% par rapport à l’année précédente selon les chiffres du Guatemala.

      Par ailleurs, cet été le Guatemala a conclu un accord de droit d’asile avec Washington, faisant de son territoire un « #pays_sûr » auprès duquel les demandeurs d’asiles ont l’obligation d’effectuer les premières démarches. Le Salvador et le #Honduras ont suivi la voie depuis.

      Et c’est ainsi que, alors qu’il rencontrait les plus grandes difficultés à obtenir les financements pour le mur à la frontière mexicaine, Donald Trump mise désormais sur ses voisins pour externaliser sa politique migratoire.

      Alors le locataire de la Maison Blanche a-t-il oublié ses ambitions de poursuivre la construction de cette frontière de fer et de béton ? Ce mur n’était-il qu’un symbole destiné à montrer à son électorat son volontarisme en matière de lutte contre l’immigration ? Le retour de la campagne est-il susceptible d’accélérer les efforts dans le domaine ?

      D’autre part, qu’en est-il de la situation des migrants sur le terrain ? Comment s’adaptent-ils à cette nouvelle donne ? Quelles conséquences sur les parcours migratoires des hommes, des femmes et des enfants qui cherchent à gagner les Etats-Unis ?

      On se souvient de cette terrible photo des cadavres encore enlacés d’un père et de sa petite fille de 2 ans, Oscar et Valeria Alberto, originaires du Salvador, morts noyés dans les eaux tumultueuses du Rio Bravo en juin dernier alors qu’ils cherchaient à passer aux Etats-Unis.

      Ce destin tragique annonce-t-il d’autres drames pour nombre de candidats à l’exil qui, quelques soient les politiques migratoires des Etats, iront au bout de leur vie avec l’espoir de l’embellir un peu ?

      https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/cultures-monde/les-frontieres-de-la-colere-14-la-forteresse-trump-ou-le-pari-du-mur

      #Mexique #symbole #barrières_frontalières #USA #Etats-Unis #renvois #push-back #refoulements

    • Mexico sends asylum seekers south — with no easy way to return for U.S. court dates

      The exhausted passengers emerge from a sleek convoy of silver and red-streaked buses, looking confused and disoriented as they are deposited ignominiously in this tropical backwater in southernmost Mexico.

      There is no greeter here to provide guidance on their pending immigration cases in the United States or on where to seek shelter in a teeming international frontier town packed with marooned, U.S.-bound migrants from across the globe.

      The bus riders had made a long and perilous overland trek north to the Rio Grande only to be dispatched back south to Mexico’s border with Central America — close to where many of them had begun their perilous journeys weeks and months earlier. At this point, some said, both their resources and sense of hope had been drained.

      “We don’t know what we’re going to do next,” said Maria de Los Angeles Flores Reyes, 39, a Honduran accompanied by her daughter, Cataren, 9, who appeared petrified after disembarking from one of the long-distance buses. “There’s no information, nothing.”

      The two are among more than 50,000 migrants, mostly Central Americans, whom U.S. immigration authorities have sent back to Mexico this year to await court hearings in the United States under the Trump administration’s Remain in Mexico program.

      Immigration advocates have assailed the program as punitive, while the White House says it has worked effectively — discouraging many migrants from following up on asylum cases and helping to curb what President Trump has decried as a “catch and release” system in which apprehended migrants have been freed in U.S. territory pending court proceeding that can drag on for months or years.

      The ever-expanding ranks pose a growing dilemma for Mexican authorities, who, under intense pressure from the White House, had agreed to accept the returnees and provide them with humanitarian assistance.

      As the numbers rise, Mexico, in many cases, has opted for a controversial solution: Ship as many asylum seekers as possible more than 1,000 miles back here in the apparent hope that they will opt to return to Central America — even if that implies endangering or foregoing prospective political asylum claims in U.S. immigration courts.

      Mexican officials, sensitive to criticism that they are facilitating Trump’s hard-line deportation agenda, have been tight-lipped about the shadowy busing program, under which thousands of asylum-seekers have been returned here since August. (Mexican authorities declined to provide statistics on just how many migrants have been sent back under the initiative.)

      In a statement, Mexico’s immigration agency called the 40-hour bus rides a “free, voluntary and secure” alternative for migrants who don’t want to spend months waiting in the country’s notoriously dangerous northern border towns.

      Advocates counter that the program amounts to a barely disguised scheme for encouraging ill-informed migrants to abandon their ongoing petitions in U.S. immigration court and return to Central America. Doing so leaves them to face the same conditions that they say forced them to flee toward the United States, and, at the same time, would undermine the claims that they face persecution at home.

      “Busing someone back to your southern border doesn’t exactly send them a message that you want them to stay in your country,” said Maureen Meyer, who heads the Mexico program for the Washington Office on Latin America, a research and advocacy group. “And it isn’t always clear that the people on the buses understand what this could mean for their cases in the United States.”

      Passengers interviewed on both ends of the bus pipeline — along the northern Mexican border and here on the southern frontier with Guatemala — say that no Mexican official briefed them on the potential legal jeopardy of returning home.

      “No one told us anything,” Flores Reyes asked after she got off the bus here, bewildered about how to proceed. “Is there a safe place to stay here until our appointment in December?”

      The date is specified on a notice to appear that U.S. Border Patrol agents handed her before she and her daughter were sent back to Mexico last month after having been detained as illegal border-crossers in south Texas. They are due Dec. 16 in a U.S. immigration court in Harlingen, Texas, for a deportation hearing, according to the notice, stamped with the capital red letters MPP — for Migrant Protection Protocols, the official designation of Remain in Mexico.

      The free bus rides to the Guatemalan border are strictly a one-way affair: Mexico does not offer return rides back to the northern border for migrants due in a U.S. immigration court, typically several months later.

      Beti Suyapa Ortega, 36, and son Robinson Javier Melara, 17, in a Mexican immigration agency waiting room in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico.

      “At this point, I’m so frightened I just want to go home,” said Beti Suyapa Ortega, 36, from Honduras, who crossed the border into Texas intending to seek political asylum and surrendered to the Border Patrol.

      She, along with her son, 17, were among two dozen or so Remain in Mexico returnees waiting recently for a southbound bus in a spartan office space at the Mexican immigration agency compound in Nuevo Laredo, across the Rio Grande from Laredo, Texas.

      Ortega and others said they were terrified of venturing onto the treacherous streets of Nuevo Laredo — where criminal gangs control not only drug trafficking but also the lucrative enterprise of abducting and extorting from migrants.

      “We can’t get out of here soon enough. It has been a nightmare,” said Ortega, who explained that she and her son had been kidnapped and held for two weeks and only released when a brother in Atlanta paid $8,000 in ransom. “I can never come back to this place.”

      The Ortegas, along with a dozen or so other Remain in Mexico returnees, left later that evening on a bus to southern Mexico. She said she would skip her date in U.S. immigration court, in Laredo — an appointment that would require her to pass through Nuevo Laredo and expose herself anew to its highly organized kidnapping and extortion gangs.

      The Mexican government bus service operates solely from the northern border towns of Nuevo Laredo and Matamoros, officials say. Both are situated in hyper-dangerous Tamaulipas state, a cartel hub on the Gulf of Mexico that regularly ranks high nationwide in homicides, “disappearances” and the discovery of clandestine graves.

      The long-haul Mexican busing initiative began in July, after U.S. immigration authorities began shipping migrants with court cases to Tamaulipas. Earlier, Remain in Mexico had been limited to sending migrants with U.S. court dates back to the northern border towns of Tijuana, Mexicali and Ciudad Juarez.

      At first, the buses left migrants departing from Tamaulipas state in the city of Monterrey, a relatively safe industrial center four hours south of the U.S. border. But officials there, including the state governor, complained about the sudden influx of hundreds of mostly destitute Central Americans. That’s when Mexican authorities appear to have begun busing all the way back to Ciudad Hidalgo, along Mexico’s border with Guatemala.

      A separate, United Nations-linked program has also returned thousands of migrants south from two large cities on the U.S. border, Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez.

      The packed buses arrive here two or three times a week, with no apparent set schedule.

      On a recent morning, half a dozen, each ferrying more than 40 migrants, came to a stop a block from the Rodolfo Robles international bridge that spans the Suchiate River, the dividing line between Mexico and Guatemala. Part of the fleet of the Omnibus Cristobal Colon long-distance transport company, the buses displayed windshield signs explaining they were “in the service” of Mexico’s national immigration agency.

      The migrants on board had begun the return journey south in Matamoros, across from Brownsville, Texas, after having been sent back there by U.S. immigration authorities.

      Many clutched folders with notices to appear in U.S. immigration court in Texas in December.

      But some, including Flores Reyes, said they were terrified of returning to Matamoros, where they had been subjected to robbery or kidnapping. Nor did they want to return across the Rio Grande to Texas, if it required travel back through Matamoros.

      Flores Reyes said kidnappers held her and her daughter for a week in Matamoros before they managed to escape with the aid of a fellow Honduran.

      The pair later crossed into Texas, she said, and they surrendered to the U.S. Border Patrol. On Sept. 11, they were sent back to Matamoros with a notice to appear Dec. 16 in immigration court in Harlingen.

      “When they told us they were sending us back to Matamoros I became very upset,” Flores Reyes said. “I can’t sleep. I’m still so scared because of what happened to us there.”

      Fearing a second kidnapping, she said, she quickly agreed to take the transport back to southern Mexico.

      Christian Gonzalez, 23, a native of El Salvador who was also among those recently returned here, said he had been mugged in Matamoros and robbed of his cash, his ID and his documents, among them the government notice to appear in U.S. immigration court in Texas in December.

      “Without the paperwork, what can I do?” said an exasperated Gonzalez, a laborer back in Usulutan province in southeastern El Salvador. “I don’t have any money to stay here.”

      He planned to abandon his U.S. immigration case and return to El Salvador, where he said he faced threats from gangs and an uncertain future.

      Standing nearby was Nuvia Carolina Meza Romero, 37, accompanied by her daughter, Jessi, 8, who clutched a stuffed sheep. Both had also returned on the buses from Matamoros. Meza Romero, too, was in a quandary about what do, but seemed resigned to return to Honduras.

      “I can’t stay here. I don’t know anyone and I don’t have any money,” said Meza Romero, who explained that she spent a week in U.S. custody in Texas after crossing the Rio Grande and being apprehended on Sept. 2.

      Her U.S. notice to appear advised her to show up on Dec. 3 in U.S. immigration court in Brownsville.

      “I don’t know how I would even get back there at this point,” said Meza Romero, who was near tears as she stood with her daughter near the border bridge.

      Approaching the migrants were aggressive bicycle taxi drivers who, for a fee of the equivalent of about $2, offered to smuggle them back across the river to Guatemala on rafts made of planks and inner tubes, thus avoiding Mexican and Guatemalan border inspections.

      Opting to cross the river were many bus returnees from Matamoros, including Meza Romero, her daughter and Gonzalez, the Salvadoran.

      But Flores Reyes was hesitant to return to Central America and forfeit her long-sought dream of resettling in the United States, even if she had to make her way back to Matamoros on her own.

      “Right now, we just need to find some shelter,” Flores Reyes said as she ambled off in search of some kind of lodging, her daughter holding her mother’s arm. “We have an appointment on Dec. 16 on the other side. I plan to make it. I’m not ready to give up yet.”

      https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-10-15/buses-to-nowhere-mexico-transports-migrants-with-u-s-court-dates-to-its-far

      –---------

      Commentaire de @pascaline via la mailing-list Migreurop :

      Outre le dispositif d’expulsion par charter de l’OIM (https://seenthis.net/messages/730601) mis en place à la frontière nord du Mexique pour les MPPs, le transfert et l’abandon des demandeurs d’asile MPPS à la frontière avec le Guatemala, par les autorités mexicaines est présentée comme une façon de leur permettre d’échapper à la dangerosité des villes frontalières du Nord tout en espérant qu’ils choississent de retourner par eux-mêmes « chez eux »...

    • In a first, U.S. starts pushing Central American families seeking asylum to Guatemala

      U.S. officials have started to send families seeking asylum to Guatemala, even if they are not from the Central American country and had sought protection in the United States, the Los Angeles Times has learned.

      In July, the Trump administration announced a new rule to effectively end asylum at the southern U.S. border by requiring asylum seekers to claim protection elsewhere. Under that rule — which currently faces legal challenges — virtually any migrant who passes through another country before reaching the U.S. border and does not seek asylum there will be deemed ineligible for protection in the United States.

      A few days later, the administration reached an agreement with Guatemala to take asylum seekers arriving at the U.S. border who were not Guatemalan. Although Guatemala’s highest court initially said the country’s president couldn’t unilaterally enter into such an agreement, since late November, U.S. officials have forcibly returned individuals to Guatemala under the deal.

      At first, U.S. officials said they would return only single adults. But starting Tuesday, they began applying the policy to non-Guatemalan parents and children, according to communications obtained by The Times and several U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials.

      One family of three from Honduras, as well as a separate Honduran parent and child, were served with notices on Tuesday that they’d soon be deported to Guatemala.

      The Trump administration has reached similar agreements with Guatemala’s Northern Triangle neighbors, El Salvador and Honduras, in each case obligating those countries to take other Central Americans who reach the U.S. border. Those agreements, however, have yet to be implemented.

      The administration describes the agreements as an “effort to share the distribution of hundreds of thousands of asylum claims.”

      The deals — also referred to as “safe third country” agreements — “are formed between the United States and foreign countries where aliens removed to those countries would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection,” according to the federal notice.

      Guatemala has virtually no asylum system of its own, but the Trump administration and Guatemalan government both said the returns would roll out slowly and selectively.

      The expansion of the policy to families could mean many more asylum seekers being forcibly removed to Guatemala.

      Experts, advocates, the United Nations and Guatemalan officials say the country doesn’t have the capacity to handle any sizable influx, much less process potential protection claims. Guatemala’s own struggles with corruption, violence and poverty helped push more than 270,000 Guatemalans to the U.S. border in fiscal 2019.

      Citizenship and Immigration Services and Homeland Security officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

      https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2019-12-10/u-s-starts-pushing-asylum-seeking-families-back-to-guatemala-for-first-time

    • U.S. implements plan to send Mexican asylum seekers to Guatemala

      Mexicans seeking asylum in the United States could be sent to Guatemala under a bilateral agreement signed by the Central American nation last year, according to documents sent to U.S. asylum officers in recent days and seen by Reuters.

      In a Jan. 4 email, field office staff at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) were told Mexican nationals will be included in the populations “amenable” to the agreement with Guatemala.

      The agreement, brokered last July between the administration of Republican President Donald Trump and the outgoing Guatemalan government, allows U.S. immigration officials to send migrants requesting asylum at the U.S.-Mexican border to apply for protection in Guatemala instead.

      Mexico objects to the plan, its foreign ministry said in a statement late on Monday, adding that it would be working with authorities to find “better options” for those that could be affected.

      Trump has made clamping down on unlawful migration a top priority of his presidency and a major theme of his 2020 re-election campaign. His administration penned similar deals with Honduras and El Salvador last year.

      U.S. Democrats and pro-migrant groups have opposed the move and contend asylum seekers will face danger in Guatemala, where the murder rate is five times that of the United States, according to 2017 data compiled by the World Bank. The country’s asylum office is tiny and thinly staffed and critics have argued it lacks the capacity to properly vet a significant increase in cases.

      Guatemalan President-elect Alejandro Giammattei, who takes office this month, has said he will review the agreement.

      Acting Deputy U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Ken Cuccinelli said in a tweet in December that Mexicans were being considered for inclusion under the agreement.

      USCIS referred questions to DHS, which referred to Cuccinelli’s tweet. Mexico’s foreign ministry did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

      Alejandra Mena, a spokeswoman for Guatemala’s immigration institute, said that since the agreement was implemented in November, the United States has sent 52 migrants to the country. Only six have applied for asylum in Guatemala, Mena said.

      On Monday, an additional 33 Central American migrants arrived on a flight to Guatemala City, she said.

      Unaccompanied minors cannot be sent to Guatemala under the agreement, which now applies only to migrants from Honduras, El Salvador and Mexico, according to the guidance documents. Exceptions are made if the migrants can establish that they are “more likely than not” to be persecuted or tortured in Guatemala based on their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

      Numbers of Central American migrants apprehended at the border fell sharply in the second part of 2019 after Mexico deployed National Guard troops to stem the flow, under pressure from Trump.

      Overall, border arrests are expected to drop again in December for the seventh straight month, a Homeland Security official told Reuters last week, citing preliminary data.

      The U.S. government says another reason for the reduction in border crossings is a separate program, known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, that has forced more than 56,000 non-Mexican migrants to wait in Mexico for their U.S. immigration court hearings.

      With fewer Central Americans at the border, U.S. attention has turned to Mexicans crossing illegally or requesting asylum. About 150,000 Mexican single adults were apprehended at the border in fiscal 2019, down sharply from previous decades but still enough to bother U.S. immigration hawks.

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration/us-implements-plan-to-send-mexican-asylum-seekers-to-guatemala-idUSKBN1Z51S
      #Guatemala

    • Mexico begins flying, busing migrants back to #Honduras

      Hundreds of Central American migrants who entered southern Mexico in recent days have either been pushed back into Guatemala by Mexican troops, shipped to detention centers or returned to Honduras, officials said Tuesday. An unknown number slipped past Mexican authorities and continued north.

      The latest migrant caravan provided a public platform for Mexico to show the U.S. government and migrants thinking of making the trip that it has refined its strategy and produced its desired result: This caravan will not advance past its southern border.

      What remained unclear was the treatment of the migrants who already find themselves on their way back to the countries they fled last week.

      “Mexico doesn’t have the capacity to process so many people in such a simple way in a couple of days,” said Guadalupe Correa Cabrera, a professor at George Mason University studying how the caravans form.

      The caravan of thousands had set out from Honduras in hopes Mexico would grant them passage, posing a fresh test of U.S. President Donald Trump’s effort to reduce the flow of migrants arriving at the U.S. border by pressuring other governments to stop them.

      Mexican Foreign Secretary Marcelo Ebrard said 2,400 migrants entered Mexico legally over the weekend. About 1,000 of them requested Mexico’s help in returning to their countries. The rest were being held in immigration centers while they start legal processes that would allow them to seek refuge in Mexico or obtain temporary work permits that would confine them to southern Mexico.

      On Tuesday afternoon, Jesus, a young father from Honduras who offered only his first name, rested in a shelter in Tecun Uman, Guatemala, with his wife and their baby, unsure of what to do next.

      “No country’s policy sustains us,” he said in response to hearing Ebrard’s comments about the situation. “If we don’t work, we don’t eat. (He) doesn’t feed us, doesn’t care for our children.”

      Honduran officials said more than 600 of its citizens were expected to arrive in that country Tuesday by plane and bus and more would follow in the coming days.

      Of an additional 1,000 who tried to enter Mexico illegally Monday by wading across the Suchiate river, most were either forced back or detained later by immigration agents, according to Mexican officials.

      Most of the hundreds stranded in the no-man’s land on the Mexican side of the river Monday night returned to Guatemala in search of water, food and a place to sleep. Late Tuesday, the first buses carrying Hondurans left Tecun Uman with approximately 150 migrants heading back to their home country.

      Mexican authorities distributed no water or food to those who entered illegally, in what appeared to be an attempt by the government to wear out the migrants.

      Alejandro Rendón, an official from Mexico’s social welfare department, said his colleagues were giving water to those who turned themselves in or were caught by immigration agents, but were not doing the same along the river because it was not safe for workers to do so.

      “It isn’t prudent to come here because we can’t put the safety of the colleagues at risk,” he said.

      Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador said Tuesday that the government is trying to protect the migrants from harm by preventing them from traveling illegally through the country. He said they need to respect Mexican laws.

      “If we don’t take care of them, if we don’t know who they are, if we don’t have a register, they pass and get to the north, and the criminal gangs grab them and assault them, because that’s how it was before,” he said. “They disappeared them.”

      Mexican Interior Minister Olga Sánchez Cordero commended the National Guard for its restraint, saying: “In no way has there been an act that we could call repression and not even annoyance.”

      But Honduras’ ambassador to Mexico said there had been instances of excessive force on the part of the National Guard. “We made a complaint before the Mexican government,” Alden Rivera said in an interview with HCH Noticias without offering details. He also conceded migrants had thrown rocks at Mexican authorities.

      An Associated Press photograph of a Mexican National Guardsman holding a migrant in a headlock was sent via Twitter by acting U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Ken Cuccinelli with the message: “We appreciate Mexico doing more than they did last year to interdict caravans attempting to move illegally north to our southern border.”

      “They absolutely must be satisfied with (Mexico’s) actions because in reality it’s their (the United States’) plan,” said Correa Cabrera, the George Mason professor. “They’re congratulating themselves, because in reality it wasn’t López Obrador’s plan.”

      She said it is an complicated issue for Mexico, but the National Guard had no business being placed at the border to handle immigration because they weren’t trained for it. The government “is sending a group that doesn’t know how to and can’t protect human rights because they’re trained to do other kinds of things,” she said.

      Mexico announced last June that it was deploying the newly formed National Guard to assist in immigration enforcement to avoid tariffs that Trump threatened on Mexican imports.

      Darlin René Romero and his wife were among the few who spent the night pinned between the river and Mexican authorities.

      Rumors had circulated through the night that “anything could happen, that being there was very dangerous,” Romero said. But the couple from Copan, Honduras, spread a blanket on the ground and passed the night 20 yards from a line of National Guard troops forming a wall with their riot shields.

      They remained confident that Mexico would allow them to pass through and were trying to make it to the northern Mexican city of Monterrey, where his sister lives.

      They said a return home to impoverished and gang-plagued Honduras, where most of the migrants are from, was unthinkable.

      https://apnews.com/4d685100193f6a2c521267fe614356df

    • Affrontements en Libye : le #HCR relocalise en lieu sûr des réfugiés depuis des #centres_de_détention

      Du fait de l’insécurité actuelle dans la capitale libyenne, le HCR, l’Agence des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés, a relocalisé aujourd’hui plus de 150 réfugiés depuis le centre de détention d’#Ain_Zara au sud de #Tripoli vers le centre du HCR pour le regroupement et le départ, dans une zone sûre située non loin.

      Le centre de détention d’Ain Zara a été affecté par de violents affrontements ces derniers jours. Les réfugiés ont fait part au HCR de leur peur et leur inquiétude pour leur sécurité, car des combats survenaient dans les environs, et il ne leur restait que très peu de vivres.

      Le HCR a reçu des informations faisant état de situations similaires dans d’autres centres de détention et examine actuellement ces demandes.

      Aujourd’hui, la relocalisation de réfugiés et de migrants détenus est la première effectuée par le HCR depuis l’escalade récente des violences.

      Le HCR travaille en étroite collaboration avec les autorités et ses partenaires pour assurer la relocalisation des personnes vulnérables des centres de détention.

      « En Libye, de nombreux réfugiés et migrants subissent des abus effroyables. Ils courent désormais également de sérieux risques et ne doivent pas être négligés dans les efforts visant à mettre tous les civils à l’abri du danger et à les relocaliser dans des endroits plus sûrs », a déclaré Matthew Brook, chef-adjoint de la mission du HCR en Libye.

      Depuis l’éruption des combats dans la capitale libyenne, plus de 3400 Libyens ont été déplacés par les combats et beaucoup d’autres sont pris au piège dans les tirs croisés. Ils sont dans l’incapacité de fuir en quête de refuge.

      Le HCR se joint à la communauté humanitaire pour exhorter au respect des obligations juridiques internationales afin d’assurer la sécurité de tous les civils et la sauvegarde de l’infrastructure civile, ainsi que de permettre un accès humanitaire complet, sûr, sans entrave et durable dans les zones touchées.

      Dans le cadre de sa réponse à la crise d’urgence résultant de la violence actuelle, le HCR a également prépositionné du matériel de secours dans des endroits clés à Tripoli et Misrata, a renforcé ses services d’assistance téléphonique et assure la continuité de ses programmes d’assistance aux réfugiés et aux Libyens déplacés en milieu urbain.

      Le HCR réitère sa position selon laquelle les conditions en Libye ne sont pas sûres pour les réfugiés et les migrants secourus ou interceptés en mer, et que ces personnes ne doivent pas y être renvoyées.

      https://www.unhcr.org/fr/news/press/2019/4/5cad93afa/affrontements-libye-hcr-relocalise-lieu-s-r-refugies-centres-detention.html
      #évacuation #UNHCR #pays_sûr

      v. aussi ce fil twitter du HCR :
      https://twitter.com/Refugees/status/1115908064270532609

  • Denmark’s government changes policy on UN quota refugees with new bill

    That means the application of the government’s view that the status of refugees should always be considered as temporary, and that their status should be revoked as soon as conditions in origin countries are deemed to enable this.

    https://www.thelocal.dk/20190130/denmarks-government-changes-policy-on-un-quota-refugees-with-new-bill

    #Danemark #réfugiés #asile #migrations #quota #statut_de_réfugié #temporaire #précarisation #pays_sûr #révocation #renvois #it_has_begun
    via @isskein

  • Presseerklärung

    1. Februar 2019

    Einzug der »bayerischen Art« in ganz Deutschland
    PRO ASYL und der Bayerische Flüchtlingsrat warnen: Neuer Vorstoß aus dem BMI führt zu Ausgrenzung und Perspektivlosigkeit

    Während die Große Koalition im aktuellen Entwurf zur Fachkräftezuwanderung die Stärkung der Geduldeten bewirbt, geht das Bundesinnenministerium (BMI) nun den umgekehrten Weg: Die Zeitung WELT berichtet von einem Referentenentwurf des BMI, nach dem geduldeten Flüchtlingen, denen vorgeworfen wird, nicht hinreichend an der Passbeschaffung mitgewirkt zu haben, der Duldungsstatus entzogen werden soll.

    PRO ASYL und der Bayerische Flüchtlingsrat warnen vor der Ausgrenzungsinitiative des BMI. »Bayerische Verhältnisse werden in ganz Deutschland zur Normalität. Willkürliche Anforderungen an die Mitwirkung bei der Passersatzbeschaffung werden Wege in ein Bleiberecht verhindern«, kritisiert Günter Burkhardt, Geschäftsführer von PRO ASYL. Der Entwurf sieht weitere Sanktionsmöglichkeiten vor. »Wenn Arbeits- und Ausbildungsverbote verhängt werden, wird ein Zustand der dauerhaften Perspektivlosigkeit geschaffen«, so Burkhardt weiter.

    In dem Referentenentwurf heißt es: »Wer seine Abschiebung selbst verhindert, zum Beispiel weil er die Behörden über Identität oder Staatsangehörigkeit täuscht oder an der Passersatzbeschaffung nicht ausreichend mitwirkt, darf künftig keine Duldung mehr erhalten«. Die Praxis zeigt aber: Oft wird willkürlich und für die Betroffenen nicht absehbar fehlende Mitwirkung vorgeworfen. Dabei kann das ganz unterschiedliche Gründe haben: Afghanische Staatsangehörige, die lange im Iran gelebt haben, erhalten keine Papiere mehr oder somalische Dokumente werden oftmals nicht anerkannt. Diese Betroffenen dürfen dann laut Gesetzentwurf nicht arbeiten oder eine Ausbildung anfangen – obwohl sie gerade nicht abgeschoben werden können.

    Schon jetzt zeigt die willkürliche Praxis in Bayern: Auch mit Duldung bekommen viele Asylsuchende Arbeits- und Ausbildungsverbote auferlegt, in vielen Landkreisen dürfen geduldete Flüchtlinge nicht einmal ein Praktikum absolvieren, in AnkER-Zentren werden Flüchtlinge isoliert und entrechtet. »Die Betroffenen werden in die Illegalität getrieben. Von mehr als 11.000 Ausgereisten aus Bayern in 2018 sind lediglich 2.600 nachweislich in ihr Herkunftsland zurückgekehrt«, beschreibt Stephan Dünnwald, Flüchtlingsrat Bayern. »Die bayerische Art hält nun in ganz Deutschland Einzug«.

    Dem Betroffenen soll sogar die Unmöglichkeit der Abschiebung zugerechnet werden, allein weil er Staatsangehöriger eines sicheren Herkunftsstaates ist. Vom persönlichen Verhalten des Betroffenen ist die Versagung der Duldung dann nicht mehr abhängig. Der Mensch wird aufgrund der Nationalität völlig unabhängig von seinem Verhalten diskriminiert und mit Sanktionen belegt.

    PRO ASYL und der Bayerische Flüchtlingsrat erinnern, dass schon 2015 und 2017 ähnliche Vorschläge aus der CSU kamen, die aus guten Gründen keine Mehrheit fanden. Die »Duldung light« scheiterte zu Recht.

    http://go.proasyl.de/nl/o56x/ln6zs.html?m=AM4AACv3GAUAAcTbilwAAGTbamoAAAAAEhMAFqrwAAS0dQBcVCzdGRvFD_Kt

    #Allemagne #Duldung #BMI #espulsion #pays_sûrs #clarification_d'identité #démarche_bavroise

    • Asylbewerber: Keine Duldung mehr bei falscher Identität - WELT

      Die sogenannte Duldung ist eine komplexe Angelegenheit: Wer einen solchen Status besitzt, ist gleichzeitig verpflichtet zu gehen, aber berechtigt zu bleiben. Warum gibt es diese Regelung, und für wen gilt sie?

      Abgelehnte Asylbewerber erhalten mit dem Ablehnungsbescheid eine Aufforderung zur Ausreise; wenn sie dieser nicht freiwillig innerhalb einiger Monate nachkommen, müssen sie eigentlich abgeschoben werden. Das klappt nach wie vor nur in einem Bruchteil der Fälle.

      Wenn die Ausländerbehörde dann zu der Überzeugung gelangt, dass die Abschiebung eines solchen ausreisepflichtigen Ausländers auf absehbare Zeit nicht möglich ist, erteilt sie eine Duldung. Und zwar, weil sie den abgelehnten Asylbewerber nicht länger in der unmittelbaren Bedrohungssituation belassen möchte, jederzeit zum Flieger in die Heimat gebracht werden zu können.

      Er bleibt aber immer noch verpflichtet, selbst auszureisen, wofür ihm auch eine finanzielle Förderung angeboten wird. Gleichzeitig erhält er aber Sozialleistungen, Sprachkurse und meist die Erlaubnis, einen Ausbildungs- oder Arbeitsplatz anzunehmen. Nach 18 Monaten in diesem Duldungsstatus können die Ausländerbehörden den abgelehnten Asylbewerbern eine Aufenthaltserlaubnis erteilen. Insgesamt sind derzeit von rund 230.000 Ausreisepflichtigen drei Viertel geduldet.
      Seehofer will Regeln verschärfen

      Problematisch ist dieser Spagat zwischen Ausreisepflicht und Integrationsanstrengungen, wenn der Geduldete die Gründe für seine Duldung selbst zu verantworten hat; beispielsweise wenn er deswegen nicht abgeschoben werden kann, weil sein Herkunftsstaat nicht bekannt ist und er nicht dabei mithilft, dass die deutschen Behörden in Zusammenarbeit mit den Botschaften der mutmaßlichen Herkunftsstaaten seine Identität feststellen können.

      Deswegen möchte das von Horst Seehofer (CSU) geführte Bundesinnenministerium Ausreisepflichtigen die Duldung in solchen Fällen entziehen. In einem Referentenentwurf des Ministeriums für ein „Zweites Gesetz zur besseren Durchsetzung der Ausreisepflicht“ – der allerdings noch mit den anderen Ministerien abgestimmt und dann noch vom Bundeskabinett und schließlich vom Bundestag beschlossen werden muss – heißt es: „Wer seine Abschiebung selbst verhindert, zum Beispiel weil er die Behörden über Identität oder Staatsangehörigkeit täuscht oder an der Passersatzbeschaffung nicht ausreichend mitwirkt, darf künftig keine Duldung mehr erhalten.“

      Und weiter heißt es in dem Entwurf, der WELT vorliegt: „Die Behörden bestätigen dann vielmehr nur noch die vollziehbare Ausreisepflicht. Dem Ausländer wird eine Bescheinigung über die vollziehbare Ausreisepflicht (Ausreiseaufforderung) erteilt, hiermit ist eine zuvor erteilte Duldung widerrufen.“

      Seehofers Haus möchte demnach „Ausreisepflichtige, denen die fehlende Durchsetzung ihrer Ausreisepflicht zuzurechnen ist, etwa weil sie ihre Identität verschleiern“, von „denjenigen, die unverschuldet nicht ausreisen können, unterscheiden und stärker sanktionieren“.

      Exklusiv für Abonnenten
      Wolfgang Büscher hat eine Ahnung, was viele Bürger in der deutschen Migrationspolitik vermissen

      Fehlanreize zum rechtswidrigen Verbleib in Deutschland trotz vollziehbarer Ausreisepflicht werden nach dem Referentenentwurf „durch bessere Unterscheidung Ausreisepflichtiger danach, ob sie unverschuldet an der Ausreise gehindert sind oder ihnen die fehlende Möglichkeit zur Durchsetzung ihrer Ausreisepflicht zugerechnet werden muss, beseitigt.“ Dazu werde der Status „Bescheinigung über die vollziehbare Ausreisepflicht (Ausreiseaufforderung)“ unterhalb der Duldung eingeführt.

      Weiter heißt es: „Staatliche Erlaubnisse und Leistungen, die an den Duldungsstatus anknüpfen, werden umfänglich an die Pflicht des Betroffenen geknüpft, in zumutbarem Umfang selbst notwendige Handlungen zur Erlangung eines Passes oder Passersatzes vorzunehmen.“ Wer zur Gruppe der abgelehnten Asylbewerber mit einer solchen Bescheinigung über die vollziehbare Ausreisepflicht gehöre, werde von Integrationsangeboten und anderen Angeboten, die zur „Aufenthaltsverfestigung“ führen können, ausgeschlossen.

      Wer die im Aufenthaltsrecht festgeschriebene Passbeschaffungspflicht nicht erfülle, habe Sanktionen zu erwarten. „Diese Sanktionsmöglichkeit betrifft die Erlaubnis einer Erwerbstätigkeit, die Erteilung einer Ausbildungsduldung, die Wohnsitzauflage, die Anordnung einer räumlichen Beschränkung sowie die Anspruchseinschränkungen bei Leistungen nach dem Asylbewerberleistungsgesetz.“

      Zudem sei dem Betroffenen „die Unmöglichkeit der Abschiebung insbesondere zuzurechnen, wenn er Staatsangehöriger eines sicheren Herkunftsstaates“ ist. Von dieser im Referentenentwurf beschriebenen Gesetzesverschärfung dürften aber nur wenige geduldete abgelehnte Asylbewerber betroffen sein, als sogenannte sichere Herkunftsstaaten sind außerhalb Europas nur Senegal und Ghana eingestuft. Alle Bestrebungen, weitere Staaten als „sicher“ einzustufen, scheitern bisher am Bundesrat beziehungsweise am Widerstand jener dort vertretenen Landesregierungen, die von Linkspartei oder Grünen – mit Ausnahme Baden-Württembergs – mitgetragen werden.

      Exklusiv für Abonnenten
      ARCHIV - 09.11.2018, Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart: Winfried Kretschmann (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen), Ministerpräsident von Baden-Württemberg, stellt im Haus der Wirtschaft sein Buch «Worauf wir uns verlassen können» vor. (zu dpa «JAHRESWECHSEL Die wichtigsten Ereignisse in der Südwest-Politik 2018» vom 28.12.2018) Foto: Christoph Schmidt/dpa +++ dpa-Bildfunk +++

      Und wie oben beschrieben: Dies ist ein Referentenentwurf des Bundesinnenministeriums, der vom Interesse an einer stärkeren Durchsetzung der Ausreisepflicht geprägt ist. In der Vergangenheit wurden ähnliche Gesetzentwürfe in der Ressortabstimmung – vor allem mit dem Bundesjustizministerium – „entschärft“, wie Verfechter des Bleibeinteresses abgelehnter Asylbewerber sagen würden.

      Deswegen heißt das geplante Gesetz auch „Zweites Gesetz zur besseren Durchsetzung der Ausreisepflicht“. Das erste „Gesetz zur besseren Durchsetzung der Ausreisepflicht“ von 2017 hat sich wegen dieser Entschärfungen bisher nicht in höheren Abschiebungszahlen niedergeschlagen. Im Gegenteil.

      Diese sind von 25.375 im Jahr 2016 auf 23.966 Abschiebungen im Jahr 2017 gesunken. Für das vergangene Jahr 2018 wurden die Zahlen noch nicht endgültig ermittelt, es dürfte aber erneut ein leichter Rückgang verzeichnet worden sein. Zum Vergleich: Allein 2018 lehnte das Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (BAMF) 75.395 Asylanträge ab und entschied in weiteren 65.507 Fällen negativ wegen einer sonstigen Verfahrenserledigung.

      Für Letztere kann der Grund sein, dass ein Asylbewerber während des Verfahrens weiter- oder ausgereist ist oder auch weil das BAMF die Zuständigkeit eines anderen europäischen Staates aufgrund der Dublin-Verordnung feststellt. Auch von diesen „Dublin-Fällen“ wird bis heute nur ein kleiner Teil in den zuständigen Staat zurückgebracht.
      Bamf bekommt mehr Zeit zur Bearbeitung von Asylanträgen

      Das Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge kommt mit der Bearbeitung der Asylanträge nicht hinterher. Nun soll die Frist von drei auf vier Jahre verlängern werden.

      https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article188020179/Asylbewerber-Keine-Duldung-mehr-bei-falscher-Identitaet.html

      #Seehofer

    • 3 articles (en anglais et en espagnol) sur le projet en cours de négociation entre les USA et le Mexique visant à faire en sorte que les demandeurs d’asile restent au Mexique durant leur demande d’asile, à moins qu’ils ne démontrent des risques qu’ils encourent à rester sur le territoire mexicain. Cela s’inscrit dans la droit ligne du projet d’accord dit de « pays tiers sûr » dont les négociations n’ont pas abouti avant la fin du mandat du président sortant. On ignore pour l’instant ce qui est proposé en échange

      Trump plan would force asylum seekers to wait in Mexico as cases are processed, a major break with current policy

      Migrants line up to cross into the United States from Tijuana, Mexico, at the San Ysidro port of entry Monday. (Gregory Bull/AP)

      Central Americans who arrive at U.S. border crossings seeking asylum in the United States will have to wait in Mexico while their claims are processed under sweeping new measures the Trump administration is preparing to implement, according to internal planning documents and three Department of Homeland Security officials familiar with the initiative.

      According to DHS memos obtained by The Washington Post on Wednesday, Central American asylum seekers who cannot establish a “reasonable fear” of persecution in Mexico will not be allowed to enter the United States and would be turned around at the border.

      The plan, called “Remain in Mexico,” amounts to a major break with current screening procedures, which generally allow those who establish a fear of return to their home countries to avoid immediate deportation and remain in the United States until they can get a hearing with an immigration judge. Trump despises this system, which he calls “catch and release,” and has vowed to end it.

      Among the thousands of Central American migrants traveling by caravan across Mexico, many hope to apply for asylum due to threats of gang violence or other persecution in their home countries. They had expected to be able to stay in the United States while their claims move through immigration court. The new rules would disrupt those plans, and the hopes of other Central Americans who seek asylum in the United States each year.

      [Trump lashes out at judge after order to allow illegal border crossers to seek asylum]
      Trump remains furious about the caravan and the legal setbacks his administration has suffered in federal court, demanding hard-line policy ideas from aides. Senior adviser Stephen Miller has pushed to implement the Remain in Mexico plan immediately, though other senior officials have expressed concern about implementing it amid sensitive negotiations with the Mexican government, according to two DHS officials and a White House adviser with knowledge of the plan, which was discussed at the White House on Tuesday, people familiar with the matter said.
      The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

      According to the administration’s new plan, if a migrant does not specifically fear persecution in Mexico, that is where they will stay. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is sending teams of asylum officers from field offices in San Francisco, Washington, and Los Angeles to the ports of entry in the San Diego area to implement the new screening procedures, according to a USCIS official.

      To cross into the United States, asylum seekers would have to meet a relatively higher bar in the screening procedure to establish that their fears of being in Mexico are enough to require immediate admission, the documents say.

      “If you are determined to have a reasonable fear of remaining in Mexico, you will be permitted to remain in the United States while you await your hearing before an immigration judge,” the asylum officers will now tell those who arrive seeking humanitarian refuge, according to the DHS memos. “If you are not determined to have a reasonable fear of remaining in Mexico, you will remain in Mexico.”

      Mexican border cities are among the most violent in the country, as drug cartels battle over access to smuggling routes into the United States. In the state of Baja California, which includes Tijuana, the State Department warns that “criminal activity and violence, including homicide, remain a primary concern throughout the state.”

      The new rules will take effect as soon as Friday, according to two DHS officials familiar with the plans.

      Katie Waldman, a spokeswoman for DHS, issued a statement late Wednesday saying there are no immediate plans to implement these new measures.

      “The President has made clear — every single legal option is on the table to secure our nation and to deal with the flood of illegal immigrants at our borders,” the statement says. “DHS is not implementing such a new enforcement program this week. Reporting on policies that do not exist creates uncertainty and confusion along our borders and has a negative real world impact. We will ensure — as always — that any new program or policy will comply with humanitarian obligations, uphold our national security and sovereignty, and is implemented with notice to the public and well coordinated with partners.”

      A Mexican official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that current Mexican immigration law does not allow those seeking asylum in another country to stay in Mexico.

      On Dec. 1, a new Mexican president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, will be sworn in, and it’s also unclear whether his transition team was consulted on the new asylum screening procedures.

      The possibility that thousands of U.S.-bound asylum seekers would have to wait in Mexico for months, even years, could produce a significant financial burden for the government there, especially if the migrants remain in camps and shelters on a long-term basis.

      [At the U.S. border, migrant caravan will slow to a crawl]
      There are currently 6,000 migrants in the Tijuana area, many of them camped at a baseball field along the border, seeking to enter the United States. Several thousand more are en route to the city as part of caravan groups, according to Homeland Security estimates.

      U.S. border officials have allowed about 60 to 100 asylum seekers to approach the San Ysidro port of entry each day for processing.
      Last week, BuzzFeed News reported that U.S. and Mexican officials were discussing such a plan.

      Mexico also appears to be taking a less-permissive attitude toward the new migrant caravans now entering the country.

      Authorities detained more than 200 people, or nearly all of the latest caravan, who recently crossed Mexico’s southern border on their way to the United States. This is at least the fourth large group of migrants to cross into Mexico and attempt to walk to the U.S. border. They were picked up not long after crossing. The vast majority of the migrants were from El Salvador, according to Mexico’s National Immigration Institute.

      After the first caravan this fall entered Mexico, President Enrique Peña Nieto’s administration offered migrants the chance to live and work in Mexico as long as they stayed in the southern states of Chiapas and Oaxaca. Most chose not to accept this deal, because they wanted to travel to the United States.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-plan-would-force-asylum-seekers-to-wait-in-mexico-as-cases-are-processed-a-major-break-with-current-policy/2018/11/21/5ad47e82-ede8-11e8-9236-bb94154151d2_story.html
      –----------------

      Plan “#Quédate_en_México” sería aceptado por López Obrador

      WASHINGTON (apro) – El gobierno del próximo presidente mexicano, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, estaría aceptando el plan “Quédate en México”, diseñado por el mandatario estadunidense Donald Trump, para que los centroamericanos solicitantes de asilo en Estados Unidos se queden en territorio mexicano mientras está en procedimiento su caso, reveló a Apro una fuente gubernamental.
      “Va a pasar… el gobierno de Trump lo está negociando con el equipo del presidente electo”, indicó el funcionario que habló con el reportero sobre el plan Quédate en México, dado a conocer este jueves por el diario estadunidense The Washington Post.
      De acuerdo con la fuente que dio a conocer detalles del asunto y de las negociaciones bajo la estricta condición de que se mantuviera en reserva su nombre y puesto en el gobierno mexicano, las negociaciones del plan “Quédate en México” están siendo directamente revisadas y orquestadas por Mike Pompeo, secretario de Estado en el gobierno de Trump, y por Marcelo Ebrard, próximo secretario de Relaciones Exteriores en el de López Obrador.
      “Lo que está por definirse son los parámetros del plan, los tiempos (de estancia en México de los centroamericanos), los costos y financiamiento de su deportación en caso de que no se acepte su solicitud en los Estados Unidos y otros aspectos en ese sentido”, apuntó el funcionario en entrevista telefónica.
      De acuerdo con la información obtenida por Apro, Ebrard y Pompeo se reunieron la semana pasada en Houston, Texas, para darle seguimiento a las negociaciones del plan “Quédate en México”.
      La nueva medida migratoria de Trump tiene como objetivo evitar que los miles de migrantes centroamericanos integrantes de la caravana que está en Tijuana, y las otras que están en tránsito hacia el norte por el territorio mexicano, no puedan ingresar a Estados Unidos.
      También te recomendamos
      Trump quiere que solicitantes de asilo se queden en México durante el trámite: TWP
      “Quédate en México” es un plan alternativo del gobierno de Trump al cumplimiento de las leyes de asilo de los Estados Unidos.
      Por medio del mecanismo que estaría aceptando el próximo presidente de México, los centroamericanos a quienes las autoridades migratorias estadunidenses les acepte analizar su caso de petición de asilo, deberían quedarse en el territorio mexicano hasta que las cortes de inmigración de Estados Unidos emitan un fallo.
      Con la adopción del plan por parte del gobierno de López Obrador, los centroamericanos solicitantes de asilo a quienes el gobierno de Estados Unidos les reciba su caso, podrían permanecer en México meses o hasta años; es decir el tiempo que tome a un juez migratorio estadunidense determinar si es válida o inválida la petición.
      El pasado 8 de noviembre, Trump firmó una proclama con la cual cambio las leyes de asilo en su país. La decisión de Trump establecía que, se aceptarían peticiones de asilo de centroamericanos, sólo si estos entraban por los puestos de inmigración en la frontera con México y tuvieran una causa probable en su petición.
      La media definía que contrario a lo que dictan las leyes de asilo, no se aceptarían peticiones de extranjeros que ingresaran como inmigrantes indocumentados a los Estados Unidos.
      Otro aspecto de la proclama de Trump es que a los peticionarios que entraran “legalmente” a pedir asilo, no se les liberaría en Estados Unidos como dictan las leyes; sino que se les enviaría a un albergue temporal donde estarían encerrados el tiempo que durase el procedimiento en las cortes de su caso. Este martes, la Corte Federal de Apelaciones del Noveno Distrito en San Francisco, California, emitió la orden de anular la implementación de la proclama firmada por Trump.

      https://www.proceso.com.mx/560664/plan-quedate-en-mexico-seria-aceptado-por-lopez-obrador
      –------------------

      Trump quiere que solicitantes de asilo se queden en México durante el trámite: TWP

      WASHINGTON (apro) – El presidente Donald Trump, pretende implementar un plan al que llamarán “Quédate en México”, bajo el cual los migrantes centroamericanos que soliciten asilo en Estados Unidos deberían permanecer en territorio mexicano y no en el estadunidense, mientras se procesa su caso y se determina la validez de su petición.
      De acuerdo con el periódico estadunidense The Washington Post, que reveló el nuevo proyecto de Trump para contener al flujo de migrantes centroamericanos que llegaron a Tijuana como parte de las caravanas que viajan por el territorio mexicano, el nuevo plan de la Casa Blanca podría iniciar a implementarse este viernes 23.
      “De acuerdo con memorandos del Departamento de Seguridad Interior”, que obtuvo el Washington Post, “los centroamericanos que no puedan demostrar una causa razonable de miedo o persecución en México no se les permitirá entrar a los Estados Unidos y se serán regresados a la frontera”, destaca el despacho del diario capitalino y uno de los más importantes e influyentes de Estados Unidos.
      El nuevo proyecto de Trump, es otra de las estrategias que pretende implementar su gobierno luego del revés que sufrió tras la orden de la Corte Federal de Apelaciones del Noveno Circuito en San Francisco, California, que anuló la instrumentación de la proclama que firmó el mandatario el pasado 8 de noviembre y que congelaba la aceptación de peticiones de asilo de parte de los migrantes centroamericanos.
      “El plan llamado ‘Quédate en México’ representa un quiebre mayor con los actuales procedimientos de escrutinio que, generalmente permiten a todos aquellos que establecen una causa creíble de miedo para regresar a sus países de origen; eviten la deportación inmediata y permanecer en los Estados Unidos”, matiza el Washington Post.
      Desde que Trump ha magnificado la situación y realidad da la peregrinación de caravanas centroamericanas que viajan a la frontera sur de Estados Unidos por México, el mandatario ha buscado métodos de contención y disuasión a través de acciones anticonstitucionales y militares, como la proclama con la que buscaba anular los procesos de solicitudes de asilo y el despliegue de unos cinco mil 800 elementos del Pentágono en la zona limítrofe.
      El Washington Post, que además consiguió documentos internos del Departamento de Seguridad Interior sobre el plan “Quédate en México” y habló con funcionarios familiarizados con el tema, apuntó que no se sabe si la Casa Blanca ha consultado con el próximo presidente mexicano, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, o su equipo, la intención de mantener en el territorio mexicano a los peticionarios de asilo.
      Bajo las leyes estadunidenses de asilo, todo peticionario tendría que quedarse en Estados Unidos mientras su analiza y determina su caso.
      La proclama que firmó Trump el pasado 8 de noviembre definía que, sólo aceptarían solicitudes de asilo de peticionarios que ingresaran “legalmente” a los Estados Unidos por los puertos de ingreso migratorios en la frontera con México y que estos se quedarían en centros de detención y no serían liberados todo el tiempo que tomará el procedimiento de su caso ante las cortes de inmigración.
      La proclama determinaba que serían deportados a México todos los solicitantes de asilo que ingresaran como inmigrantes indocumentados a Estados Unidos, sin embargo, la intervención de la Corte Federal de San Francisco congeló la orden ejecutiva de Trump.
      El rotativo capitalino apunta en su despacho publicado en la primera plana de su edición impresa de este jueves que es Stephen Miller, el principal asesor de Trump, el patrocinador del plan “Quédate en México”.
      La nota de primera plana acota que hay cierto desasosiego en la Casa Blanca, debido a la problemática para implementar el proyecto por la sensibilidad de las negociaciones con el gobierno mexicano.
      El gobierno de Trump no ha cesado en insistir en concretar con México un acuerdo para delegar en las autoridades mexicanas el proceso de peticionarios centroamericanos de asilo en Estados Unidos y su deportación.
      En un principio Trump quería concretar con el gobierno saliente de Enrique Peña Nieto, el acuerdo de convertir a México en un Tercer País Seguro.
      Bajo este compromiso, rechazado por la intervención directa de Marcelo Ebrard, próximo canciller mexicano en el gobierno de López Obrador, Trump pretendía que todos los centroamericanos o ciudadanos de otros países que pidieran asilo e Estados Unidos, primero lo hicieran en México y que, bajo la determinación tomada en ese país de su caso, posteriormente se canalizara a Estados Unidos.
      Sobre la deportación de los migrantes centroamericanos a quienes se les rechazará la aceptación de su petición o el asilo, el gobierno de Trump asignó 20 millones de dólares a la llamada Iniciativa Mérida, para que el gobierno mexicano cubriera con ello el costo del regreso a sus países de origen de las personas rechazadas por el sistema de inmigración de los Estados Unidos, sin embargo, nuevamente por la intervención de López Obrador y su equipo, se rechazó la medida unilateral.
      Katie Waldman, la vocera del Departamento de Seguridad Interior, y luego de que se diera a conocer el despacho del Washington Post, emitió la noche del miércoles un comunicado de prensa para indicar que no hay planes inmediatos para instrumentar el proyecto “Quédate en México”.
      “El Departamento de Seguridad Interior no implementará esta semana dicho programa”, indica el comunicado de prensa de Waldman.

      https://www.proceso.com.mx/560666/trump-quiere-que-solicitantes-de-asilo-se-queden-en-mexico-durante-el-tr

  • Zurich • L’asile remis en question dans les faits

    Nous publions un appel au secours émanant de 13 personnes demandeuses d’asile détenues actuellement à #Zurich et menacées d’expulsion.

    A la presse, A l’opinion publique,

    Nous, les personnes sur la liste ci-dessus, étant en danger de mort dans notre pays, avons demandé l’asile en Suisse, à l’Aéroport de Kloten, à Zurich. Mais les autorités Suisse à ce jour ont refusé de considérer la demande et ont pris la décision de nous expulser vers l’Afrique du Sud.
    Nous sommes 13 personnes, dont 6 enfants et 12 kurdes. On nous fait attendre à l’aéroport de Zurich dans des conditions de détention. Les familles KORKMAZ et KIYAT sont elles dans ces conditions depuis 40 jours.

    Les autorités suisses n’ont pas examiné nos demandes sur le fond, elles n’ont pas regardé le contenu de nos dossiers, pour la raison que nous avions transité par l’Afrique du Sud et que ce pays était considéré comme « Pays Sûr ». Cette décision a été prise par un tribunal qui, auparavant, avait pourtant conclu que personne ne serait renvoyé vers ce pays.

    Nous tenons à rappeler qu’en Afrique du Sud, environ un million de demandes d’asile n’ont pas encore été traitées et que, à la suite de plusieurs agressions commises contre des demandeurs d’asile ou réfugiés, des dizaines de réfugiés ont perdus la vie. Dans le cas où nous serions renvoyés vers ce pays, nos vies seraient donc mises en péril.

    Voici la liste des personnes qui se trouvaient détenues à l’Aéroport de Kloten au moment où cette information nous est parvenue. Nous la publions à leur demande.
    Famille 1 :
    Edibe DOGAN née le 13 janvier 1977 à Mardin/ Turquie
    Pelin KORKMAZ née le 1er mars 2005, à Irak, la fille de Edibe Dogan.
    Famille 2 :
    Nasrettin KIYAT, né le 13 août 1975 à Van/Turquie
    Kudrat KAKAEVA, née le 5 mars1986 à Kirghizstan, citoyenne Russe, épouse de Nasrettin
    Dicle KIYAT, née le 7 avril 2005 à Irak, fille de Kudrat et Nasrettin.
    Famille 3 : La famille qui vient de Makhmour
    Gazi APAYDIN, né en 1978 à Sirnak/ Turquie, ouvrier
    Keser APAYDIN, née en 1987 à Sirnak/Turquie, mère de famille
    Zilan APAYDIN, née le 1er mai 2006 à Irak
    Dilan APAYDIN, née le 1er mai 2006 à Irak
    Ruken APAYDIN, née le 1er novembre 2010 à Irak
    Delila APAYDIN, née le 20 juillet 2013 à Irak,
    Pour la famille de Apaydin aucune décision n’avait encore été prise malgré leur détention.
    Personnes seules :
    Osman ERDAL, né en 1956 à Halfeti/Sanliurfa/Turquie, politicien
    Mustafa MAMAY, né le 9 septembre 1987 à Kars/Turquie, journaliste
    Ces deux personnes seules sont dans le viseur direct des autorités turques.

    Ces familles ont choisi de faire connaître leur sort et difficultés publiquement, car c’est la seule solution qui leur reste à ce moment présent.

    Elles ne sont pas les seules dans ce cas, nous le savons. Et lorsque même les autorités suisses dérogent opportunément au droit d’asile, pour lequel ce Pays s’est toujours battu, nous ne pouvons que souligner l’urgence de combattre cette vague politique de refus de l’accueil des migrants, initiée de longue date par l’extrême droite européenne, et qui gagne de fait aujourd’hui de larges secteurs de la population fragilisée. Les magistrats et autorités chargées du droit se trouvent soumis à ces pressions politiques fortes et la veulerie l’emporte sur l’humanité qui devrait guider les décisions, au détriment du droit. C’est ainsi que se sont forgés les accords scélérats et financiers sur les migrants entre l’Union Européenne et la Turquie par exemple.

    Les aidants en mer se voient accusés d’être des “passeurs” et on leur refuse ce droit d’exercer leur devoir d’humanité sous toutes formes.

    Dans toute l’Europe, dans le même temps, l’accueil et l’aide sont criminalisées et les procédures pour condamner les aidants sont plus rapides que l’examen des demandes d’asile. Et lorsque même dans les rangs de celles et ceux qui hier combattaient les idées xénophobes avec véhémence se profile le refrain du “on ne peut accueillir la misère du monde“, “les ouvriers européens d’abord“, on a toutes les raisons de craindre le pire à venir.

    http://www.kedistan.net/2018/10/19/zurich-asile-remis-en-question/
    #renvois #expulsions #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Kurdes #réfugiés_kurdes

    Expulsion prévue en... #Afrique_du_Sud (alors ça, c’est du jamais vu pour moi !). Raison : le groupe a transité par l’Afrique du Sud, considéré #pays_sûr par la #Suisse...

    • SCANDALE A DENONCER EN TOUTE URGENCE

      Nous tirons l’alarme et transmettons ce que nous savons pour l’heure à propos de cette situation inacceptable dans laquelle les autorités fédérales mettent en danger l’intégrité d’une vingtaine de personnes kurdes détenues à l’aéroport de Zurich et ceci, en toute impunité, en s’appuyant sur des éléments qui ne respectent pas les droits des personnes et qui détournent la loi. A partir de ces premières informations, nous vous invitons à mettre la lumière rapidement sur cette scandaleuse action des autorités :

      20 personnes kurdes sont détenues actuellement à l’aéroport de Zürich en toute illégalité, en vue d’une expulsion vers l’Afrique du Sud, décision prise en toute impunité par le Secrétariat d’Etat Aux migrations à l’appui d’arguments totalement abusifs justifiant de ne pas examiner les demandes d’asile de ces personnes ! Parmi elles, 4 familles, 8 enfants et notamment, un politicien kurde, Osman Erdal, et le journaliste, Mustafa Mamay, pour lequel la « European Federation of journalists » et Reporters sans frontières se sont mobilisés (voir joint).

      Les personnes concernées :

      Ces personnes sont kurdes, d’origine turques et syriennes pour les adultes. Les enfants, pour la plupart, sont apatrides, et nés en Irak.

      Ils vivaient en Irak, en Syrie, en Turquie et sont tous exilés en liens avec leur origines kurdes ou activités politiques et journalistiques.
      Tous ont transité par l’Afrique du Sud et se sont rendus en Suisse afin de pouvoir trouver une protection aux persécutions subies.
      Ils ont tous demandés l’asile. La plupart ont déjà reçu une décision de renvoi, certains attendent une décision suite à leur recours et certains ont déjà reçu une décision négative du tribunal administratif fédéral.

      Pour tous, les autorités ont refusé d’examiner les motifs d’asile sur le fond, comme s’il s’agissait des cas pouvant être traités dans le cadre du Règlement Dublin III appliqué par les pays européens … sauf que là, il s’agit d’un transit en Afrique du Sud !
      En plus des démarches sur le plan juridique une manifestation de soutien a eu lieu vendredi le 19 octobre à Zurich.

      Conditions de détention illégales :

      Les enfants ont 3, 5, 6, 8, 13 ans et la plus jeune est âgée de 2 ans !

      Ces familles avec enfants, comme tous les autres, sont isolées dans des conditions de détention administrative dans la zone de transit de l’aéroport de Zurich depuis des semaines et depuis plus de 40 jours pour certaines (familles Korkmaz et Kiyat). Ceci, en tout impunité et illégalité, comme l’a rappelée récemment le conseil Fédéral lui-même (Lors de sa séance du 28 septembre 2018, le Conseil fédéral a pris position de la manière suivante : « Le Conseil fédéral précise que l’application de mesures de contrainte aux familles et aux mineurs relève de l’exception. (…) La détention administrative relevant du droit des étrangers est exclue pour les mineurs de moins de 15 ans »)...

      Les conditions de détention sont insupportables surtout pour les enfants. Tout lien avec l’extérieur est coupé et plusieurs personnes sont entassées dans un endroit fermé. Les enfants n’arrivent pas à manger les repas proposés et il n’y pas d’espace qui leur est dédié.

      Décision scandaleuse

      Références légales floues et argumentation malhonnête

      Nous avons eu accès à une des décisions du SEM, qui semble confirmer que les autorités naviguent dans des zones grises et d’illégalité pour décréter que ces personnes doivent être refoulées, si besoin de force, en Afrique du Sud. Il s’agit de celle qui concerne le journaliste Mustafa Mamay, qui a donc bien demandé l’asile à la Suisse.

      Tout d’abord, le SEM se réfère au fait que l’intéressé peut retourner en Afrique du Sud du moment que c’est un État tiers sûr et qu’il y a « séjourné » (art. 31 al.b point c Lasi), tout en admettant dans les faits qu’il n’y a passé que 3-4 jours !

      Par ailleurs, sans base légale, le SEM prétend que les personnes peuvent revenir au pays de départ de leur voyage si l’entrée dans le pays leur est refusée, et cela « indépendamment des papiers avec lesquels ils voyagent ». (Il faut savoir que M. Marmay, pour pouvoir permettre son exil, a voyagé au moyen d’un faux passeport qui a été saisi par les autorités suisses.)

      Risque de déportation en cascade et non-respect du principe de non-refoulement

      En plus de renvoyer la responsabilité de l’examen de la demande d’asile l’Afrique du Sud sur des bases complètement arbitraires, le SEM nie tout risque de refoulement et de non-respect des droits des personnes. Ce faisant, il prétend que le fait que l’Afrique du Sud est signataire des conventions internationales en matière de réfugié et que le système juridique est opérationnel est suffisant pour refouler les personnes concernées dans ce pays.

      Par ailleurs, le SEM admet que les personnes qui ne peuvent montrer leur identité ou dont la nationalité ne peut être déterminée sont placées en détention en Afrique du Sud mais conclut que, de toute manière, il y a dans ce pays des organisations et qu’un accès à une défense juridique est garanti et que ces détentions ne sont que temporaires… !

      Pourtant, les juristes des familles viennent d’obtenir des documents d’organisation de défense des droits humains en Afrique du Sud allant clairement à l’encontre des vagues recherches du SEM visant à montrer qu’il n’y a pas de risques de refoulement pour les personnes concernées. En effet, selon "Lawyers fo Human Rights", une association d’avocats active en Afrique du Sud, la situation des requérant-e-s d’asile dans ce pays est catastrophique et 96% des demandes d’asile sont rejetées sans raisons valables. De plus l’avocate précise que les personnes concernées risquent un refoulement vers la Turquie encore accentué par le fait que ces dernières ne possèdent pas de passeport (2 En effet, le Department of Home Affairs’ officials at the Desmond Tutu Refugee Reception Office (correspond au département des affaires intérieures, secteur asile) a introduit en 2017 l’exigence que les requérant-e-s d’asile en Afrique du Sud soient en possession d’un passeport valide ou d’un visa de transit "issued at South Africa port of entry" pour pouvoir déposer une demande d’asile dans le pays...).

      On sait par ailleurs qu’en Afrique du Sud, environs un million de demande d’asile n’ont pas encore été traitées et des dizaines de réfugiés ont perdus la vie à la suite de plusieurs agressions commises contre les demandeurs d’asile ou réfugiés.

      En plus des refoulements réguliers décrits par les avocats, la Turquie et l’Afrique du Sud ont signé un Accord en 2003, notamment concernant les infractions terroristes et la coopération policière qui met clairement en danger les opposants identifiés. Le procès de M. Mamay, journaliste dans plusieurs médias kurdes et d’opposition, constitue aux yeux du gouvernement justement un délit terroriste et c’est une raison de plus pour affirmer que le risque de refoulement et d’emprisonnement est objectif.

      Urgence :

      Certaines personnes et familles peuvent être déportées sous peu. L’ensemble des décisions à leur encontre et des conditions dans lesquelles elles se trouvent sont totalement inacceptables. Ces décisions et les conditions de détentions qu’elles subissent doivent être connues d’un maximum de personnes et d’organisations et nécessitent d’être rapidement dénoncées !

      Nous appelons les personnes solidaires et les organisations à se mobiliser !

      Nous appelons les médias à ne pas maintenir dans l’ombre ces pratiques totalement immondes dont nous avons eu échos grâce à quelques réseaux de soutien !

      Toutes les personnes concernées doivent être libérées immédiatement et leur demande d’asile doit être examinée en Suisse !

      Nous devons refuser que les administrations piétinent en toute impunité, le droit de personnes et d’enfants à s’exiler en Suisse.

      Le collectif R

      Personnes concernées :

      Famille Kiyat
      • Nasrettin Kiyat, 1976, Van/Çatak (Turquie)
      • Roza Kakaeva,1986, Kirghizistan
      • Dicle Kiyat, 2005, Irak (apatride)

      Famille Doğan
      • Edibe Doğan, 1977, Mardin (Turquie)
      • Pelin Korkmaz, 2005, Irak (apatride)

      Famille Abdu
      • Süleyman Abdu, 1981, Kamışlo - Syrie
      • Ibtisam Farhan 1985, Kamışlo - Syrie
      • Serhad Abdu 2014, Kamışlo - Syrie
      • Selin Abdu 2017 (Turquie)

      Famille Apaydın
      • Gazi Apaydın, 1978, Şırnak (Turquie)
      • Keser Apaydın, 1987, Şırnak (Turquie)
      • Zilan Apaydın, 2006, Irak (apatride)
      • Dilan Apaydın ,2006, Irak (apatride)
      • Ruken Apaydın, 2010, Irak (apatride)
      • Dalila Apaydın, 2013, Irak (apatride)

      Personnes individuelles

      • Doğan YILDIRIM, 1991, Şırnak/Silopi (Turquie)

      • Ramazan Turan, 1994, Diyarbakır (Turquie)
      • Osman Erdal 1956, Urfa (apatride)
      • Mustafa Mamay, 1987, Kars (Turquie)
      • Izzet Ablak, 1992, Mardin (Turquie)

      –-> document reçu via le collectif_R, par email, le 26.10.2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    via @isskein

    • Publié sur la page FB de Filippo Furri :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Cosa prevede il decreto Salvini su immigrazione e sicurezza

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Italy: The security decree that makes everyone more insecure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      1.1 The abrogation of ‘humanitarian protection’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      1.2 Making returns more effective

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

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

      2. Provisions on international protection

      2.1 Provisions on asylum seekers who committed serious crimes

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

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

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

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

      2.2 Provisions on subsequent applications and border procedures

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

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

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

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

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

      2.3 Reception conditions for asylum seekers

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

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

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

      Final remarks

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

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

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

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

    • Decreto immigrazione, le brutte novità nascoste sotto la fiducia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Revoking refugee status

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

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

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

      Jubilation and condemnation

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      #pays_sûr #rétention #détention_administrative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Italien verschärft seine Einwanderungsgesetze drastisch

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

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

      Durch das Gesetz wird

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

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

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

      „Ein denkwürdiger Tag“

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

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

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

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

    • Decreto immigrazione e sicurezza, la circolare ai Prefetti del 18 dicembre 2018

      Il Gabinetto del ministero dell’Interno ha diramato in queste settimane ai Prefetti la CM del 18 dicembre 2018 per «illustrare… le principali disposizioni d’insieme» del DL 4 ottobre 2018, il cosiddetto decreto immigrazione e sicurezza. Il testo è disponibile a questo link: http://viedifuga.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Circolare_m_18_12_2018.pdf. Il Viminale ha predisposto anche un documento divulgativo dal titolo Immigrazione e sicurezza pubblica. Le risposte per conoscere il nuovo decreto: qui (http://viedifuga.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/FAQ_Decreto_immigrazione_e_sicurezza_definitivo_3_1_2018.pdf) la versione aggiornata al 3 gennaio 2019.

      Qui invece (www.redattoresociale.it/Notiziario/Articolo/612656/Dl-Salvini-la-circolare-del-Viminale-che-tenta-di-rassicurare-i-sindaci), da Redattore sociale, il giudizio dell’ASGI sulla circolare ministeriale e le pericolose ricadute del DL (convertito in legge con la 132/2018: viedifuga.org/approvato-alla-camera-il-decreto-sicurezza-e-immigrazione-e-una-pessima-legge/) secondo Oxfam Italia e secondo l’ISPI (Istituto per gli studi di politica internazionale).

      http://viedifuga.org/decreto-immigrazione-e-sicurezza-la-circolare-ai-prefetti-del-18-dicembre

    • La stretta sulla residenza è uno dei problemi del decreto sicurezza

      Il decreto immigrazione e sicurezza, diventato legge il 27 novembre del 2018 con l’approvazione in parlamento, suscita divisioni e critiche sia all’interno della maggioranza sia tra le file dell’opposizione. Dopo l’attacco del sindaco di Palermo Leoluca Orlando e del sindaco di Napoli Luigi De Magistris – che hanno annunciato di non voler applicare la legge, perché “è un testo inumano che viola i diritti umani” – molti altri sindaci hanno detto che boicotteranno la norma. Una mappa compilata dalla ricercatrice Cristina Del Biaggio raccoglie tutte le adesioni degli amministratori locali contro il decreto, in totale un centinaio.

      Uno dei punti più contestati della legge è l’esclusione dei richiedenti asilo dall’iscrizione anagrafica. Leoluca Orlando, con una nota inviata al capoarea dei servizi al cittadino, ha chiesto d’indagare i profili giuridici anagrafici derivanti dall’applicazione del decreto sicurezza e di sospendere qualsiasi procedura “che possa intaccare i diritti fondamentali della persona con particolare, ma non esclusivo, riferimento alla procedura di iscrizione della residenza anagrafica”. Ma perché è così importante essere iscritti all’anagrafe e cosa comporta esserne esclusi? E infine, ha senso sospendere l’applicazione del decreto o basta applicare correttamente le norme esistenti?

      Cosa prevede il decreto
      La legge 113/2018 (anche detta decreto sicurezza e immigrazione o decreto Salvini) prevede delle modifiche all’articolo 4 del decreto legislativo 142/2015 attraverso un comma secondo cui “il permesso di soggiorno per richiesta d’asilo non costituisce titolo per l’iscrizione anagrafica”. Secondo Enrico Gargiulo, docente di fondamenti di politica sociale all’università Ca’ Foscari di Venezia, il decreto introduce una “rivoluzione nel campo del diritto all’anagrafe”, perché “per la prima volta si nega in maniera chiara a una categoria di persone un diritto soggettivo perfetto”, contravvenendo alla costituzione e ad altre norme generali sull’immigrazione come il Testo unico del 1998.

      Dello stesso orientamento l’Associazione studi giuridici sull’immigrazione (Asgi) che in un comunicato ha ribadito l’incostituzionalità di questo punto e ha annunciato di aver già presentato diversi ricorsi, impugnando in sede giudiziaria alcuni dinieghi all’iscrizione anagrafica. “Riteniamo infatti che non sussista alcuna ragione che giustifichi sotto il profilo costituzionale una diversità di trattamento nell’iscrizione anagrafica che colpisce una sola categoria di stranieri legalmente soggiornanti (i titolari di permesso di soggiorno per richiesta di asilo), violando il principio di parità di trattamento coi cittadini italiani prevista dall’articolo 6 del Testo unico sull’immigrazione( legge 286/1998)”, si legge nel comunicato. I ricorsi che saranno portati davanti a un giudice chiameranno in causa la corte costituzionale per violazione dell’articolo 3 della costituzione. La consulta a sua volta dovrà stabilire se questa parte del decreto è in linea con la carta fondamentale.

      Di fatto nella norma non si vieta espressamente l’iscrizione dei richiedenti asilo all’anagrafe

      Tuttavia alcuni giuristi invitano a un’interpretazione diversa del decreto. Le avvocate dell’Asgi Nazzarena Zorzella e Daniela Consolo ritengono che il decreto “non pone nessun esplicito divieto, ma si limita a escludere che la particolare tipologia di permesso di soggiorno possa essere documento utile per formalizzare la domanda di residenza”. Intervistata al telefono da Internazionale Zorzella ribadisce che “anche se il decreto ha come obiettivo l’esclusione dei richiedenti asilo dalla residenza, tuttavia di fatto nella norma non si vieta espressamente l’iscrizione dei richiedenti asilo all’anagrafe, ma si sostiene che il permesso di soggiorno per richiesta di asilo non costituisca un titolo valido per l’iscrizione all’anagrafe”.

      Per l’avvocata, quindi, i sindaci potrebbero con una circolare informare gli uffici anagrafici di accettare come documento valido per l’iscrizione all’anagrafe il modulo C3 e cioè la domanda di asilo presentata in questura dal richiedente asilo al momento dell’arrivo in Italia, assumendo quel titolo come prova del soggiorno regolare del cittadino straniero in Italia. “Il decreto sicurezza coesiste con il Testo unico sull’immigrazione, in particolare con l’articolo 6 comma 7 che non è stato modificato dal decreto e prevede che allo straniero regolarmente soggiornante sia consentita l’iscrizione anagrafica”. Secondo l’avvocata i sindaci potrebbero provare a interpretare la norma in senso meno restrittivo, continuando a consentire l’iscrizione dei richiedenti asilo all’anagrafe usando un altro documento come prova del loro soggiorno nel paese.

      Cosa implica l’iscrizione all’anagrafe
      L’iscrizione anagrafica è necessaria per il rilascio del certificato di residenza e del documento d’identità. Questi due documenti di prassi sono il presupposto per il godimento di alcuni servizi pubblici, in particolare dei servizi sociali, per esempio la presa in carico da parte degli assistenti sociali, l’accesso all’edilizia pubblica, la concessione di eventuali sussidi, per l’iscrizione al servizio sanitario nazionale (per la fruizione dei servizi ordinari come il medico di base, mentre l’assistenza sanitaria d’urgenza è per principio garantita anche agli irregolari), per l’iscrizione a un centro per l’impiego. Inoltre un documento d’identità valido è richiesto per sottoscrivere un contratto di lavoro, per prendere in affitto una casa o per aprire un conto corrente bancario. La situazione in realtà è molto disomogenea sul territorio italiano, da anni molti comuni hanno stabilito che sia necessaria la residenza per accedere a questi servizi, mentre in altri municipi è consentito accedere ai servizi con il domicilio o la residenza fittizia, ma il decreto introdurrà ancora più ambiguità in questa materia e c’è da aspettarsi un aumento dei contenziosi. “Chi non ha accesso ai diritti anagrafici diventa invisibile, è una specie di fantasma dal punto di vista amministrativo”, afferma il ricercatore Enrico Gargiulo. “Anche se una persona rimane titolare di certi diritti, senza l’iscrizione anagrafica di fatto ne è esclusa”, conclude il ricercatore.

      Anche su questo punto le avvocate dell’Asgi, Zorzella e Consolo, ritengono che l’iscrizione all’anagrafe non sia necessaria per garantire l’accesso ai servizi dei richiedenti asilo. Zorzella e Consolo ricordano che lo stesso decreto sicurezza prevede che sia assicurato agli stranieri “l’accesso ai servizi comunque erogati sul territorio ai sensi delle norme vigenti”. In questo senso, secondo loro, i sindaci e gli amministratori locali dovrebbero chiarire in una circolare che è sufficiente il domicilio per accedere ai servizi pubblici territoriali senza dover esibire l’iscrizione all’anagrafe, e lo stesso varrebbe per i servizi privati (banche, poste, assicurazioni, agenzie immobiliari).

      https://www.internazionale.it/bloc-notes/annalisa-camilli/2019/01/09/residenza-anagrafe-decreto-sicurezza

    • La delibera per iscrivere all’anagrafe i richiedenti asilo. Dalle parole ai fatti, smontiamo il decreto Salvini

      Il 2019 è iniziato con numerosi Sindaci che hanno manifestato la loro volontà di disobbedire al decreto legge “immigrazione e sicurezza” di Salvini.
      Tra tutti, Leoluca Orlando, sindaco di Palermo con una nota inviata al Capo Area dei Servizi al Cittadino, ha conferito mandato per indagare i profili giuridici anagrafici derivanti dall’applicazione della legge n.132/2018 e, nelle more, ha impartito di sospendere qualsiasi procedura “che possa intaccare i diritti fondamentali della persona con particolare, ma non esclusivo, riferimento alla procedura di iscrizione della residenza anagrafica”.

      Si tratta del primo vero atto che tenta di opporsi alle previsioni contenute nel d.l. n. 113/2018 dopo la sua conversione in legge. Precedentemente, infatti, alcuni Comuni avevano dichiarato di sospendere gli effetti del decreto ma solo fino alla sua approvazione definitiva.
      In ogni caso, il fronte che, speriamo, si stia aprendo a livello territoriale contro questo provvedimento è di fondamentale importanza.

      Le leggi razziste, securitarie e repressive come, prima, i decreti di Minniti ed , ora, il decreto di Salvini agiscono anche e soprattutto sullo spazio delle nostre città, creano sacche di esclusione e di diritti negati.

      Dalle nostre città, dunque, deve partire una nuova resistenza.

      Per questo abbiamo pensato di elaborare un primo modello di delibera che smonti un pezzetto della legge n.113/2018 proprio nella parte in cui prevedendo l’impossibilità per il richiedente, titolare di un permesso di soggiorno per richiesta asilo, di iscriversi all’anagrafe si pone in piena violazione dell’articolo 26 della Convenzione di Ginevra e comporta una grave limitazione al godimento di quei diritti che la nostra Carta Costituzionale individua come diritti fondamentali.
      L’iscrizione all’anagrafe, infatti, rimane lo strumento tramite il quale si consente ai poteri pubblici di pianificare i servizi da erogare alla popolazione; inoltre essa è da sempre presupposto per l’accesso ad altri diritti sociali e civili, come l’iscrizione al Servizio Sanitario Nazionale; l’accesso all’assistenza sociale e concessione di eventuali sussidi previsti dagli enti locali.

      Nel modello di delibera si richiama la competenza comunale in materia di istituzione di un albo anagrafico (art. 14 del d. lgs. 18 agosto 2000, n. 267), i casi in cui i Comuni hanno già esercitato tale potere istitutivo (si vedano i registri per le unioni civili); la Convezione di Ginevra; gli articoli della nostra Costituzione che tutelano l’iscrizione anagrafica e la consolidata giurisprudenza della Corte di Cassazione che ha riconosciuto un diritto alla residenza qualificato come “diritto soggettivo”.
      Il tutto per dire una sola cosa alle istituzioni locali: se volete, avete tutto il potere di istituire quest’albo e garantire ai richiedenti asilo l’iscrizione anagrafica. Avete dalla vostra, la forza della ragione e la forza del Diritto.

      Si tratta, dunque, di un modello di delibera che mettiamo nelle mani dei Comuni solidali che realmente vogliono contrastare gli effetti di questo decreto.
      Un modello di delibera che mettiamo nelle mani degli attivisti e degli abitanti delle nostre città, piccole o grandi che siano, per fare pressione sui loro governanti e sfidarli ad istituire l’albo per l’iscrizione dei richiedenti asilo.

      Un modello di delibera che è solo uno dei tanti strumenti che intendiamo mettere a disposizione di questa battaglia per la giustizia e la dignità.
      La partita per la gestione dei centri Sprar e per i regolamenti di polizia locale dei nostri Comuni è ,infatti, ancora aperta.
      Anche in quel caso gli amministratori potranno decidere da che parte stare: se dalla parte della cieca obbedienza a delle leggi disumane, che condannano migliaia di persone alla marginalità rendendole carne da cannone per le Mafie, oppure dalla parte della “sicurezza dei diritti” di tutti e tutte noi.

      https://www.meltingpot.org/La-delibera-per-iscrivere-all-anagrafe-i-richiedenti-asilo.html

    • Une nouvelle loi anti-immigration controversée adoptée en Italie

      Le parlement italien a adopté une loi introduisant des restrictions pour les demandeurs d’asile, mais aussi des mesures pour la sécurité publique et contre les mafias. Un article d’Euroefe.

      La Chambre des représentants a approuvé le projet de loi par 336 voix pour et 249 abstentions, concluant ainsi sa trajectoire après son approbation au Sénat le 7 novembre par 163 voix pour, 59 contre et 19 abstentions.

      Cette mesure a été amenée par le chef de file de la Ligue de l’extrême droite et ministre de l’Intérieur, Matteo Salvini, et présentée dans les deux chambres parlementaires comme une motion de confiance au gouvernement, une technique utilisée pour éviter les amendements et écourter leur approbation.

      Quelque 200 personnes ont manifesté devant le parlement pour manifester leur rejet de cette loi controversée, et ont organisé des funérailles pour les droits, dénonçant le racisme.

      Salvini célèbre sa loi controversée

      Matteo Salvini a exprimé lors d’une conférence de presse sa « grande satisfaction, non pas en tant que ministre, mais en tant que citoyen italien », car, a-t-il assuré, la loi « donnera plus de tranquillité, d’ordre, de règles et de sérénité aux villes ».

      La nouvelle loi repose sur trois piliers : l’immigration, la sécurité publique et la lutte contre la criminalité organisée.

      Dans le domaine de l’immigration, les permis de séjour pour des raisons humanitaires seront suspendus. Ceux-ci ont été accordés pour deux ans et ont permis aux réfugiés d’accéder au monde du travail et à la sécurité sociale. Au lieu de cela, des permis de « protection spéciale » d’un an seront octroyés.

      En outre, la protection internationale sera refusée ou rejetée en cas de condamnation définitive de l’immigré, notamment pour viol, vente de drogue, vol ou extorsion. La mutilation génitale est mentionnée dans le texte et considérée comme « crime particulièrement alarmant ».

      La nouvelle loi allongera de 90 à 180 jours la période pendant laquelle les immigrants pourront rester dans les centres d’identification, période que le gouvernement du Mouvement 5 étoiles et la Ligue considère appropriée pour identifier le demandeur.

      Par ailleurs, davantage de fonds sont prévus pour le rapatriement volontaire des immigrants et la protection sera retirée à ceux qui retournent dans leur pays d’origine, sinon pour des « raisons graves et avérées ».

      Utilisation expérimentale du Taser

      En matière de sécurité publique, la nouvelle loi stipule que les sociétés de location de voitures communiquent à la police les données de leurs clients pour vérifier leurs antécédents et éviter ainsi d’éventuels attentats à la voiture bélier comme ce fut le cas à Nice, Berlin ou Londres.

      Elle permettra aussi aux agents des villes de plus de 100 000 habitants d’expérimenter le pistolet électrique Taser, et les clubs de football devront accroître leur contribution, en allouant entre 5 et 10 % des ventes de billets à la sécurité des stades.

      La loi étend par ailleurs le « Daspo », l’interdiction d’accès aux manifestations sportives aux foires, marchés et hôpitaux pour les personnes qui ont manifesté un comportement agressif ou dangereux.

      Enfin, en ce qui concerne la mafia, les nouvelles mesures augmentent les ressources destinées à l’entité qui gère les biens saisis aux criminels et libéralise ces biens, qui peuvent désormais être achetés par des particuliers « avec des contrôles rigoureux » afin qu’ils ne reviennent pas entre les mains des clans.

      https://www.euractiv.fr/section/migrations/news/une-nouvelle-loi-anti-immigration-controversee-adoptee-en-italie

    • Decreto immigrazione e sicurezza: tutti i dubbi sulla costituzionalità

      Le Regioni contro il decreto Salvini. Piemonte, Umbria, Toscana, Emilia Romagna, Lazio, Marche, Basilicata. Di ora in ora si allarga la squadra dei governatori contro il decreto sicurezza e immigrazione di Matteo Salvini.

      La strada passa per il ricorso alla Corte costituzionale e a guidare il tutto sarà la Regione Piemonte, che ha dato mandato al docente di Diritto internazionale, Ugo Mattei, e all’avvocatura della Regione di preparare il ricorso che “

      seguirà l’esempio di quanto fatto da Apple, Facebook, Google, e altri colossi della Silicon Valley quando presero posizione e presentarono ricorso contro il decreto attuativo anti-immigrazione e il blocco dei visti voluto dal Presidente degli Stati Uniti, Donald Trump” ha spiegato l’assessora all’immigrazione della regione Piemonte Monica Cerutti

      “Ugo Mattei, insieme all’avvocatura della Regione Piemonte, si occuperà del ricorso in Corte Costituzionale contro il decreto sicurezza che rischia di creare un danno all’economia piemontese” ha spiegato Monica Cerutti. “Il decreto farà finire nell’irregolarità migliaia di migranti che quindi non potranno più contribuire alla vita economica del territorio”.

      “La nostra avvocatura sta anche lavorando con le avvocature delle altre ‘regioni rosse’” ha aggiunto l’assessora della Regione Piemonte “perché ci sia coordinamento nella presentazione dei ricorsi. Stiamo infatti pensando di aggiungere un nuovo profilo di incostituzionalità, che va sommarsi a quelli che riguardano le competenze regionali in materia di sanità e politiche sociali. Questo decreto manda del resto a gambe all’aria tutto il lavoro fatto sull’immigrazione in questi anni, rendendo inutili gli investimenti messi in campo dalla nostra Regione”.

      Il professor Mattei, si precisa dalla Regione, “si è reso disponibile a portare avanti questa battaglia a titolo gratuito. Quindi il suo intervento non costituirà una spesa per il Piemonte”.

      In precedenza anche il Quirinale aveva valutato eventuali profili di incostituzionalità del decreto, ponendo l’accento – nonostante la firma arrivata dopo la fiducia ottenuta alla Camera mercoledì 28 novembre 2018 – su alcune questioni.

      Vediamo quali sono:

      Necessità e urgenza – Il primo nodo è sulla natura dello strumento scelto dal governo. Secondo la Costituzione, il decreto deve rispettare i criteri di necessità e urgenza, oltre a non essere palesemente incostituzionale. La presidenza della Repubblica aveva già manifestato le proprie perplessità sull’urgenza di un intervento del governo su questa materia.

      Revoca del diritto d’asilo – Si allunga l’elenco di reati che comportano la sospensione della domanda di asilo e causano l’espulsione immediata dello straniero. Tra questi sono stati inclusi la violenza sessuale, la detenzione e il traffico di stupefacenti, il furto, la minaccia o la violenza a pubblico ufficiale. Nel decreto è prevista la revoca dello status dopo la sola condanna di primo grado: nella nostra Costituzione è però prevista la presunzione di innocenza fino al terzo grado di giudizio. Questa disposizione potrebbe essere in contrasto con i principi costituzionali.

      Revoca della cittadinanza – È prevista la revoca della cittadinanza italiana acquisita dagli stranieri condannati in via definitiva per reati di terrorismo. La revoca sarà possibile entro tre anni dalla condanna definitiva, per decreto del presidente della Repubblica su proposta del ministro dell’Interno. Anche questa norma è in contrasto con principi della Corte Costituzionale, che considera la cittadinanza un diritto inviolabile.

      Inizialmente i decreti dovevano essere due, uno sull’immigrazione e uno sulla sicurezza e i beni confiscati alle mafie. Poi sono stati accorpati in un unico provvedimento. Ecco gli altri punti del documento:

      Abolizione della protezione umanitaria – Il decreto prevede l’abolizione della concessione del permesso di soggiorno per motivi umanitari previsto dal Testo unico sull’immigrazione (legge 286/98).

      Trattenimento nei Cpr – Gli immigrati con i documenti non in regola potranno essere trattenuti nei Centri per il rimpatrio fino a 180 giorni. Ad oggi il limite era 90 giorni.

      Sicurezza urbana – Viene prevista la sperimentazione dei taser di parte della municipale nei comuni con più di 100 mila abitanti e inasprite le pene contro chi promuove o organizza occupazioni.

      Lotta alle mafie – Per contrastare le infiltrazioni mafiose nella pubblica amministrazione, il decreto prevede la nomina di un Commissario straordinario in caso di segnalazioni di situazioni anomale o di condotte illecite da parte di un Prefetto.

      https://www.tpi.it/2019/01/08/decreto-sicurezza-incostituzionalita-regioni/amp
      #constitutionnalité

    • Protezione umanitaria, la pronuncia della Cassazione n. 4890/2019

      Pubblichiamo la decisione n. 4890/2019 della Corte di cassazione, che risolve i dubbi in tema di regime intertemporale della nuova disciplina sulla protezione umanitaria.

      In argomento, questa Rubrica ha già ospitato la requisitoria del procuratore generale presso la Corte di cassazione, l’articolo di Carlo Padula (Quale sorte per il permesso di soggiorno umanitario dopo il dl 113/2018?) contenente l’orientamento dei Tribunali di Ancona, Bari, Bologna, Brescia, Catania, Firenze, Genova, Milano, Napoli, Palermo, Perugia, Torino, Trento e della dottrina in punto di regime intertemporale della nuova disciplina della protezione umanitaria.

      http://questionegiustizia.it/articolo/protezione-umanitaria-la-pronuncia-della-cassazione-n-48902019_19
      #protection_humanitaire

  • Maghreb-Staaten und Georgien bald „sichere Herkunftsstaaten“

    Die Bundesregierung will Tunesien, Algerien, Marokko und Georgien zu „sicheren Herkunftsstaaten“ erklären. Das Kabinett verabschiedete am Mittwoch einen entsprechenden Entwurf, der bei Grünen und Linken vorab bereits auf Widerstand gestoßen war.

    Ziel der Regierung ist es, die Asylverfahren von Menschen aus diesen Ländern zu beschleunigen. Außerdem kann, wer aus einem dieser so etikettierten Staaten stammt, leichter abgeschoben werden. „Es war schwer genug, die Ressortabstimmung so zu gestalten, dass wir heute ins Kabinett kommen“, sagte Bundesinnenminister Horst Seehofer (CSU).

    Der Entwurf sieht eine Stichtagsregelung für diejenigen vor, die jetzt schon einen Arbeitsplatz haben oder einen Ausbildungsvertrag geschlossen haben. Obwohl für Asylbewerber und Geduldete aus sicheren Herkunftsstaaten eigentlich ein Arbeitsverbot gilt, sollen sie weiter arbeiten dürfen. Stichtag ist dieser Mittwoch.

    Die Flüchtlingsrechte-Organisation Pro Asyl lehnt den Entwurf ab. Sie ist der Ansicht, dass bei „Schnellverfahren mit faktischer Umkehr der Beweislast“ die Situation des einzelnen Asylsuchenden nicht ausreichend gewürdigt wird. Der Grünen-Vorsitzende Robert Habeck sagte dem Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland (Mittwoch): „Noch immer gilt, dass in den Maghreb-Staaten Journalisten, Minderheiten und Homosexuelle nicht sicher sind vor Verfolgung und Haft.“ Seine Parteikollegin Claudia Roth nannte den Beschluss einen grundlegenden „Angriff auf das Recht auf Asyl“. „Die stetige Relativierung geltenden Rechts durch die Bundesregierung ist zutiefst besorgniserregend“, so Roth weiter.

    Außenminister Heiko Maas (SPD) wies diese Kritik zurück. „Ich warne vor Pauschalurteilen. Bloß weil wir nicht mit allen politischen Entwicklungen in den Maghreb-Staaten einverstanden sind, sollten wir sie nicht zu Folterstaaten erklären“, sagte Maas dem Redaktionsnetzwerk Deutschland.

    Neben den Staaten der Europäischen Union gelten Ghana, Senegal, Bosnien-Herzegowina, Mazedonien, Serbien, Montenegro, Albanien und das Kosovo als sogenannte sichere Herkunftsländer. 2017 war der Versuch der Bundesregierung, die drei Maghreb-Staaten Tunesien, Algerien und Marokko zu sicheren Herkunftsstaaten zu erklären, im Bundesrat am Widerstand von Landesregierungen mit Beteiligung von Grünen und Linken gescheitert.

    Der innenpolitische Sprecher der Unionsfraktion, Mathias Middelberg (CDU) sagte: „Die Grünen werden bei diesem Gesetz Farbe bekennen müssen. Es wäre verheerend, wenn sie sich erneut sinnvollen Maßnahmen gegen illegale Migration und Kriminalität entgegenstellen würden.“ Seehofer sagte: „Für dieses Gesetz braucht man zwei Bundesländer mit grüner Beteiligung.“ Er wolle aber jetzt noch nicht das Gespräch mit den Landesregierungen suchen, sondern erst wenn diese ihre eigenen Forderungen benannt hätten. FDP-Fraktionsvize Stephan Thomae erklärte: „Die Grünen verschließen die Augen vor der Realität und kreieren ein völlig falsches Bild.“

    Laut Seehofer will die Bundesregierung im Herbst einen weiteren Gesetzentwurf verabschieden, um weitere Staaten mit einer regelmäßigen Anerkennungsquote von unter fünf Prozent zu sicheren Herkunftsstaaten zu erklären.

    https://www.sueddeutsche.de/news/politik/kabinett-maghreb-staaten-und-georgien-bald-sichere-herkunftsstaaten-dpa
    #Allemagne #asile #migrations #réfugiés #pays_sûrs #pays_sûr #liste
    #Tunisie #Algérie #Maroc #Géorgie

  • Francesco Maiani | Quelle réforme pour le système de Dublin ?

    La crise de 2015 n’y est pour rien. Dublin n’a jamais fonctionné correctement. La Commission le reconnaît elle-même : « Par sa conception ou sa mauvaise mise en œuvre » il « fait peser une responsabilité disproportionnée sur certains États membres et encourage des flux migratoires irréguliers et incontrôlés ». Avant 2015, « il existait déjà […] de graves défaillances dans [sa] mise en œuvre » [3].

    Un vaste déficit d’efficacité et d’effectivité. Entre 2008 et 2014, il y a eu 2’680’000 demandes d’asile, 402’800 requêtes Dublin, 275’000 transferts agréés et environ 94’000 transferts effectués. Un énorme gaspillage de ressources pour un résultat négligeable en termes de distribution effective. Cerise sur le gâteau : les « transferts nets » entre États membres ont été « proches de zéro » [4].

    À la lecture du projet Dublin IV, la priorité n° 1 semble être « empêcher que le fonctionnement du système ne soit perturbé par des mouvements secondaires de demandeurs d’asile […] vers l’État membre de leur choix »[6]. Le moyen choisi est la dissuasion : le demandeur ne demandant pas l’asile dans le premier Etat est soumis à une procédure accélérée ; le demandeur qui se déplace vers le « mauvais Etat » y est privé de tout support matériel ; le demandeur qui doit être « repris en charge » par l’Etat responsable est pénalisé au stade de la procédure d’asile. La procédure peut même être définitivement close en son absence. Pour durcir encore le système, la Commission propose de restreindre le champ d’application de la clause de souveraineté en la rendant applicable aux seuls motifs familiaux, et de limiter le droit de recours à deux seuls motifs : mauvaise application des critères fondés sur les liens familiaux et existence d’une « défaillance systémique » dans l’Etat responsable.

    Mais c’est le simplisme de l’approche de la Commission qui frappe. Trop de recours ralentissent Dublin ? Loin d’agir sur les causes, on coupe sur le droit de recours ! Les demandeurs ne coopèrent pas ? Il suffit de les menacer de sanctions draconiennes. Vingt ans d’expérience, culminés dans la boue du camp informel de Idomeni, en Grèce, n’a pas suffi à la Commission pour apprendre que les demandeurs sont prêts à payer le prix fort pour garder de facto leur liberté de choix. La tentative de les « dissuader » par un mix de sanctions – déjà expérimentées sans succès au niveau national – ne peut qu’approfondir le fossé entre demandeurs et système officiel d’accueil sans rien apporter en termes d’efficacité.

    Si on regarde les choses du point de vue des Etats, et notamment des Etats en première ligne, l’élimination du critère de l’entrée irrégulière représenterait aussi un pas en avant décisif vers plus de justice distributive. Elle éliminerait par ailleurs l’incitation, déjà évoquée, à ne pas identifier les arrivants.

    L’idée du #choix est en soi révolutionnaire dans le débat Dublin, mais on peut présumer que les options seront limitées à des alternatives peu attractives.

    Reste que tant la Proposition Dublin IV et le rapport Wikström partagent une même erreur de perspective. Celle de prétendre que la solidarité entre États membres pourra se faire en se « partageant » les demandeurs d’asile. Ceci impliquerait un nombre massif de transferts. Or, l’expérience démontre à souhait combien ceci est infaisable et indésirable. Un Système européen commun d’asile doit indéniablement reposer sur un meilleur partage des responsabilités et de l’accueil. Augmenter les coûts globaux et multiplier les occasions de coercition nous conduirait toutefois droit dans le mur.

    https://asile.ch/2018/06/14/francesco-maiani-quelle-reforme-pour-le-systeme-de-dublin

    #pays_sûr #Dublin #règlement_dublin #asile #migrations #réfugiés #UE #EU #Europe #Dublin_IV #Rapport_Wikström
    cc @isskein

    • L’asile politique et l’Union européenne. Propositions pour sortir de l’#impasse : Le volontariat avant la contrainte, et l’internationalisation si celle-ci est envisagée.

      Aujourd’hui la régulation de l’asile politique dans l’Union européenne parait gérée par deux mécanismes qui provoquent la colère des uns puis celle des autres. Le risque aujourd’hui existe que sur l’asile, l’une de ses valeurs les plus fondamentales l’Union européenne se divise, se « démoralise » et éclate. Comment sortir de l’impasse ? Les auteurs esquissent des pistes de sortie de la crise actuelle.

      https://journals.openedition.org/revdh/4657

  • La Belgique peut à nouveau renvoyer des demandeurs d’asile vers la Grèce

    La Belgique peut à nouveau renvoyer des demandeurs d’asile vers la Grèce, ce qui n’était plus le cas depuis sept ans, rapportent De Standaard et Het Nieuwsblad lundi. Une décision en ce sens a été établie la semaine passée par le Conseil du contentieux des étrangers. La Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme avait condamné la Belgique en 2011 pour une violation du traité des Droits de l’homme. La Grèce avait alors un système d’accueil qui ne garantissait pas des conditions de vie humaines pour les demandeurs d’asile qui y étaient renvoyés.

    C’était la première fois que la Cour condamnait une expulsion effectuée en vertu du règlement Dublin II, qui prévoit que les demandes d’asile soient examinées dans l’Etat membre par lequel un candidat-réfugié a pénétré dans l’Union.

    Fin 2016, la Commission européenne avait proposé à nouveau que les demandeurs d’asile soient renvoyés en Grèce s’ils avaient entrepris depuis ce pays de voyager vers un autre membre de l’UE après le 15 mars 2017. La Commission européenne estimait que les conditions en Grèce s’étaient améliorées.

    Pour qu’une personne soit à nouveau renvoyée dans son pays d’entrée dans l’UE, un Etat membre doit bien obtenir des garanties individuelles que la personne sera bien traitée. Une exception existe pour les personnes vulnérables ou mineurs.

    Le secrétaire d’Etat à la migration, Theo Francken, souhaite aussitôt que possible renvoyer des demandeurs d’asile. La semaine passée, une première affaire a été soumise au Conseil du contentieux des étrangers, qui peut être saisi de recours contre les décisions du Commissariat général aux Réfugiés et aux Apatrides, contre les décisions de l’Office des Etrangers. Un demandeur d’asile Palestinien, qui est arrivé en Belgique via la Grèce et a introduit une demande d’asile en Belgique en octobre, a contesté la décision de son transfert. L’appel a été rejeté vendredi.

    http://www.lalibre.be/actu/belgique/la-belgique-peut-a-nouveau-renvoyer-des-demandeurs-d-asile-vers-la-grece-5b1

    #Dublin #renvois_dublin #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Grèce #pays_sûr #pays_tiers_sûr #it_has_begun

    #modèle_suisse (ping @i_s_)
    Je crois me rappeler de discussions en Suisse où l’on disait que c’était la Suisse un des premiers pays à réfléchir à décider que la Grèce devait être considéré comme un pays sûr (après la réforme de sa loi sur l’asile de 2012-2013)... de là mon tag #modèle_suisse... mais malheureusement je ne trouve pas de trace quelque part sur seenthis.
    Je vais demander à mes collègues suisses...

    • C’était le 15 juin 2016...
      La Commission adopte une deuxième recommandation définissant les mesures à prendre en vue de rétablir les transferts vers la Grèce au titre du règlement de Dublin

      La Commission a adopté ce jour sa deuxième recommandation relative aux mesures concrètes que la Grèce doit prendre pour mettre pleinement en œuvre les normes de l’Union en matière d’asile afin de mieux gérer la crise des réfugiés.

      La Commission a adopté ce jour sa deuxième recommandation relative aux mesures concrètes que la Grèce doit prendre pour mettre pleinement en œuvre les normes de l’Union en matière d’asile afin de mieux gérer la crise des réfugiés et éventuellement de reprendre les transferts de demandeurs d’asile en provenance d’autres États membres dans le cadre du règlement de Dublin. La recommandation souligne que malgré la situation difficile à laquelle elle est confrontée, la Grèce a déployé des efforts continus pour améliorer son système d’asile depuis la première recommandation adoptée en février, notamment en renforçant les capacités globales d’accueil et les moyens du service d’asile, et en mettant en place un cadre régissant l’aide juridique gratuite et les nouvelles instances de recours. Il reste toutefois encore beaucoup de progrès à accomplir avant de pouvoir reprendre les transferts vers la Grèce au titre du règlement de Dublin d’ici à la fin de l’année, conformément à l’objectif fixé.

      M. Dimitris Avramopoulos, commissaire pour la migration, les affaires intérieures et la citoyenneté, a déclaré : « Alors que les difficultés et la pression liées à la crise des migrants ont persisté au cours des derniers mois, la Grèce a indéniablement amélioré son système d’asile ainsi que la situation des migrants et des réfugiés. La Commission, avec les autres États membres, continuera d’aider la Grèce à gérer de manière appropriée le nombre élevé de demandeurs d’asile présents dans le pays, de sorte qu’elle soit en mesure de revenir progressivement au système de Dublin. »

      Il appartient aux autorités des États membres, sous le contrôle de leurs juridictions et des juridictions européennes, de décider si la situation permet une reprise des transferts vers la Grèce au titre du règlement de Dublin. La recommandation de la Commission consiste en une feuille de route définissant les mesures que doit adopter la Grèce pour disposer d’un système d’asile opérationnel et faire partie intégrante du système de Dublin.

      La Commission constate dans la recommandation adoptée aujourd’hui que, depuis l’adoption de la première recommandation et suite aux problèmes qu’elle a soulevés, des efforts continus ont été déployés par les autorités grecques, avec l’aide de la Commission, du Bureau européen d’appui en matière d’asile (EASO), des États membres et des organisations internationales pour améliorer le fonctionnement du système d’asile.

      Avec le soutien financier de la Commission, la Grèce a considérablement augmenté ses capacités globales d’accueil des migrants en situation irrégulière et des demandeurs de protection internationale. Elle a avancé dans la mise en place de bureaux régionaux d’asile et a augmenté sa capacité de traitement grâce au recrutement de personnel affecté au service d’asile. Ce dernier dispose désormais de deux fois plus de ressources humaines qu’il n’en avait en 2015. Son rendement s’est donc amélioré et une bonne partie du retard accumulé dans le traitement des dossiers de demande d’asile a été rattrapée.

      Parallèlement, l’actuelle crise des réfugiés et des migrants fait peser une pression énorme sur le système d’asile et de migration, la Grèce étant le principal pays de première entrée sur la route de la Méditerranée orientale. L’entrée en vigueur de la déclaration UE-Turquie a permis une baisse significative du nombre d’arrivées quotidiennes, mais a également imposé de nouvelles responsabilités à la Grèce.

      La recommandation adoptée aujourd’hui définit les mesures concrètes que doit prendre la Grèce en vue de sa réintégration dans le système de Dublin. Elle doit mettre l’accent en priorité sur :

      l’établissement de structures d’accueil, permanentes et temporaires, ouvertes et adaptées, et la garantie que celles-ci offrent des conditions d’accueil satisfaisantes, notamment en s’assurant que les mineurs ont accès au système éducatif ;

      l’accès effectif à la procédure d’asile, en veillant notamment à ce que le service d’asile grec soit correctement organisé et doté d’effectifs suffisants ;

      l’institution sans délai de la nouvelle instance de recours, en garantissant que celle-ci est dotée d’effectifs suffisants pour traiter tous les recours en instance et à venir ;

      l’accès effectif dans la pratique à l’aide juridique gratuite ;

      la mise en place de structures pour les demandeurs vulnérables, y compris les mineurs non accompagnés, notamment en instaurant le plus rapidement possible une procédure de tutelle adaptée.

      La recommandation invite la Grèce à rendre compte, d’ici à la fin du mois de juin, puis tous les mois par la suite, des progrès accomplis et des dispositions prises par les autorités grecques pour remédier aux insuffisances de leur système d’asile. En septembre, la Commission présentera un rapport sur les avancées réalisées par la Grèce et actualisera le cas échéant ses recommandations concrètes. À terme, l’objectif est la réintégration de la Grèce dans le système de Dublin et la reprise des transferts au plus tard à la fin du mois de décembre, conformément à la feuille de route intitulée "Revenir à l’esprit de Schengen".

      Contexte

      Pour que le régime européen d’asile commun fonctionne, il faut qu’il soit réellement possible de renvoyer les demandeurs d’asile vers le pays de première arrivée au sein de l’UE, ainsi que le prévoit la réglementation de l’Union convenue d’un commun accord. Depuis 2011, les États membres n’ont pas été en mesure d’effectuer de transferts vers la Grèce au titre du règlement de Dublin, à la suite de deux arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH) et de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) qui ont mis en évidence des défaillances systémiques dans le système d’asile grec.

      Le 10 février 2016, la Commission a adopté une recommandation à l’intention de la Grèce sur les mesures urgentes à prendre dans la perspective de l’éventuelle reprise de certains transferts prévus par le règlement de Dublin. Depuis l’arrêt de la Cour de justice de 2011, la Grèce a procédé à certaines améliorations et a pris des mesures pour remédier aux lacunes constatées dans son système d’asile, sous l’étroite surveillance de la Commission, du Bureau européen d’appui en matière d’asile et des États membres.

      La Commission européenne a apporté une aide financière considérable à la Grèce afin de soutenir le pays dans ses efforts visant à mettre le système de gestion des questions d’asile en conformité avec les normes de l’Union européenne.

      Depuis le début de l’année 2015, un montant total de 262 millions d’euros d’aide d’urgence a été accordé à la Grèce au moyen des fonds « Affaires intérieures » [Fonds « Asile, migration et intégration » (AMIF) et Fonds pour la sécurité intérieure (FSI)], soit directement aux autorités grecques, soit par l’intermédiaire d’agences de l’Union et d’organisations internationales exerçant des activités en Grèce, afin de financer des mesures visant notamment à accroître les capacités des autorités grecques en matière d’enregistrement des migrants et de traitement de leurs demandes d’asile, à améliorer la situation des migrants vulnérables, à renforcer le processus d’enregistrement et d’asile grâce à des moyens humains supplémentaires, à améliorer les infrastructures informatiques, à augmenter le nombre d’interprètes disponibles et à assurer un meilleur accès à l’information.

      Cette aide d’urgence vient s’ajouter aux 509 millions d’euros alloués à la Grèce pour la période 2014-2020 dans le cadre de ses programmes nationaux au titre de l’AMIF et du FSI, faisant ainsi de la Grèce le premier bénéficiaire des fonds « Affaires intérieures » parmi les États membres de l’UE.

      http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2182_fr.htm

    • Message reçu via la mailing list Dublindeportations, le 14 août 2018 :

      we are working right now on an update on Dublin > Greece information on w2eu.info. For this it would be important for us to know how many Dublin-deportations to Greece have been carried out from different countries and what is expected there to happen.

      We know that from Germany it was not more then 10 deportations in the first 6 months of 2018. Compared to 1500 pending take-back-requests.

      In light of the migration hard line policies pushed by Austria – current holder of the EU Presidency in summer 2018– and the outcome of June’s emergency migration summit, EU’s position towards refugee protection seems to move harder and harder. A few days before the summit, the Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras agreed with a proposal by the German Chancellor Angela Merkel on the signature of a migration agreement that will further ease the returns of asylum seekers registered first in Greece. A similar deal was reached between Germany and Spain. While Italian and Hungarian governments already rejected similar proposals by Germany (as Seehofer’s ‘Migration Master Plan’ had foreseen), Greece appears to agree in broad terms with the German proposal. Despite the atmosphere of cooperation in these matters, details of the agreement – expected to be finalised this summer – remain unclear so far. What is known is that the Greek Minister for Migration Policy has agreed with Berlin to ‘process’ the take-back requests Germany sent this year (currently around 1,500). In return, Berlin has promised to accept and take persons in who have applied for family reunification with relatives living in Germany (the estimates vary between 950 and 2,900 pending or accepted applications). This is after the shaming EU-Turkey-deal the next dirty deal in this region.

      We have nevertheless the impression that due to a lot of court decisions in Germany against deportations to Greece it might become very difficult for the authorities to follow the hard line and they will increase the deportations probably not as fast as they wish.

      How does it look in other European countries? And what do you expect to happen in the next months?

  • Country Report : Italy

    The updated AIDA Country Report on Italy documents developments in the asylum procedure, reception conditions, detention of asylum seekers and content of international protection throughout 2017.
    The year 2017 has been chatacterised by media, political and judicial crackdown on non-governmental organisations (NGOs) saving lives at sea, and by the implementation of cooperation agreements with African countries such as Libya, while barriers to access to the territory have also been witnessed at the northern borders of the country, against the backdrop of increasing arrivals from Austria.
    Severe obstacles continue to be reported with regard to access to the asylum procedure in Italy. Several Police Headquarters (Questure) in cities such as Naples, Rome, Bari and Foggia have set specific days for seeking asylum and limited the number of people allowed to seek asylum on a given day, while others have imposed barriers on specific nationalities. In Rome and Bari, nationals of certain countries without a valid passport were prevented from applying for asylum. In other cases, Questure in areas such as Milan, Rome, Naples, Pordenone or Ventimiglia have denied access to asylum to persons without a registered domicile, contrary to the law. Obstacles have also been reported with regard to the lodging of applications, with several Questure such as Milan or Potenza unlawfully refusing to complete the lodging of applications for applicants which they deem not to be in need of protection.
    Since December 2017, Italy has established a specific Dublin procedure in Questure in the Friuli-Venezia Giulia region bordering Austria and Slovenia, with support from EASO. According to that procedure, as soon as a Eurodac ‘hit’ is recorded, Questure move the lodging appointment to a later date and notify a Dublin transfer decision to the persons concerned prior to that date. Applicants are therefore subject to a Dublin transfer before having lodged their application, received information on the procedure or had an interview.
    Despite a continuing increase in the capacity of the SPRAR system, which currently counts over 35,000 funded places, the vast majority of asylum seekers are accommodated in temporary reception centres (CAS). CAS hosted around 80% of the population at the end of 2017. In Milan, for example, the ratio of SPRAR to CAS is 1:10.
    Destitution remains a risk of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection. At least 10,000 persons are excluded from the reception system. Informal settlements with limited or no access to essential services are spread across the entire national territory.
    Throughout 2017, both due to the problems related to age assessment and to the unavailability of places in dedicated shelters, there have been cases of unaccompanied children accommodated in adults’ reception centres, or not accommodated at all. Several appeals have been lodged to the European Court of Human Rights against inappropriate accommodation conditions for unaccompanied children.
    Five pre-removal centres (CPR) are currently operational, while a new hotspot has been opened in Messina. However, substandard conditions continue to be reported by different authorities visiting detention facilities, namely the hotspots of Lampedusa and Taranto and the CPR of Caltanissetta and Ponte Galeria.
    The hotspots of Lampedusa and Taranto have been temporarily been closed as of March 2018.

    http://www.asylumineurope.org/sites/default/files/report-download/aida_it_2017update.pdf
    #Italie #asile #migrations #réfugiés #procédure_d'asile #hotspots #Dublin #frontières #procédure_accélérée #vulnérabilité #pays_sûr #relocalisation #hébergement #logement #éducation #travail #santé #rétention #détention_administrative #naturalisation #liberté_de_mouvement #rapport #refoulement #push-back

    Intéressant, lien avec la #frontière_sud-alpine (#Côme #Milan #Vintimille) :

    Particularly as regards Taranto , as reported by the Senate , among the 14,576 people transiting through the hotspot from March to October 2016 , only 5,048 came from disembarkations while the majority (9,528 ) were traced on Italian territory, mainly at border places in Ventimiglia , Como and Milan , and forcibly taken to Taranto to be identified. Some o f them were asylum seekers accommodated in reception centre in the place they were apprehended and who, after being again identified, were just released out of the hotspot without any ticket or money to go back to their reception centres.

    v. aussi la carte de #Gwendoline_Bauquis, produite dans le cadre de son mémoire de master : « Géopolitique d’une crise de la frontière – Entre #Côme et #Chiasso, le système européen d’asile mis à l’épreuve » (2017)


    #cartographie #visualisation

  • « Pays tiers sûr » : le gouvernement renonce à la pire mesure de son projet de loi
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/france/201217/pays-tiers-sur-le-gouvernement-renonce-la-pire-mesure-de-son-projet-de-loi

    Mobilisation à Menton, à la frontière franco-italienne, le 16 écembre 2017. © Reuters La mobilisation des acteurs de la solidarité porte ses fruits : le ministère de l’intérieur fait machine arrière en renonçant à intégrer dans son projet de loi concernant les étrangers une mesure qui aurait constitué un reniement du droit d’asile tel qu’il a été construit après la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Des députés LREM ont également critiqué une telle mesure voulue par le ministre #Gérard_Collomb..

    #France #asile #réfugiés

    • Les montagnards des Alpes, venus au secours des #migrants traversant la frontière franco-italienne, ont eu raison de l’une des mesures les plus iniques du projet de loi sur l’asile et l’immigration en préparation au ministère de l’intérieur. Symboliquement en tout cas. Mercredi 20 décembre, les services de Gérard Collomb ont fait savoir, selon l’AFP et RTL, qu’ils renonçaient à introduire dans le droit français la notion de « pays tiers sûr » figurant dans l’avant-projet de loi qui avait fuité cet automne dans la presse (lire notre article). Or cette annonce intervient après le début de la mobilisation massive du monde associatif en vue de l’organisation d’états généraux, dont la première étape a eu lieu le week-end dernier à Briançon et à Névache dans les Hautes-Alpes (lire notre article), ainsi qu’à Menton dans les Alpes-Maritimes.

      Cette notion, hautement problématique, aurait autorisé l’Office français de protection des réfugiés et apatrides (Ofpra) à considérer comme « irrecevables » les demandes d’asile de personnes ayant transité, avant d’arriver en France, dans un « pays tiers sûr », c’est-à-dire un pays hors de l’Union européenne supposé garantir les droits de l’homme.Potentiellement la quasi-totalité des demandeurs d’asile entrés sur le territoire par voie de terre auraient pu être concernés. Car la plupart des pays voisins de l’Union européenne se targuent, à tort ou à raison, de prendre en charge les demandes de protection internationale qui leur sont adressées. C’est à ce titre, par exemple, que la Grèce renvoie en Turquie des demandeurs d’asile originaires de Syrie ou d’Afghanistan.

      Le concept de « pays tiers sûr » constitue un reniement du droit d’asile. Il met en effet en cause l’un des principes fondamentaux inscrits dans la Convention de Genève de 1951, selon lequel chaque demandeur d’asile a le droit de voir sa situation personnelle examinée dans le pays où il sollicite une protection.
      En France, il contrevient au préambule de la Constitution qui affirme que « tout homme persécuté en raison de son action en faveur de la liberté a droit d’asile sur les territoires de la République ». Le droit d’asile y a été consacré par le Conseil constitutionnel dans une décision du 13 août 1993 qui établit que « l’étranger qui se réclame de ce droit [doit être] autorisé à demeurer provisoirement sur le territoire jusqu’à ce qu’il ait été statué sur sa demande » (lire nos explications détaillées ici et là).

      L’introduction de ce concept dans la loi aurait permis que des personnes en quête d’asile soient expulsées hors de France sans que leur demande n’ait été examinée. Plutôt que de les interroger sur les violences politiques ayant provoqué leur exil, plutôt que de chercher à évaluer la crédibilité de leur témoignage, plutôt que de rassembler les indices attestant leur persécution, leur sort aurait été tranché en fonction de la route qu’elles auraient empruntée. Au lieu de se demander si elles étaient en danger dans leur pays d’origine, les officiers de l’asile auraient dû chercher à retracer leur parcours pour savoir si, au cours des milliers de kilomètres parcourus pour fuir leur pays, elles avaient traversé un pays dans lequel elles pourraient vivre en sécurité.

      Cette réflexion a lieu également à l’échelon européen puisque la Commission européenne travaille à un règlement d’application direct allant dans ce sens. Le directeur général de l’Ofpra, Pascal Brice, a plusieurs fois eu l’occasion d’affirmer qu’il jugeait une telle évolution dangereuse pour l’asile.

      Si les montagnards ont fait plier le gouvernement, c’est parce qu’ils ont réussi à semer le doute dans la majorité présidentielle. Lors des questions au gouvernement à l’Assemblée nationale le 19 décembre, la députée LREM Sonia Krimi a ainsi exprimé son inquiétude sur la politique d’accueil menée par Gérard Collomb. Lors de la réunion du groupe, plusieurs élus macronistes ont fait entendre leur désapprobation à l’égard des orientations actuelles. Ce mercredi matin sur Europe 1, Sacha Houlié, député LREM, vice-président du Palais-Bourbon, a devancé le ministre de l’intérieur en annonçant que la notion de « pays tiers sûr » ne figurerait pas dans le projet de loi, qui doit être examiné au Parlement au cours du premier semestre 2018, ce qu’a confirmé ensuite la place Beauvau.

      Lors de son entretien live à Mediapart, le premier ministre Édouard Philippe avait d’ailleurs affirmé « réserver sa réponse » sur ce sujet sensible (voir la vidéo). Outre la fronde organisée par les associations susceptibles de convaincre une partie grandissante de l’opinion publique, les difficultés juridiques, et notamment le caractère anticonstitutionnel de la mesure , ont dû contribuer à la volte-face du gouvernement.

      Il n’en reste pas moins que le ministère de l’intérieur enchaîne les circulaires répressives, la dernière en date mettant à mal l’accueil inconditionnel dans les centres d’hébergement d’urgence (lire notre article). Le projet de loi quant à lui est encore truffé de mesures sécuritaires, comme celle visant à doubler la durée autorisée d’enfermement des étrangers dans les centres de rétention . La question qui se pose est de savoir si le gouvernement a pris conscience qu’il allait trop loin ou s’il fait cette concession pour mieux imposer le reste. Et s’il est prêt à assumer sa décision à Bruxelles, où les négociations sont en cours pour rendre applicable à l’ensemble des pays de l’Union européenne cette notion de « pays tiers sûr ».

      #anticonstitutionnel

    • Le concept de #pays_sûr a été une « invention suisse » apparemment (je dois encore approfondir ce point pour être sure de sa genèse) :
      https://seenthis.net/recherche?recherche=%23pays_s%C3%BBr+%23mod%C3%A8le_suisse
      C’est effectivement un moyen pour renvoyer plus facilement et rapidement des migrants dont leur arrivée et demande d’asile est considérée illégitime, car s’agissant de personnes venant de pays sûr (donc... pas de problème possible au niveau individuel, car l’Etat en question ne persécute pas ladite personne).
      La liste des pays sûrs varie en fonction des Etats et des époques.

      Le pays tiers sûr, c’est la même idée, mais non pas appliquée au pays d’origine, mais au pays de transit.
      C’est notamment toute la question de l’accord UE-Turquie... L’UE considère que les réfugiés en Turquie sont en pays (tiers) sûr, du coup, pas besoin de les accueillir en Europe, voire même possibilité de les renvoyer en Turquie depuis la Grèce...

      C’est un instrument à expulsion !

    • Le diabolique projet de l’Europe pour les demandeurs d’asile

      Mediapart s’est procuré la toute dernière version du règlement européen en cours de négociation à Bruxelles, qui permet le renvoi de demandeurs d’asile vers des « pays tiers sûrs ». La définition de ce concept est élargie au point qu’un pays comme la Libye pourrait, à terme, être concerné pour peu que certaines régions se stabilisent, par exemple autour de Tripoli.
      Lors du cinquième sommet UE-Afrique, qui doit se dérouler les 29 et 30 novembre à Abidjan, en Côte d’Ivoire, les chefs d’État européens ne vont pas manquer de s’indigner des violences dont sont victimes les migrants subsahariens en Libye, à la suite de l’émoi mondial provoqué par la diffusion du reportage de CNN apportant la preuve de pratiques esclavagistes dans ce pays. Mais il est à peu près certain qu’ils ne diront pas un mot du forfait qu’ils sont en train de préparer en toute discrétion à Bruxelles à l’encontre des demandeurs d’asile.
      Sur une proposition de la Commission européenne, ils sont en train de négocier, au sein du Conseil européen, les termes d’un règlement « instituant une procédure commune en matière de protection internationale » qui constitue un reniement fondamental au regard du droit d’asile tel qu’il est conçu depuis la signature de la Convention de Genève en 1951.

      Ce texte (à consulter dans sa version de départ), d’application directe dans les législations nationales (c’est-à-dire ne nécessitant pas de transposition – à la différence des directives), prévoit que les États membres puissent considérer comme « irrecevables » les demandes d’asile de personnes ayant transité, avant d’arriver en Europe, dans un « pays tiers sûr » et, dès lors, les y renvoyer afin qu’y soit prise en charge leur demande de protection internationale.
      Par « pays tiers sûr », il faut entendre des pays hors de l’Union européenne censés garantir les droits de l’homme. L’article 45, qui définit le concept de « pays tiers sûr », évoque notamment le fait que, dans ces pays, les « demandeurs n’ont à craindre ni pour leur vie ni pour leur liberté en raison de leur race, de leur religion, de leur nationalité, de leur appartenance à un groupe social particulier ou de leurs opinions politiques ». Sont potentiellement concernés la totalité des pays voisins de l’Union européenne. La France pourrait ainsi renvoyer vers les pays du Maghreb (Tunisie, Algérie, Maroc) l’immense majorité des exilés subsahariens qui y seraient passés avant de traverser la Méditerranée.
      Mais cela ne s’arrête pas là. Mediapart s’est procuré la dernière version (non définitive) de l’article 45, qui est particulièrement alarmante puisqu’elle précise qu’un pays peut être déclaré comme sûr à l’exception d’une ou plusieurs de ses régions ou d’une ou plusieurs catégories de personnes. Dit autrement, cela revient à déclarer comme sûrs des pays dont certaines régions sont en guerre (mais pas toutes) ou dont certaines catégories de personnes sont menacées (mais pas toutes). Certains observateurs redoutent que cet élargissement de la définition ne permette d’y faire entrer des pays aussi instables que la Libye pourvu qu’un de ses territoires, par exemple autour de Tripoli, fasse taire le bruit des armes.
      Cette notion de « pays tiers sûr » constitue une révolution dans le droit d’asile, car elle permettrait que des exilés en quête de protection soient réexpédiés sans que leur demande n’ait été examinée dans un pays de l’UE. Plutôt que de les interroger sur les violences politiques ayant provoqué leur exil, plutôt que de chercher à évaluer la crédibilité de leur témoignage, plutôt que de rassembler les indices attestant leur persécution, il s’agirait de retracer leur trajectoire : au cours des milliers de kilomètres parcourus pour fuir leur pays, ont-ils traversé un pays dans lequel ils pourraient vivre en sécurité ? Peu importent les sévices subis (viol, enfermement arbitraire, harcèlement, rançon, torture, etc.), il faudrait trouver une terre d’accueil, la plus éloignée possible de l’Europe.
      Ce concept de « pays tiers sûr » est déjà inscrit dans la directive européenne dite « procédure » adoptée le 26 juin 2013 mais, à la différence du règlement en préparation, ce texte laissait aux États la faculté de ne pas le mettre en œuvre ; selon Gérard Sadik, de la Cimade, 19 pays l’ont adopté, parmi lesquels seuls deux l’appliquent de facto : il s’agit de la Hongrie, qui renvoie quasi systématiquement les demandeurs d’asile arrivés sur son sol en Serbie ; et de la Grèce, qui renvoie en Turquie des demandeurs d’asile syriens et afghans.
      Pour ce faire, la Grèce s’appuie sur l’accord politique entre l’Union européenne et la Turquie signé en mars 2016. Bruxelles considère ce texte, contesté juridiquement, comme un succès dans la mesure où, depuis sa conclusion, le nombre de traversées via la mer Égée a drastiquement chuté (même si une légère hausse est observée depuis quelques semaines).
      Le nouveau règlement en cours de négociation consiste en une généralisation de cet accord UE-Turquie, décrié par l’ensemble des ONG ainsi que par l’ONU. Il met en cause l’un des principes fondamentaux de l’asile, inscrit dans la Convention de Genève de 1951, selon lequel chaque demandeur d’asile a le droit de voir sa situation personnelle examinée dans le pays dans lequel il sollicite une protection. En France, il contrevient au préambule de la Constitution qui affirme que « tout homme persécuté en raison de son action en faveur de la liberté a droit d’asile sur les territoires de la République ». Le droit d’asile y a été consacré par le Conseil constitutionnel dans une décision du 13 août 1993 qui établit que « l’étranger qui se réclame de ce droit [doit être] autorisé à demeurer provisoirement sur le territoire jusqu’à ce qu’il ait été statué sur sa demande ». Comme l’indique Gérard Sadik, les États membres favorables à la notion de « pays tiers sûr » se fondent sur la notion de subsidiarité de la demande d’asile, qui fait que les États peuvent considérer qu’ils ne sont pas tenus d’examiner la demande si la personne n’est pas venue directement depuis son pays d’origine.
      « Cette dérive est extrêmement grave »

      La France, jusqu’à présent, avait résisté. Lors de la mandature de François Hollande, la loi sur l’asile de 2015 n’avait pas repris ce concept de « pays tiers sûr », qui n’a donc pour l’instant aucune existence juridique dans le droit français. Mais il en va tout autrement sous l’actuelle présidence d’Emmanuel Macron. Anticipant le vote de ce règlement à l’échelon européen, le ministre français de l’intérieur, Gérard Collomb, l’a inscrit dans son pré-projet de loi sur l’asile et l’immigration, pas encore présenté en conseil des ministres.
      Ce même Emmanuel Macron, qui distingue les « réfugiés » – qu’il faudrait accueillir sous peine de perdre notre honneur – des « migrants économiques » – devenus indésirables –, pousse le cynisme jusqu’à prévoir de fermer la porte aux demandeurs d’asile eux-mêmes. Gérard Sadik note qu’entre 1992 et 1996 cette notion de « pays tiers sûr » avait été appliquée « de manière sauvage » aux frontières françaises, notamment à l’aéroport de Roissy, avec le renvoi de demandeurs d’asile vers le Cameroun ou la Tanzanie. Cette pratique avait cessé à la suite d’un arrêt du Conseil d’État (à l’époque le commissaire du gouvernement, à savoir le rapporteur public, n’était autre que Jean-Marie Delarue, ex-contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté), qui établissait que cette notion était contraire à la Convention de Genève et à la Constitution française.
      Seule la prise de conscience de certains États membres et des eurodéputés pourra permettre d’éviter le pire. La négociation est en cours : le texte peut encore faire l’objet d’allers et retours entre les ministres de l’intérieur du Conseil européen ; un accord devra ensuite être trouvé entre la Commission, le Conseil et le Parlement. Sylvie Guillaume, députée française membre du groupe de l’Alliance progressiste des socialistes et démocrates, rappelle que le texte a encore beaucoup de chemin à faire avant d’être adopté. Mais elle estime qu’il « mérite une certaine attention car les définitions qu’il aborde modifient le concept de pays tiers sûr ». « Cela témoigne, estime-t-elle, d’une certaine fébrilité des États membres sur le sujet. » « En aucune manière, je n’accepterai d’élargir cette notion à des morceaux de territoire », dit-elle, ajoutant qu’elle n’est pas opposée au concept dans sa version classique, pourvu que son application reste optionnelle.
      Membre de la délégation française du Front de gauche/Alliance des Outre-mers, Marie-Christine Vergiat est, elle, totalement opposée à la notion même de « pays tiers sûr ». « Les États membres font tout pour externaliser la demande d’asile à des pays tiers ; il s’agit d’une politique raciste et xénophobe car, si l’on regarde de près, on se rend compte que sont principalement concernés les demandeurs d’asile venus d’Afrique. Plus on bloque les voies légales d’entrée dans l’Union européenne, plus on fait le jeu des trafiquants », insiste-t-elle.
      Responsable du programme Protection des populations à Amnesty International France, Jean-François Dubost est particulièrement inquiet des évolutions en cours (lire l’entretien d’Amélie Poinssot). Il estime que l’Allemagne et la France sont à la manœuvre dans cette tentative d’assouplir les conditions. « On est là dans une logique de gestion, pas du tout de protection, estime-t-il. La Convention de 1951 qui instaurait le droit d’asile ne déterminait d’ailleurs pas de “pays sûrs”. » « Cette dérive est extrêmement grave, ajoute-t-il. D’abord parce que les régions qui vont être considérées comme sûres sont déjà en première ligne pour l’accueil des réfugiés. Ensuite parce que c’est la volonté de contrôle qui va être le critère des Européens pour déterminer qu’une région est sûre ou non. Rien, dans le droit international, ne permet de déterminer ce qu’est un “pays sûr”. Ce n’est pas une notion juridique, c’est une construction européenne. » Depuis la signature de l’accord UE-Turquie, « on sent une volonté de la Commission européenne de pousser à ce type d’accord avec d’autres pays, comme la Libye, avec cette idée de “région sûre” ». « C’est la même logique de “containment”, de blocage des personnes le plus en amont possible des frontières européennes. Ce n’est pas une idée nouvelle, mais on est entré dans une phase plus opérationnelle. Renvoyer les migrants présente en outre l’avantage d’éloigner le sujet des yeux des populations européennes… Tout cela s’inscrit dans une logique complètement assumée côté européen », se désespère-t-il.

      https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/281117/le-diabolique-projet-de-l-europe-pour-bloquer-les-demandeurs-d-asile-hors-
      #pays_tiers_sûr #pays_tiers_sûrs #pays_tiers_sûr

    • Avis sur « le concept de pays tiers sûr »

      1. Bien que le droit d’asile constitue un droit fondamental consacré tant par la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne que par le droit français, force est de constater la multiplication des entraves à son exercice qui conduit à l’errance, la misère et la peur, voire la mort de milliers de personnes en quête de protection. Si crise de l’asile il y a, c’est en vérité une crise de la politique d’asile dont il faut parler. Tant au niveau européen qu’au niveau national, les Etats se dotent d’outils pour limiter l’accès aux procédures d’asile et externaliser le traitement des demandes d’asile. Le recours au concept de pays sûr constitue à cet égard une illustration particulièrement éloquente de la dérive des politiques d’asile (1).
      2. Alors que l’encre des lois du 29 juillet 2015 relative à la réforme du droit d’asile et du 7 mars 2016 relative au droit des étrangers est à peine séchée, la CNCDH a pris connaissance, par voie de presse, de certaines dispositions du nouveau projet de loi « pour un droit d’asile garanti et une immigration maîtrisée », notamment de celle visant à intégrer dans le droit français la notion de pays tiers sûr pour en faire un nouveau cas d’irrecevabilité des demandes d’asile. Sans attendre que le texte de ce projet soit définitivement arrêté et qu’elle en soit saisie afin d’exercer sa mission de promotion et de protection des droits de l’Homme, la CNCDH entend faire part de son inquiétude à l’égard d’un concept issu du droit dérivé de l’Union européenne qui, très contestable d’un point de vue juridique (I) et pratique (II), conduit à un bouleversement radical du droit d’asile.

      https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000036251268

    • Pays tiers sûrs : la France au centre du jeu européen ?

      Au mois de décembre 2017, le gouvernement français a décidé de retirer la notion de « pays tiers sûr » du projet de loi pour une immigration maitrisée et un droit d’asile effectif. Cette annonce a été reçue avec satisfaction par les parties prenantes opposées au concept. Cependant, ce retrait ne marque pas la fin des discussions. En effet, une proposition de règlement actuellement négociée au niveau de l’Union européenne prévoit l’adoption d’une liste européenne commune de « pays tiers sûrs ».

      http://www.europeanmigrationlaw.eu/fr/articles/points-de-vue/pays-tiers-surs-la-france-au-centre-du-jeu-europeen

  • The Italian Council of State confirms its position on Bulgaria as a not safe country for the transfer of asylum seekers under the #Dublin Regulation.

    With the decision n. 5085 of the 3rd of November 2017, the highest administrative Italian court annulled the transfer to Bulgaria of an asylum seeker under 604/2013 Regulation, confirming its orientation as already expressed last year with several other pronunciations ( n. 3998/2016 Reg. Prov. Coll., n. 3999/2016 Reg. Prov. Coll., n. 4000/2016 Reg. Prov. Coll. and n. 4002/2016 Reg. Prov. Coll.).

    In this decision the Council of State affirmed that “there are no reliable elements that led us to believe that the condition of asylum seekers in Bulgaria can be considered respectful of fundamental human rights and can lead to a concrete risk of suffering inhuman and degrading treatments as foreseen in art. 3 par. 2 Reg. n. 604/2013”.

    This is particularly relevant if we think that the administrative judges went beyond the informations provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In fact, in the opinion of the Council of State, this informations “doesn’t provide enough convincing elements regarding the effective respect of the reception standards in order to avoid the doubt that, up to now, there are still systemic deficiencies in the asylum seekers reception system” in Bulgaria.

    This decision, that follows the legal precedents of the European Courts of Human Rights, reaffirms the fundamental principle that a judge must annul the transfer decree every time there is the reasonable doubt that in the outgoing country exists habitual infringement of human rights. According to these considerations, the highest administrative Italian court took in consideration the informations and data, used by the claimant during the appeal, gathered by the international N.G.O.’s and by the decisions of the European high courts.

    The Council of State, in the present case, confirmed that there were a risk of suffering inhuman and degrading treatments in the eventuality of a transfer of the claimant to Bulgaria and for this reason annulled the transfer decree.

    reçu via la mailing-list Migreurop, le 13.11.2017 (email de Lucia Gennari)
    #renvois_Dublin #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Bulgarie #pays_sûr #Italie

    • Consiglio di Stato : annullato il trasferimento di un richiedente asilo verso la Bulgaria

      Il Consiglio di Stato italiano conferma il proprio orientamento sulla Bulgaria quale Paese non sicuro ai fini del trasferimento di richiedenti protezione in applicazione del Regolamento Dublino.

      Con sentenza n. 5085 del 03 novembre 2017, la più alta Corte amministrativa italiana ha annullato il trasferimento verso la Bulgaria di un richiedente asilo ai sensi del Regolamento 604/2013, confermando, con tale pronuncia, il proprio orientamento già espresso lo scorso anno con le sentenze consecutive n. 3998/2016 Reg. Prov. Coll., n. 3999/2016 Reg. Prov. Coll., n. 4000/2016 Reg. Prov. Coll. e n. 4002/2016 Reg. Prov. Coll.

      Nella sentenza il Consiglio di Stato afferma che “non vi siano elementi affidabili per ritenere che le condizioni dei richiedenti asilo in Bulgaria offrano sicure garanzie di rispettare i diritti fondamentali dello straniero e siano tali da scongiurare il fondato rischio di trattamenti disumani e degradanti, siccome prevede l’art. 3, par. 2, del Reg. UE n. 604 del 2013”.

      Tale assunto risulta particolarmente rilevante anche alla luce del fatto che il Collegio va oltre le informazioni che erano state fornite dal Ministero degli Affari Esteri, su richiesta dello stesso Collegio. Secondo il Consiglio di Stato, infatti, tali informazioni “non forniscono elementi tali da rassicurare convincentemente circa l’effettivo raggiungimento di livelli di accoglienza tali da scongiurare il fondato dubbio che sussistano, a tutt’oggi, carenze sistemiche nelle condizioni di accoglienza dei richiedenti”.

      La sentenza, collocandosi nel solco della giurisprudenza della Corte Europea dei diritti dell’Uomo, afferma come a garanzia di incomprimibili diritti fondamentali dello straniero operi un principio di cautela tale per cui il giudice deve annullare il provvedimento di trasferimento di uno straniero tutte le volte che sussista il ragionevole dubbio che vi siano nel Paese di rinvio carenze sistemiche.

      In base a tali considerazioni, la più alta Corte amministrativa italiana ha ritenuto prevalenti le informazioni, evidenziate dalla difesa del ricorrente, diffuse da organizzazioni internazionali nonché le decisioni di altre alte Corti Europee sul punto.

      Il Consiglio di Stato, pertanto, ha ritenuto sussistente il rischio di trattamenti inumani e degradanti per il ricorrente qualora lo stesso dovesse essere rinviato in Bulgaria e per tale ragione ne ha annullato il relativo trasferimento.

      Per ulteriori informazioni sull’azione potete contattare l’avv. Loredana Leo, 3470339581/avv.loredanaleo@gmail.com

      https://www.asgi.it/asilo-e-protezione-internazionale/bulgaria-asilo-trasferimento

    • Italy: Council of State suspends a Dublin transfer to Bulgaria due to deficiencies in the Bulgarian asylum system

      On 3 November 2017, the Italian Council of State suspended (https://www.asgi.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Bulgaria-Paese-non-sicuro-ottobre-2017.pdf) the Dublin transfer of an Afghan national from Italy to Bulgaria. The applicant had previously appealed against the transfer decision before the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio, without success. In March 2016, the Council of State granted suspensive effect to the appeal and instructed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to provide a report on the conditions faced by asylum seekers in Bulgaria, which was submitted in April 2017.

      The Council of State found, contrary to the lower’s court interpretation, that nothing in the documents submitted before it allowed the Council of State to be fully reassured that the conditions faced by asylum seekers in Bulgaria would not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Council acknowledged the substantial improvements in the Bulgarian asylum system in the recent months, but stated that recent reports still point to poor reception and integration conditions. The Council also relied on decisions from other national courts, such as the Administrative Court of Appeal of Bordeaux (case no.16BX03424), the Federal Administrative Court of Switzerland (case no. E-305/2017) and the Constitutional Court of Austria (case no. 484/2017), which all recognised the existence of serious deficiencies in the Bulgarian asylum system in the context of a Dublin transfer. Therefore, the Council of State quashed the transfer decision to Bulgaria.

      Based on an unofficial translation by the ELENA Weekly Legal Update. We would like to thank Loredana Leo and ASGI for bringing this case to our attention. A summary of the decision can be found in Italian here.

      https://us1.campaign-archive.com/?u=8e3ebd297b1510becc6d6d690&id=7e017ec4b3#8

  • The Gambia is now free and democratic so Europe is pushing its migrants to go home

    Gambians were among the top nationalities leaving West Africa for Italy in 2016. In total 11,929 Gambians arrived last year. But because they have a new democratically-elected government, European countries are now looking to increase the returns of Gambian migrants. A Working Party on Integration, Migration and Expulsion has already met at the European Council to discuss a draft agreement on returns between the EU and the Gambia.

    The potentially explosive levels of frustration already hold true for returnees from Libya. Since March 2017, the International Organisation for Migration has sought to voluntarily return Gambians home from Libya. In August, it identified 1,979 Gambians living in Libya.


    https://qz.com/1114660/italy-is-pushing-gambian-migrants-to-return-now-yahya-jammeh-is-out-of-power-but

    #Gambie #migrations #asile #réfugiés #renvois #expulsions #accord #pays_sûr #réfugiés_gambiens #OIM #IOM #retour_volontaire
    cc @isskein

  • Greek Council of State dismisses all complaints on fast track border procedure and declares Turkey ‘safe third country’ based on doubtful documentation

    On 22 September 2017, the Greek Council of State, the highest administrative court of the country, delivered two long-awaited judgments (2347/2017 and 2348/2017) regarding two Syrian nationals whose claims were rejected as inadmissible. The rulings will have important consequences on all main elements of the Greek asylum procedure and further deemed Turkey as a safe third country in their case, based on selective and limited documentation.

    https://www.ecre.org/greek-council-of-state-dismisses-all-complaints-on-fast-track-border-procedure
    #pays_sûr #Grèce #Turquie #renvois #expulsions #asile #migrations #réfugiés #jurisprudence #réfugiés_syriens #fast_track
    cc @isskein @i_s_

  • Les gouvernements européens renvoient près de 10000 Afghans dans leur pays, où ils risquent d’être torturés et tués

    Les États européens mettent en danger des milliers d’Afghans, en les renvoyant de force dans un pays où ils courent un risque considérable d’être torturés, enlevés, tués ou soumis à d’autres atteintes aux droits humains, écrit Amnesty International dans un nouveau rapport publié jeudi 5 octobre.

    Selon des informations dignes de foi, cette « nécessité » aurait été exprimée par des pressions exercées sur le gouvernement afghan. Le ministre afghan des Finances, Ekil Hakimi, a déclaré devant le Parlement : « Si l’Afghanistan ne coopère pas avec les pays de l’Union européenne dans le cadre de la crise des réfugiés, cela aura des conséquences négatives pour le montant de l’aide allouée à notre pays. »

    –-> #chantage

    https://www.amnesty.org/fr/latest/news/2017/10/european-governments-return-nearly-10000-afghans-to-risk-of-death-and-tortu

    #afghanistan #renvois #expulsions #asile #migrations #torture #réfugiés #UE #EU

    @reka : on parle de cas en #Norvège...

    • Afghan father who sought refuge in UK ’shot dead by Taliban’ after being deported by Home Office

      #Zainadin_Fazlie, father of four British-born children, forced to return to Afghanistan after 16 years in UK despite threats to his life - and killed two years later.

      An Afghan man who sought refuge from the Taliban in the UK has been shot dead in his home town after being deported by the British government.

      Zainadin Fazlie had lived in London with his wife, who had refugee status, and their four British-born children. But after committing a number of minor offences, the 47-year-old was sent back to Afghanistan after 16 years in Britain, despite threats to his life.

      Last Friday, his wife Samira Fazlie found out he had been shot by Taliban forces after seeing an image of his dead body on Facebook.

      The 34-year-old told The Independent: “When I first heard, I felt like I had to stop living. When I saw that picture, I couldn’t even move from my bed. For three nights I didn’t sleep.

      “My eldest son was crying at my feet. He said mum, I didn’t know my dad was going to die. He said I can’t believe they sent my dad to the country where he was going to be killed by these people.

      “My six-year-old is asking to go see her dad because she missed him. I haven’t told her yet. How can they do this to a person who has four kids in the UK? I was begging the government and the judge not to send him back.”

      Mr Fazlie arrived to the UK in 2000 after the Taliban gained control of his home town in Maidan Wardak province. He was granted indefinite leave to remain and had four children now aged 16, 13, six and three.

      He was issued a deportation notice in 2015 after recieving an eight-week suspended sentence for a violent offence. Due to a recent change in the law, he was unable to exercise his right to appeal in the UK and was removed to Afghanistan in April 2016.

      Ms Fazlie said her husband had been suffering with depression and poor mental health when he committed the offence, but that he had since been receiving support in the UK.

      “He wasn’t a killer, he wasn’t a drug dealer. He had a depression problem he was dealing seeing a doctor about. When he was depressed, he was doing bad things. Then after he apologised. He needed help. But they sentenced him to death,” she said.

      “I’m struggling right now without him. It’s really hard. I’ve gone back to work. I have to keep living for my kids. But I feel helpless.”

      Mr Fazlie was deported to the Afghan capital Kabul. With no connections there and in a city with a faltering economy, he struggled to find work and decided to return to his home town.

      His wife said that once he was there, it became difficult to maintain contact. She said he would tell her that if he came out from where he was, they were “going to kill him”.

      The family’s solicitor, Nasir Ata of Duncan Lewis Solicitors, told The Independent he had received confirmation of the death. He said the family had an appeal hearing set for 28 September to bring him back, which they would have had a “good chance” of winning.

      “I last spoke to him around March this year. He told me it was difficult and that he was in danger from the Taliban. He said he had to pick up guns to protect himself. I struggled to get hold of him after that,” said Mr Ata.

      “We had a good chance at the hearing on 28 of this month, but it was too late. There are a lot of practical difficulties with bringing someone back. The main issue was the fact that he wasn’t given the opportunity to appeal the decision from the UK.”

      Labour’s shadow home secretary Diane Abbott said: “This is a truly shocking story. The Tory Government’s hostile environment policy ignores the fact that real people’s lives are harmed. Tragically, sometimes the consequences are fatal.

      A Home Office spokesperson said: “We do not routinely comment on individual cases.”

      https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/zainadin-fazlie-deport-home-office-taliban-afghanistan-shot-dead-refu