• Malgré le #coronavirus, la #France continue de refouler les migrants à #Vintimille

    À la frontière franco-italienne, en pleine pandémie de Covid-19, les migrants sont plus que jamais livrés à eux-mêmes, rapporte Il Fatto Quotidiano.

    ”On les a vus arriver à pied depuis la frontière française, sans protection et sans savoir où aller.” Même en pleine pandémie de coronavirus, les rejets de migrants par les autorités françaises se poursuivent à Vintimille, rapporte Il Fatto Quotidiano (https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2020/03/21/coronavirus-la-francia-continua-a-respingere-i-migranti-a-ventimiglia-ma-con-lemergenza-vengono-abbandonati-senza-precauzioni/5744702). Jacopo Colomba, consultant juridique des ONG Caritas et We World, a ainsi raconté au quotidien italien avoir apporté son aide à “sept Kurdes irakiens”, dont trois “avaient un masque, signe qu’ils avaient déjà été pris en charge par quelqu’un ces dernières semaines. Je les ai dirigés vers le camp de la Croix-Rouge voisin, la seule chose que je pouvais faire”.Risque de contagion massiveLe maire de Vintimille, Gaetano Scullino, a alerté la préfecture de la province d’Imperia :

    Les autorités françaises continuent d’accompagner les migrants interceptés sur le territoire français jusqu’à la frontière italienne. Ils entrent ensuite à pied en Italie et se dispersent dans la ville, sans être contrôlés et surtout sans savoir s’ils sont, comme nous, porteurs du virus.”

    Selon Il Fatto Qotidiano, la situation à Vintimille est aujourd’hui “moins explosive qu’en 2015-2016, lorsque des milliers de personnes avaient rejoint la ville frontalière dans l’espoir de traverser la frontière”. Pour l’instant, le camp de la Croix-Rouge accueille environ 250 personnes, mais ce nombre “ne peut pas augmenter davantage en raison des précautions à prendre pour éviter une contagion massive” au nouveau coronavirus.Le quotidien indique également que, par précaution, les autorités italiennes ont “cessé d’identifier et de prendre les empreintes digitales des personnes qui traversent la frontière”, ce qui, selon les ONG, “laisse les migrants encore plus abandonnés à eux-mêmes”. Et déplore que les opérations d’expulsion menées en France exposent les migrants “à de plus grands risques de contagion, car elles se déroulent sans les précautions nécessaires”.Selon Jacopo Colomba, avant d’être reconduits à la frontière, les migrants interceptés passent généralement la nuit “dans un commissariat de police, tous dans la même pièce” :

    Si l’un d’entre eux était positif au #Covid-19, vous comprenez que les autres seraient facilement contaminés.”

    https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/vu-ditalie-malgre-le-coronavirus-la-france-continue-de-refoul
    #frontière_sud-alpine #push-back #refoulement #refoulements #migrations #asile #réfugiés #frontières #Italie

    –---

    Cet article a déjà été signalé par @sinehebdo :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/833549
    et par @thomas_lacroix :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/833498

    ... je remets ici avec mes mots-clé pour le retrouver...

    • Coronavirus, la Francia continua a respingere i migranti a Ventimiglia: “Ma con l’emergenza vengono abbandonati senza precauzioni”

      Li hanno visti arrivare a piedi dal confine francese, senza protezioni e senza un posto dove andare. Anche in piena emergenza coronavirus continuano i respingimenti di migranti alla frontiera di Ventimiglia da parte delle autorità di Parigi. All’ultimo, nelle scorse ore, ha assistito Jacopo Colomba, consulente legale della Caritas e della Onlus We World: “Erano in sette, curdi iracheni – racconta a Ilfattoquotidiano.it – Tre di loro avevano una mascherina, segno che erano già stati presi in carico da qualcuno nelle scorse settimane, gli altri invece erano completamente sprovvisti di protezione. Mi hanno detto che avevano percorso la rotta balcanica. Li ho indirizzati al vicino campo della Croce Rossa, l’unica cosa che potevo fare”.

      La notizia ha però provocato la reazione del sindaco di Ventimiglia, Gaetano Scullino, che ha mobilitato la Prefettura: “Malgrado la pandemia, le autorità francesi continuano ad accompagnare al confine italiano i migranti trovati sul loro territorio nazionale, i quali entrano poi a piedi e si disperdono in città, senza essere controllati e soprattutto senza sapere se pure loro, come noi, sono portatori del virus – ha dichiarato – Chiederò al Prefetto di intervenire per evitare che i migranti siano spinti in Italia e poi lasciati a spasso”.

      La situazione di Ventimiglia, oggi, è meno esplosiva rispetto al 2015-2016, quando migliaia di persone arrivavano nella cittadina di frontiera e affollavano il campo della Croce Rossa nella speranza di varcare il confine e raggiungere i parenti in Francia o nel Nord Europa. Attualmente, sono circa 250 gli ospiti del centro, un numero che però non può crescere ulteriormente a causa delle precauzioni necessarie da prendere per evitare contagi di massa.

      “Da due settimane circa – continua Colomba – le autorità italiane alla frontiera hanno smesso di identificare e prendere le impronte digitali delle persone che varcano il confine. Questo come precauzione. Ma in una situazione del genere, un rimpatrio forzato come quello a cui ho assistito lascia i migranti ancora di più abbandonati a loro stessi”. Anche perché i servizi di trasporto utilizzati in precedenza per raggiungere il centro di accoglienza o la cittadina compiono ormai pochissimi viaggi e le ong hanno interrotto le loro attività al confine con cui davano una prima assistenza a queste persone: “La conseguenza – dice il consulente – è che questi sette migranti che ho incontrato, come tutti gli altri che condividono la loro disavventura, devono compiere una decina di chilometri a piedi e poi, non potendo scomparire, si organizzano con soluzioni di fortuna. Il tutto nel bel mezzo di una grave crisi sanitaria“.

      Le operazioni di espulsione, inoltre, espongono i migranti anche a maggiori rischi di contagio, visto che avvengono senza le dovute precauzioni: “Generalmente – spiega Colomba – queste persone tentano di passare la frontiera a bordo dei treni o a piedi. Se intercettati, vengono portati in dei container al posto di polizia francese dove, di solito, passano la notte, tutti nello stesso locale. Se uno di loro fosse positivo al Covid-19, capite bene che gli altri verrebbero facilmente contagiati. Poi ricevono il foglio di via e vengono rispediti oltre il ponte San Ludovico. Esattamente ciò che è successo ai sette uomini che ho incontrato”.

      https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2020/03/21/coronavirus-la-francia-continua-a-respingere-i-migranti-a-ventimiglia-ma-con-lemergenza-vengono-abbandonati-senza-precauzioni/5744702

  • Privatized Pushbacks: How Merchant Ships Guard Europe

    To hinder migrants crossing the Mediterranean, European navies stopped rescuing them. Now commercial ships are tasked with saving lives — and returning migrants to war-torn Libya.

    The #Panther, a German-owned merchant ship, is not in the business of sea rescues. But one day a few months ago the Libyan Coast Guard ordered it to divert course, rescue 68 migrants in distress in the Mediterranean and return them to Libya, which is embroiled in civil war.

    The request, which the Panther was required to honor, was at least the third time that day, Jan. 11, that the Libyans had called on a merchant ship to assist migrants.

    The Libyans could easily have alerted a nearby rescue ship run by a Spanish charity. The reason they did not goes to the core of how the European authorities have found a new way to thwart desperate African migrants trying to reach their shores from across the Mediterranean.

    And some maritime lawyers think the new tactic is unlawful.

    Commercial ships like the Panther must follow instructions from official forces, like the Libyan Coast Guard, which works in close cooperation with its Italian counterpart.

    Humanitarian rescue ships, on the other hand, take the migrants to Europe, citing international refugee law, which forbids returning refugees to danger.

    After the Panther arrived in Tripoli, Libyan soldiers boarded, forced the migrants ashore at gunpoint, and drove them to a detention camp in the besieged Libyan capital.

    “We call them privatized pushbacks,” said Charles Heller, the director of Forensic Oceanography, a research group that investigates migrant rights abuses in the Mediterranean. “They occur when merchant ships are used to rescue and bring back migrants to a country in which their lives are at risk — such as Libya.”

    The coronavirus crisis has made arguments about Mediterranean migration policy seem peripheral to the European moment, as governments focus on restricting not just external migration, but also the internal movement of their own citizens.

    But long before the pandemic hit, European leaders were mainly consumed by preventing Mediterranean migration, hoping to avoid a repeat of the 2015 migration crisis. And that approach remains topical, with hundreds of migrants crossing the Mediterranean already this week, either oblivious to or unconcerned by the coronavirus outbreak.

    Since the 2015 crisis, European governments have frequently stopped the nongovernmental rescue organizations that patrol the southern Mediterranean — like the Spanish ship, Open Arms — from taking rescued migrants to European ports.

    European navies and coast guards have also largely withdrawn from the area, placing the Libyan Coast Guard in charge of search-and-rescue.

    Now Europe has a new proxy: privately-owned commercial ships. And their deployment is contested by migrant rights watchdogs.

    Although a 1979 international convention on search and rescue requires merchant ships to obey orders from a country’s Coast Guard forces, the agreement also does not permit those forces to pick and choose who helps during emergencies, as Libya’s did.

    “That’s a blatantly illegal policy,” said Dr. Itamar Mann, an expert on maritime law at the University of Haifa in Israel.

    But commercial shipowners say that after saving migrants from drowning, their legal duty is to do as they are told by the Libyan Coast Guard, as decreed by a separate convention on search-and-rescue signed in 1979.

    “This is in accordance with international law,” said John Stawpert, a representative for the International Chamber of Shipping, a global shipowners’ association.

    Between 2011 and 2018, only one commercial ship returned migrants to Libya, according to research by Forensic Oceanography.

    Since 2018 there have been about 30 such returns, involving roughly 1,800 migrants, in which merchant ships have either returned migrants to Libyan ports or transferred them to Libyan Coast Guard vessels, according to data collated by The New York Times and Forensic Oceanography.

    The real number is likely to be higher.

    During the height of the crisis, ships like the Panther would have transferred rescued migrants to the Italian Coast Guard or humanitarian organizations.

    But in 2017, Italy gradually relinquished responsibility for search-and-rescue coordination in the southern Mediterranean to the Libyan Coast Guard, neatly absolving Italy of the legal obligation to rescue and admit every migrant entering international waters north of Libya.

    The next year, merchant ship crews began to return migrants to the Libyan authorities, which had been persuaded to take on the role by the promise of more equipment and international legitimacy.

    The Panther ordinarily supplies a cluster of oil rigs roughly 50 miles north of Libya. On Jan. 11, the Libyan Coast Guard engaged the Panther instead of the Open Arms because only the Panther’s owner had agreed to abide by a restrictive set of regulations drawn up by the Libyan Coast Guard.

    “All the ships who work in search-and-rescue have to follow this code of conduct,” Commodore Masoud Abdal Samad, the Libyan Coast Guard commander, said by telephone.

    Consequently, only the Panther was considered an “acceptable” rescue vessel on Jan. 11, he added.

    The pattern of using commercial ships has increased in recent months, said Anabel Montes Mier, the head of mission aboard the Open Arms that day.

    “These commercial ships follow the orders,” Ms. Montes Mier said. “We refuse to return people to places that are unsafe.”

    Rights groups fear Libya’s refusal to work with humanitarian rescuers has put more migrant lives in danger at sea.

    The number of people reaching Italy has dropped by more than 90 percent since 2017, while the death-toll in the southern Mediterranean has roughly halved in the same period.

    But the number of people drowning, as a proportion of those trying to cross, has sharply risen — from roughly 1 in 50 in 2017, to 1 in 20 in 2019, according to data compiled by the International Organization for Migration.

    The forcible return of the migrants, a practice known as refoulement, has also put many of them in lethal danger on land, because of Libya’s civil war.

    In February, an airstrike hit the dock used by the Panther to disembark migrants in Tripoli. Once ashore, migrants are imprisoned in detention camps run by an assortment of militias. Often, these lie in areas under attack. Last July, one camp was bombed, killing 53 prisoners.

    In a lawless land that provides few rights to foreign laborers, migrants are often tortured, raped, held for ransom, or treated as modern-day slaves.

    Steven, a 20-year-old from South Sudan, described being shot and beaten by Libyan officials after he was returned to Libya by a commercial ship in November 2018.

    “Why did they rescue us and take us back to Libya?” said Steven, who asked to be identified only by his first name for fear of legal repercussions. “It was better to die in the ship.”

    The question of culpability is complex.

    Since 1951, international refugee law has stipulated that migrants should not be returned without due process to the countries they fled. But in cases involving merchant ships, migrants are often rescued in international waters, before reaching Europe’s maritime borders.

    The authorities in Italy and European Union say they should therefore be returned to Libya, since Libya coordinates search-and-rescue operations in these international waters.

    Critics argue that Italy and its European allies still bear responsibility. In the view of humanitarian monitoring groups, the Europeans never relinquished their role in orchestrating search-and-rescue missions — undermining the rationale for surrendering control to Libya.

    During at least part of 2019, Italian navy officers aboard an Italian vessel docked in Tripoli’s harbor oversaw rescues on behalf of the Libyans, according to documents published during a court case in Sicily last March.

    “They coordinated the rescue activities,” Matteo Salvini, Italy’s interior minister at the time, said in an interview with the Times.

    In one instance in November 2018, logbooks show how Italian Coast Guard officers contacted a cargo ship, the Nivin, “on behalf of” their Libyan counterparts. But the logs also reveal that the Nivin’s captain could only reach the Libyan authorities by contacting the Italian Coast Guard.

    And though European navies have withdrawn from the area, their planes still direct the Libyan Coast Guard to migrant vessels, recordings published by The Guardian show.

    In March last year, one such military plane ordered a merchant vessel to return a boatload of rescued migrants to Tripoli, without any intervention from the Libyan Coast Guard, according to recordings reported in The Atavist, a digital magazine.

    In one of several recent phone interviews, Commodore Abdal Samad of the Libyan Coast Guard said an Italian ship docked in Tripoli, once used as a search-and-rescue control center, no longer directs Libyan Coast Guard activity.

    But Libyan Coast Guard crews still sometimes use the Italian ship’s equipment to communicate with merchant vessels, Commodore Abdal Samad conceded, particularly when their radios break down.

    One of the most recent instances, he said, was the weekend in January when the Panther rescued 68 migrants from the southern Mediterranean.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/world/europe/mediterranean-libya-migrants-europe.html

    #push-backs #refoulement #refoulements #bateaux_marchands #privatisation #externalisation #Méditerranée #Libye #Mer_Méditerranée #refoulements_privatisés #sauvetage #privatized_pushbacks #gardes-côtes_libyens

    ping @reka

  • Bulgaria is not changing its push-back policy at its border to Turkey

    On the 27th of February 2020 the Turkish government announced migrants will no longer be stopped on the Turkish side of the borders to Greece and Bulgaria. Following this statement thousands of migrants are moving on to Edirne, which is located in the three country border region. For this they used buses (non-stop), organized by the Turkish government, some took taxis. While during the night many people tried to cross the Turkish-Greek border, 60 migrants have been pushed back at the Bulgarian-Turkish border on the following morning.

    The practice of pushing people back to Turkey has not changed so far. During the last days the Greek border is much worse when it comes to the number of people who have been pushed back in only in a short while, but for Greece and Bulgaria this push back practice is not new. While in the past asylum seekers and Bulgarian government officials have both admitted that the Bulgarian border fence could be easily crossed, the Bulgarian authorities have a bad reputation, regarding their behavior towards migrants. The Bulgarian Defence Minister Krassimir Karakachanov just stated that the bulgarian army is ready at any time.

    Media reported that FRONTEX installed 60 additional staff members to the already existing 50 ones at the Bulgarian-Turkish border. This raises the question of whether FRONTEX will only watch the Bulgarian authorities while they go on with their push-back practice in the upcoming days. Until now, the number of crossing incidents around the Turkish-Bulgarian border near Kapıkule/Kapitan Andreevo seem much lower in comparison to the Greek-Turkish border around Pazarkule/Kastanies – both border crossings are only about 10 km away from each other.

    Meanwhile in the whole border region thousands of people, including families, are waiting in the border region under critical weather conditions. Bordermonitoring Bulgaria calls the Bulgarian authorities and FRONTEX to stop the push back practice, which is against international law and the Non-refoulement principle.

    https://bulgaria.bordermonitoring.eu/2020/03/02/bulgaria-is-not-changing-its-push-back-policy-at-its-borde
    #frontières #Turquie #Bulgarie #asile #migrations #réfugiés #push-back #refoulements #refoulement #Frontex

    • #Muhammad_al-Arab, 02.03.2020

      –-> #Forensic_Architecture releases video confirming murder of Syrian refugee on Greek border
      https://seenthis.net/messages/828209#message829209

      Mediapart en a aussi parlé :

      Mohamed Al Arab avait 22 ans et était originaire d’Alep, rapporte Le Parisien. Le gouvernement grec, lui, « dément catégoriquement » ces tirs. « La police grecque n’a pas tiré, maintient M. Moutzouris, mais malheureusement cela ne serait pas surprenant que la situation dérape. »

      https://seenthis.net/messages/828209#message829196

      ##Muhammad_al_Arab

    • Et en 2012, un réfugié palestinien nous avait livré ce témoignage d’un meurtre suite à un #push-back dans la même région :

      On l’avait reportée dans l’article publié pour @visionscarto.

      C’est dans un bar situé dans un patio au bout d’un étroit passage du quartier de Taksim que se rencontrent des jeunes syriens pour discuter de la meilleure manière d’aider leurs compatriotes restés au pays. Parmi eux, il y a K. Nous partageons une bière avec lui alors qu’il nous raconte son histoire, ses deux tentatives de passage de la frontière. La première fois, la police turque l’a arrêté avant qu’il n’arrive à Edirne, et il a passé quatre jours en centre de rétention. Son récit indique que les abords de la frontière gréco-turque ont tout l’air d’une « zone de non-droit ».
      En payant 400 euros par personne, K. et ses compagnons de voyage sont parvenus à traverser le fleuve et à fouler le sol grec. Comme tous les autres migrants, une fois arrivé en Grèce, K. se rend alors au poste de police le plus proche. Il est aussitôt transféré dans un centre de rétention, sans doute celui de Fylakio, ou dans un des nombreux postes de police qui servent également de centres de rétention dans la région de l’Evros. Les policiers, qui n’étaient pas accompagnés par des agents Frontex, l’ont interrogé, ont rempli un formulaire et ont écrit avec un stylo un numéro à deux chiffres sur sa main. (Le numéro ainsi que la date du déroulement de ces événements ne sont pas mentionnés ici, par mesure de sécurité.) À ce moment là, par rapport à la procédure officielle, une étape essentielle a déjà été omise : l’enregistrement des empreintes digitales, prévu par le règlement Dublin II pour tous les migrants interceptés sur le sol européen. K. entend les policiers discuter entre eux, puis celui qui avait écrit le numéro sur sa main revient pour l’effacer avec de l’alcool. K. avait pourtant le droit de déposer une demande d’asile politique en Grèce. Il en a été empêché.

      L’histoire s’est écrite différemment pour K. qui a aussi dessiné des croquis pour nous aider à comprendre.


      À la nuit tombée, K. a été conduit dans un fourgon à bord duquel il y avait trente-sept autres migrants. Après trente minutes de voyage, et deux heures d’attente dans ce véhicule – aux fenêtres minuscules –, tout près du fleuve Evros, les policiers ont fait sortir les migrants du fourgon vers trois heures du matin pour les faire monter huit par huit sur des canots, en les menaçant : « Et si vous essayez de revenir, nous vous abattrons ! » K. se souvient qu’il faisait froid et humide, cette nuit-là. Autour d’eux, les policiers formaient un cordon pour les empêcher de revenir en arrière. K. raconte que l’un d’entre eux a essayé de prendre la fuite, mais un policier l’a attrapé et l’a frappé avec une matraque, longuement… avant de jeter le corps sans vie dans le fleuve. Son cadavre refera probablement surface plus tard dans l’année, et sera ramené à la morgue de l’hôpital d’Alexandroupoli, où le Docteur Pavlidis essaiera de retrouver son identité (Les déportations illégales à la frontière ont été dénoncées également par The Guardian : lire « Syrian refugees ‘turned back from Greek border by police’ »).

      Entre temps, K. et S. sont repassés par la case départ, en Turquie. Ils nous ont tous deux expliqué qu’ils prévoyaient de passer la frontière le lendemain. Même parcours : le groupe de migrants sera transporté près de la frontière dans un petit fourgon, puis ils devront aller à pied jusqu’au fleuve, où un canot les attendra pour faire la traversée. Prix du voyage : 400 euros par personne. Nous leur promettons de les retrouver en Grèce la semaine suivante.

      Ce soir, nous les quittons, là, en nous demandant au nom de quoi cette frontière si facile à traverser pour nous devrait être si dangereuse pour eux.

      Source :
      À Kumkapı, avant de passer la frontière
      https://visionscarto.net/a-kumkapi-avant-de-passer-la-frontiere

  • Hidden infrastructures of the European border regime : the #Poros detention facility in Evros, Greece

    This blog post and the research it draws on date before the onset of the current border spectacle in Evros of February/March 2020. Obviously, the situation in Evros region has changed dramatically. Our research however underlines that the Greek state has always resorted to extra-legal methods of border and migration control in the Evros region. Particularly the violent and illegal pushback practices which have persisted for decades in Evros region have now been elevated to official government policy.

    The region of Evros at the Greek-Turkish border was the scene of many changes in the European and Greek border regimes since 2010. The most well-known was the deployment of the Frontex RABIT force in October of that year; while it concluded in 2011, Frontex has had a permanent presence in Evros ever since. In 2011, the then government introduced the ‘Integrated Program for Border Management and Combating Illegal Immigration’ (European Migration Network, 2012), which reflected EU and domestic processes of the Europeanisation of border controls (European Migration Network, 2012; Ilias et al., 2019). The program stipulated a number of measures which impacted the border regime in Evros: the construction of a 12.5km fence along the section of the Greek Turkish border which did not coincide with the Evros river (after which the region takes its name); the expansion of border surveillance technologies and capacities in the area; and the establishment of reception centres where screening procedures would be undertaken (European Migration Network, 2012; Ilias et al., 2019). In this context, one of the measures taken was the establishment of a screening centre in South Evros, near the village of Poros, 46km away from the city of Alexandroupoli – the main urban centre in the area.

    The operation of the Centre for the First Management of Illegal Immigration is documented in Greek (Ministry for Public Order and Citizen Protection, 2013a) and EU official documents (European Parliament, 2012; European Migration Network, 2013), reports by the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency (2011), NGOs (Pro Asyl, 2012) and activists (CloseTheCamps, 2012), media articles (To Vima, 2012) and research (Düvell, 2012; Schaub, 2013) between 2011 and 2015.

    Yet, during our fieldwork in the area in 2018, none of our respondents mentioned it. Nor could we find any recent research, reports or official documents after 2015 referring to it. It was only a tip from someone we collaborate with that reminded us of the existence of the Poros facility. We found its ‘disappearance’ from public view intriguing. Through fieldwork, document analysis and queries to the Greek authorities, we constructed a genealogy of the Poros centre, from its inception in 2011 to its ambivalent present. Our findings not only highlight the shifting nature of local assemblages of the European border regime, but also raise questions on such ‘hidden’ infrastructures, and the implications of their use for the rights of the people who cross the border.

    A genealogy of Poros

    The Poros centre was originally a military facility, used for border surveillance. In 2012, it was transferred to the Hellenic Police, the civilian authority responsible for migration control and border management, and was formally designated a Centre for the First Management of Illegal Immigration, similar to the more well-known First Reception Centre in Fylakio, in North Evros. The refurbishment and expansion of the old facilities and purchase of necessary equipment were financed through the External borders fund of the European Union (Alexandroupoli Police Directorate, 2011). Visits by the European Commissioner for Home Affairs, Cecilia Malmström (To Vima, 2012), the then executive director of Frontex, Ilkka Laitinen (Ministry for Public Order and Citizen Protection, 2013b), and a delegation of the LIBE committee of the European Parliament (2012) illustrated the embeddedness of the centre in the European border regime. The Commission’s report on the implementation of the Greek National Action Plan on Migration Management and Asylum Reform specifically refers the Poros centre as a facility that could be used for screening procedures and vulnerability assessments (European Commission, 2012).

    The Poros facility was indeed used as a screening and identification centre, activities that fell under both border management and the Greek framework for reception procedures introduced in 2011. While official documents of the Greek Government suggest that the centre started operating in 2012 (Council of Europe, 2012), a media article (Alexandroupoli Online, 2011) and a report by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (2011) provide evidence that it was already operational the year before, as an informal reception centre. When the centre became the main screening facility for South Evros in 2012 (European Parliament, 2012), screening, identification and debriefing procedures at the time were carried out both by Hellenic Police personnel and Frontex officers deployed in the area (Council of Europe, 2012).

    One of the very few research sources referring to Poros, a PhD thesis by Laurence Pillant (2017) provides a detailed description of the space and the activities carried out in the old wooden building and the white containers (image 3), visible in the stills from the video we took in December 2020 (image 4). A mission of Medecins sans frontiers, indicated in Pillant’s diagram, provided health screening in 2012 (European Migration Network, 2013).

    The organisation and function of the centre at the time is also documented in a number of mundane administrative acts which we located through diavgeia.gov.gr, a website storing Greek public administration decisions. Containers were bought to create space for the screening and identification procedures (Regional Police Directorate of Macedonia and Thrace, 2012). A local company was awarded contracts for the cleaning of the facilities (Regional Police Directorate of Macedonia and Thrace, 2013). The last administrative documents we were able to locate concerned the establishment of a committee of local police officers to procure services for emptying the cesspit of the centre (Regional Police Directorate of Macedonia and Thrace, 2015) – not all buildings in the area are linked to the local sewage system. This is the point when the administrative trail for Poros goes cold. No documents were found in diavgeia.gov.gr after January 2015.

    So what happened to the Poros Centre?

    After 2015, we found a mere five online references to the centre, despite extensive searches of sources such as official documents, research or reports by human rights bodies and NGOs. A 2016 newspaper article mentioned that arrested migrants were led there for screening (Ta Nea, 2016). A 2018 article in a local online news outlet mentioned a case of malaria in the village of Poros (Evros News, 2018a), while in another article (Evros News, 2018b), the president of the village council blamed a case of malaria in the village on the lack of health screening in the centre. An account of activities of the municipal council of Alexandroupoli referred to fixing an electrical fault in the centre in May 2019 (Municipality of Alexandroupoli, 2019). Τhe Global Detention Project (2019) also refers to Poros as a likely detention place.

    These sources suggested that the centre might be operational in some capacity, yet they raised more questions than they answered. If the centre has been in operation since 2015, why is there such an absence of official sources referring to it? Equally surprising was the absence of administrative acts related to the Poros centre in diavgeia.gov.gr, in contrast to all other facilities in the area where migrants are detained, such as the Fylakio Reception and Identification Centre and the pre-removal centres and police stations. It was conceivable, of course, that the centre fell into disuse. Since the deployment of Frontex and the border control measures taken under the Integrated Plan, entries through the Greek-Turkish land border decreased significantly – from 54,974 in 2011 to 3,784 in 2016 (Hellenic Police, 2020), and screening procedures were transferred to Fylakio, fully operational since 2013 (Reception and Identification Service, 2020).

    Trying to find answers to our questions, we contacted the Hellenic Police. An email we sent in January 2020 was never answered. In early February, following a series of phone calls, we obtained some answers to our questions. The police officer who answered the phone call did not seem to have heard of the centre and wanted to ask other departments for more information, as well as the First Reception and Identification Service, now responsible for screening procedures. The next day, he said it is occasionally used as a detention facility, when there is a high number of apprehended people that cannot be detained in police cells. According to the police officer, they are detained there for one or two days, until they can be transferred to the Reception and Identification Centre of Fylakio for reception procedures, or detention in the pre-removal detention centre adjacent to it. At the same time, he stated that he was told that Poros has been closed for a long time.

    This contradictory information could be down to the distance between the central police directorate in Athens and the area of Evros – it is not unlikely that local arrangements are not known in the central offices. Yet, it was also at odds both with the description of the use of the centre that our informant himself gave us – using the present tense in Greek –, with what the local media articles suggest, and with what we saw on site. Stills from the video taken during fieldwork in December 2020 suggest that the Poros centre is not disused, although no activity could be observed on the day. The cars and vans parked outside did not seem abandoned or rusting. The main building and the containers appeared to be in a good condition. A bright red cloth, maybe a canvas bag, was hanging outside one of them. The rubbish bins were full, but the black bags and other objects in them did not seem as they have been left in the open for a long time (image 4).

    The police officer also asked, however, how we had heard of Poros – a question that alerted us to both the obscure nature of the facility and the sensitivity of our query.
    A hidden infrastructure of pushbacks?

    The Poros centre, at one level, illustrates how the function of such border facilities can change over time, as the local border regime adapts and responds to migratory movements. Fylakio has become the main reception and detention centre in Evros, and between 2015 and 2017, the Aegean islands became the main point of entry into Greece and the European Union. Yet, our findings raised a lot of significant questions regarding the new function of Poros, given the increase in migratory movements in the area since 2018.

    While we obtained official confirmation that the Poros centre is now used for temporary detention and not screening, it remains the case that there are no official documents – including any administrative acts on diavgeia.gov.gr – that confirm its use as a temporary closed detention centre. Equally, we did not manage to obtain any information about how the facility is funded from the Hellenic Police. Our respondent did not know, and another departments we called did not want to share any information about the centre. It also became evident in the course of our research that most of our contacts in Greece – NGOS and journalists – had never heard of the facility or had no recent information about it. We found no evidence to suggest that Greek and European human rights bodies or NGOs which monitor detention facilities have visited the Poros centre after 2015. A mission of the Council of Europe (2019), for example, visited several detention facilities in Evros in April 2018 but the Poros centre was not listed among them. Similarly, the Fundamental Rights Officer of Frontex, in a partly joined mission with the Fundamental Rights Agency, visited detention facilities in South Evros in 2019, the operational area where the Poros centre is located. However, the centre is not mentioned in the report on that visit (Frontex, 2019).

    The dearth of information and absence of monitoring of the facility means that it is unclear whether the facility provides adequate conditions for detention. While our Hellenic police informant stated that detention there lasts for one or two days, there is no outside gate at the Poros centre, just a rather flimsy looking wire fence. Does this mean that detainees are kept inside the main building or containers the whole time they are detained there? We also do not know if detainees have access to phones, legal assistance or healthcare, which the articles in the local press suggest that is absent from the Poros centre. Equally, in the absence of inspections by human rights bodies, we are unaware of the standards of hygiene inside the facilities, or if there is sufficient food available. Administrative acts archived in diavgeia.gov.gr normally offer some answers to such questions but, as we mentioned above, we could find none. In short, it appears that Poros is used as an informal detention centre, hidden from public view.

    The obscurity surrounding the facility, in the context of the local border regime, is extremely worrying. Many NGOs and journalists have documented widespread pushback practices (Arsis et al., 2018; Greek Council for Refugees, 2018; Koçulu, 2019), evidenced through migrant testimonies (Mobile Info Team 2019) and, more recently, videos (Forensic Architecture, 2019a; 2019b). Despite denials by the Hellenic Police and the Greek government, European and international international human rights bodies (Council of Europe, 2019; Committee Against torture 2019) have accepted these testimonies as credible. We have no firm evidence that the Poros facility may be one of the many ‘informal’ detention places migrant testimonies implicated in pushbacks. Yet, the centre is located no further than two kilometres from the Greek-Turkish border, and the layout of the area is similar to the location of a pushback captured on camera and analysed by Forensic Architecture (2019a): near a dirt road with direct access to the Evros River. Black cars and white vans (images 5 and 6), without police insignia and some without number plates, such as those in the Poros centre, have been mentioned in testimonies of pushbacks (Arsis et al., 2018). Objects looking like inflatable boats are visible in our video stills. While there might be other explanations for their presence (used for patrolling the river or confiscated from migrants crossing the river) they are also used during pushbacks operations, and their presence in a detention centre seems odd.

    These uncertainties, and the tendency of security bodies to avoid revealing information on spaces of detention, are not unusual. However, the obscurity surrounding the Poros centre, located in an area of the European border where detention have long attracted criticism and there is considerable evidence of illegal and violent border control practices, should be a concern for all.

    https://www.respondmigration.com/blog-1/border-regime-poros-detention-facility-evros-greece
    #Evros #détention #rétention #détention_administrative #Grèce #refoulement #push-back #push-backs #invisibilité #invisibilisation #Centre_for_the_First_Management_of_Illegal_Immigration #Fylakio #Frontex

    Ce centre, selon ce que le chercheur·es écrivent, est ouvert depuis 2012... or... pas entendu parler de lui avec @albertocampiphoto quand on a été sur place... alors qu’on a vraiment sillonnée la (relativement petite) région pendant 1 mois !

    Donc pas mention de ce centre dans la #carte qu’on a publiée notamment sur @visionscarto :


    https://visionscarto.net/evros-mur-inutile

    ping @reka @karine4

    • En fait, en regardant mieux « notre » carte je me rends compte que peut-être le centre que nous avons identifié comme « #Feres » est en réalité le centre que les auteur·es appellent Poros... les deux localités sont à moins de 5 km l’une de l’autre.
      J’ai écrit aux auteur·es...

      Réponse de Bernd Kasparek, 12.03.2020 :

      Since we have been in front of Poros detention centre, we are certain that it is a distinct entity from the Feres police station, which, as you rightly observe, is also often implicated in reports about push-backs.

      Réponse de Lena Karamanidou le 13.03.2020 :

      Feres is located here: https://goo.gl/maps/gQn15Hdfwo4f3cno6​ , and it’s a much more modern facility (see photo, complete with ubiquitous military van!). However, ​I’m not entirely certain when the new Feres station was built - I think there was an older police station, but then both police and border guard functions were transfered to the new building. Something for me to check in obscure news items and databases!

    • ‘We Are Like Animals’ : Inside Greece’s Secret Site for Migrants

      The extrajudicial center is one of several tactics Greece is using to prevent a repeat of the 2015 migration crisis.


      The Greek government is detaining migrants incommunicado at a secret extrajudicial location before expelling them to Turkey without due process, one of several hard-line measures taken to seal the borders to Europe that experts say violate international law.

      Several migrants said in interviews that they had been captured, stripped of their belongings, beaten and expelled from Greece without being given a chance to claim asylum or speak to a lawyer, in an illegal process known as refoulement. Meanwhile, Turkish officials said that at least three migrants had been shot and killed while trying to enter Greece in the past two weeks.

      The Greek approach is the starkest example of European efforts to prevent a reprise of the 2015 migration crisis in which more than 850,000 undocumented people passed relatively easily through Greece to other parts of Europe, roiling the Continent’s politics and fueling the rise of the far right.

      If thousands more refugees reach Greece, Greek officials fear being left to care for them for years, with little support from other members in the European Union, exacerbating social tensions and further fraying a strained economy. Tens of thousands of migrants already live in squalor on several Greek islands, and many Greeks feel they have been left to shoulder a burden created by wider European indifference.

      The Greek government has defended its actions as a legitimate response to recent provocations by the Turkish authorities, who have transported thousands of migrants to the Greek-Turkish border since late February and have encouraged some to charge and dismantle a border fence.

      The Greek authorities have denied reports of deaths along the border. A spokesman for the Greek government, Stelios Petsas, did not comment on the existence of the site, but said that Greece detained and expelled migrants in accordance with local law. An act passed March 3, by presidential decree, suspended asylum applications for a month and allowed immediate deportations.

      But through a combination of on-the-ground reporting and forensic analysis of satellite imagery, The Times has confirmed the existence of the secret center in northeastern Greece.

      Presented with diagrams of the site and a description of its operations, François Crépeau, a former U.N. Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, said it was the equivalent of a domestic “black site,” since detainees are kept in secret and without access to legal recourse.

      Using footage supplied to several media outlets, The Times has also established that the Greek Coast Guard, nominally a lifesaving institution, fired shots in the direction of migrants onboard a dinghy that was trying to reach Greek shores early this month, beat them with sticks and sought to repel them by driving past them at high speed, risking tipping them into water.

      Forensic analysis of videos provided by witnesses also confirmed the death of at least one person — a Syrian factory worker — after he was shot on the Greek-Turkish border.
      A Secret Site

      When Turkish officials began to bus migrants to the Greek border on Feb. 28, a Syrian Kurd named Somar al-Hussein had a seat on one of the first coaches.

      Turkey already hosts more refugees than any other country — over four million, mostly Syrians — and fears that it may be forced to admit another million because of a recent surge in fighting in northern Syria. To alleviate this pressure, and to force Europe to do more to help, it has weaponized refugees like Mr. al-Hussein by shunting them toward the Continent.

      Mr. al-Hussein, a trainee software engineer, spent that night in the rain on the bank of the Evros River, which divides western Turkey from eastern Greece. Early the next morning, he reached the Greek side in a rubber dinghy packed with other migrants.

      But his journey ended an hour later, he said in a recent interview. Captured by Greek border guards, he said, he and his group were taken to a detention site. Following the group’s journey on his mobile phone, he determined that the site was a few hundred yards east of the border village of Poros.

      The site consisted principally of three red-roofed warehouses set back from a farm road and arranged in a U-shape. Hundreds of other captured migrants waited outside. Mr. al-Hussein was taken indoors and crammed into a room with dozens of others.

      His phone was confiscated to prevent him from making calls, he said, and his requests to claim asylum and contact United Nations officials were ignored.

      “To them, we are like animals,” Mr. al-Hussein said of the Greek guards.

      After a night without food or drink, on March 1 Mr. al-Hussein and dozens of others were driven back to the Evros River, where Greek police officers ferried them back to the Turkish side in a small speedboat.

      Mr. al-Hussein was one of several migrants to provide similar accounts of extrajudicial detentions and expulsions, but his testimony was the most detailed.

      By cross-referencing drawings, descriptions and satellite coordinates that he provided, The Times was able to locate the detention center — in farmland between Poros and the river.

      A former Greek official familiar with police operations confirmed the existence of the site, which is not classified as a detention facility but is used informally during times of high migration flows.

      On Friday, three Times journalists were stopped at a roadblock near the site by uniformed police officers and masked special forces officers.

      The site’s existence was also later confirmed by Respond, a Sweden-based research group.

      Mr. Crépeau, now a professor of international law at McGill University, said the center represented a violation of the right to seek asylum and “the prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and of European Union law.”
      Violence at Sea

      Hundreds of miles to the south, in the straits of the Aegean Sea between the Turkish mainland and an archipelago of Greek islands, the Greek Coast Guard is also using force.

      On March 2, a Coast Guard ship violently repelled an inflatable dinghy packed with migrants, in an incident that Turkish officials captured on video, which they then distributed to the press.

      The footage shows the Coast Guard vessel and an unmarked speedboat circling the dinghy. A gunman on one boat shot at least twice into waters by the dinghy, with what appeared to be a rifle, before men from both vessels shoved and struck the dinghy with long black batons.

      It is not clear from the footage whether the man was firing live or non-lethal rounds.

      Mr. Petsas, the government spokesman, did not deny the incident, but said the Coast Guard did not fire live rounds.

      The larger Greek boat also sought to tip the migrants into the water by driving past them at high speed.
      Forensic analysis by The Times shows that the incident took place near the island of Kos after the migrants had clearly entered Greek waters.

      “The action of Greek Coast Guard ships trying to destabilize the refugees’ fragile dinghies, thus putting at risk the life and security of their passengers, is also a violation,” said Mr. Crépeau, the former United Nations official.
      A Killing on Land

      The most contested incident concerns the lethal shooting of Mohammed Yaarub, a 22-year-old Syrian from Aleppo who tried to cross Greece’s northern land border with Turkey last week.

      The Greek government has dismissed his death as “fake news” and denied that anyone has died at the border during the past week.

      An analysis of videos, coupled with interviews with witnesses, confirmed that Mr. Yaarub was killed on the morning of March 2 on the western bank of the Evros River.

      Mr. Yaarub had lived in Turkey for five years, working at a shoe factory, according to Ali Kamal, a friend who was traveling with him. The two friends crossed the Evros on the night of March 1 and camped with a large group of migrants on the western bank of the river.

      By a cartographical quirk, they were still in Turkey: Although the river mostly serves as the border between the two countries, this small patch of land is one of the few parts of the western bank that belongs to Turkey rather than Greece.

      Mr. Kamal last saw his friend alive around 7:30 a.m. the next morning, when the group began walking to the border. The two men were separated, and soon Greek security forces blocked them, according to another Syrian man who filmed the aftermath of the incident and was later interviewed by The Times. He asked to remain anonymous because he feared retribution.

      During the confrontation, Mr. Yaarub began speaking to the men who were blocking their path and held up a white shirt, saying that he came in peace, the Syrian man said.

      Shortly afterward, Mr. Yaarub was shot.

      There is no known video of the moment of impact, but several videos captured his motionless body being carried away from the Greek border and toward the river.

      Several migrants who were with Mr. Yaarub at the time of his death said a Greek security officer had shot him.

      Using video metadata and analyzing the position of the sun, The Times confirmed that he was shot around 8:30 a.m., matching a conclusion reached by Forensic Architecture, an investigative research group.

      Video shows that it took other migrants about five minutes to ferry Mr. Yaarub’s body back across the river and to a car. He was then taken to an ambulance and later a Turkish hospital.

      An analysis of other footage shot elsewhere on the border showed that Greek security forces used lethal and non-lethal ammunition in other incidents that day, likely fired from a mix of semiautomatic and assault rifles.
      E.U. Support for Greece

      Mr. Petsas, the government spokesman, defended Greece’s tough actions as a reasonable response to “an asymmetrical and hybrid attack coming from a foreign country.”

      Besides ferrying migrants to the border, the Turkish police also fired tear-gas canisters in the direction of Greek security forces and stood by as migrants dismantled part of a border fence, footage filmed by a Times journalist showed.

      Before this evidence of violence and secrecy had surfaced, Greece won praise from leaders of the European Union, who visited the border on March 3.

      “We want to express our support for all you did with your security services for the last days,” said Charles Michel, the president of the European Council, the bloc’s top decision-making body.

      The European Commission, the bloc’s administrative branch, said that it was “not in a position to confirm or deny” The Times’s findings, and called on the Greek justice system to investigate.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/world/europe/greece-migrants-secret-site.html

      https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/world/europe/greece-migrants-secret-site.html

      #Mohammed_Yaarub #décès #mourir_aux_frontières

    • Grécia nega existência de centro de detenção “secreto” onde os migrantes são tratados “como animais”

      New York Times citou vários migrantes que dizem ter sido roubados e agredidos pelos guardas fronteiriços, antes de deportados para a Turquia. Erdogan compara gregos aos nazis.

      Primeiro recusou comentar, mas pouco mais de 24 horas depois o Governo da Grécia refutou totalmente a notícia do New York Times. Foi esta a sequência espaçada da reacção de Atenas ao artigo do jornal norte-americano, publicado na terça-feira, que deu conta da existência de um centro de detenção “secreto”, perto da localidade fronteiriça de Poros, onde muitos dos milhares de migrantes que vieram da Turquia, nos últimos dias, dizem ter sido roubados, despidos e agredidos, impedidos de requerer asilo ou de contactar um advogado, e deportados, logo de seguida, pelos guardas fronteiriços gregos.
      Mais populares

      Coronavírus: Meninos, isto não são umas férias – Opinião de Bárbara Wong
      Coronavírus
      Coronavírus: o que comprar sem levar o supermercado para casa
      i-album
      Festival
      Cores e mais cores: o Holi e “o triunfo do bem sobre o mal” na Índia

      “Para eles somos como animais”, acusou Somar al-Hussein, sírio, um dos migrantes entrevistados pelo diário nova-iorquino, que entrou na Grécia através do rio Evros e que diz ter sido alvo de tratamento abusivo no centro de detenção “secreto”.

      “Não há nenhum centro de detenção secreto na Grécia”, garantiu, no entanto, esta quarta-feira, Stelios Petsas, porta-voz do executivo grego. “Todas as questões relacionadas com a protecção e a segurança das fronteiras são transparentes. A Constituição está a ser aplicada e não há nada de secreto”, insistiu.

      Com jornalistas no terreno, impedidos de entrar no local por soldados gregos, o New York Times entrevistou diversos migrantes que dizem ter sido ali alvo de tratamento desumano, analisou imagens de satélite, informou-se junto de um centro de estudos sueco sobre migrações que opera na zona e falou com um antigo funcionário grego familiarizado com as operações policiais fronteiriças. Informação que diz ter-lhe permitido confirmar a existência do centro.

      https://www.publico.pt/2020/03/11/mundo/noticia/grecia-nega-existencia-centro-detencao-secreto-onde-migrantes-sao-tratados-a

      #paywall

  • Une coalition contre les violences aux frontières

    Nous déposerons plainte contre la Grèce et l’UE pour les violations des droits des personnes migrantes et réfugiées fuyant la Turquie

    Ces derniers jours, les #violations des droits des migrant·e·s et réfugié·e·s qui cherchent à accéder au territoire européen via la Grèce ont pris une tournure dramatique. Si les #violences contre les exilé·e·s atteignent aujourd’hui un niveau inouï, les conditions de cette #escalade ont été posées par les dirigeants européens depuis plusieurs années. En 2015, l’Union européenne (UE) a introduit son « #approche_hotspot », obligeant l’Italie et la Grèce à trier les migrant·e·s et réfugié·e·s arrivant sur leurs côtes. En mars 2016, l’UE a signé un arrangement avec la Turquie qui, pour un temps, a permis de contenir de nouvelles arrivées. Sans surprise, ces dispositifs ont transformé les îles grecques en prisons à ciel ouvert et exacerbé la catastrophe humanitaire aux frontières grecques. La coopération avec la Turquie – largement dénoncée par la société civile –, s’effondre aujourd’hui, alors que les autorités turques, cherchant à faire pression sur l’UE, poussent les personnes migrantes et réfugiées en sa direction.

    Pour empêcher l’arrivée d’un plus grand nombre d’exilé·e·s – principalement Syrien⋅ne·s – fuyant la guerre et maintenant les menaces turques, les agents grecs ont déployé un niveau de #violence inédit, rejoints par une partie de la population. En mer, les garde-côtes coupent la route aux bateaux des migrant·e·s et réfugié·e·s, tirant en l’air et blessant certain·e·s passager·e·s. [1] Un enfant s’est noyé durant la traversée [2] Sur terre, les refoulements à la rivière #Evros ont continué. Une vidéo - qualifiée de « fake news » par les autorités grecques [3] mais vérifiée par #Forensic_Architecture - montre un réfugié syrien tué par balle alors qu’il tentait de traverser la rivière. [4] Par ailleurs, les militant⋅e·s, agissant en solidarité avec les personnes migrantes et réfugiées sont criminalisé⋅e·s et attaqué⋅e·s par des groupes d’extrême droite. [5] Des violations graves sont en cours et les principes de base du droit d’asile sont foulés au pied.

    Cette violence vise à envoyer un message simple aux migrant·e·s et réfugié·e·s potentiel·le·s, celui que le ministère des Affaires Étrangères a exprimé via Twitter : « Personne ne peut traverser les frontières grecques ». [6] Cette politique grecque de fermeture des frontières [7] est soutenue par l’UE. Charles Michel, président du Conseil européen, a ainsi encensé les efforts des Grecs pour « protéger les frontières de l’Europe » [8]. Ursula von der Leyen, présidente de la Commission européenne, a qualifié la Grèce de « bouclier européen » - suggérant ainsi que les personnes migrantes et réfugiées constituent une menace physique pour l’Europe. [9] Enfin, l’agence européenne Frontex va déployer une intervention rapide dans la zone. [10] La Grèce et l’UE sont ainsi prêtes à recourir à tous les moyens pour tenter de dissuader les migrant·e·s et réfugié·e·s et empêcher la répétition des arrivées en grand nombre de 2015 – et la crise politique qu’elles ont générée à travers l’Europe.

    Nous condamnons fermement l’instrumentalisation des migrant·e·s et réfugié·e·s par la Turquie et par l’UE. Aucun objectif politique ne peut justifier de telles exactions. Il est révoltant que des personnes fuyant la violence se trouvent exposées à de nouvelles violences commises par les États européens dont le cynisme et l’hypocrisie culminent. Nos organisations s’engagent à joindre leurs efforts pour forcer les États à rendre compte de leurs crimes. Nous documenterons ainsi les violations des droits des migrant·e·s et réfugié·e·s et déposerons plainte contre ceux qui en sont responsables. Nous soutenons également celles et ceux qui sont de plus en plus criminalisé·e·s pour leur solidarité.

    Nos efforts visent à utiliser tous les outils d’#investigation et du #droit pour faire cesser la #violence_d’État, en finir avec la multiplication et la #banalisation des pratiques de #refoulement en Grèce, et ailleurs aux frontières de l’Europe. Les migrant·e·s et réfugié·e·s ne sont pas une menace face à laquelle l’Europe doit ériger un bouclier, mais sont eux même menacés par la violence des États tout au long de leurs trajectoires précaires. Nous utiliserons les outils du droit pour tenter de les protéger contre cette #brutalité.


    https://www.gisti.org/spip.php?article6320
    #plainte #justice #frontières #migrations #asile #réfugiés #Grèce #Turquie #mourir_aux_frontières #morts #décès #îles #mer_Egée #push-back #push-backs #refoulements

  • Près de 600 migrants portés disparus en Libye, alerte l’OIM

    Les autorités libyennes disent avoir libéré 600 personnes, dont des femmes et des enfants, détenus dans un établissement sous le contrôle du ministère de l’Intérieur. L’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) s’inquiète du sort de ces migrants volatilisés.

    L’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) a indiqué avoir perdu la trace de 600 migrants en Libye. « Des femmes et des enfants de tous âges font partie des disparus, ce sont des personnes vulnérables », a alerté Safa Msehli, porte-parole de l’OIM, contactée par InfoMigrants jeudi 20 février.

    Ce groupe de migrants était enfermé dans un établissement sous le contrôle du ministère de l’Intérieur libyen à Tripoli depuis début janvier, après avoir été intercepté en mer Méditerranée et débarqué en Libye par les garde-côtes.

    L’OIM indique ne jamais avoir eu l’autorisation d’accéder à ce #centre. « Ce que nous savons c’est que le gouvernement libyen dit avoir libéré les 600 migrants, mais nous n’avons #aucun_signe_de vie d’eux. Nous sommes très inquiets. Nous avons demandé des éclaircissements aux autorités libyennes », a précisé Safa Msehli.


    https://twitter.com/ONUmigration/status/1230168903348891651?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E12

    Bombardements d’un port de débarquement des migrants

    Sur place, la situation humanitaire continue de se détériorer, 10 mois après le début de l’offensive du maréchal Khalifa Haftar sur Tripoli, a prévenu l’OIM.

    Dernier incident en date, quelques heures à peine avant un débarquement de migrants interceptés en Méditerranée mardi : le port maritime de Tripoli ainsi que celui d’al-Chaab, un port secondaire, ont été la cible de plus de 15 roquettes. C’est la première fois que ces ports sont ciblés par de si lourds bombardements.

    « La Libye ne peut pas attendre », a réagi Federico Soda, chef de la mission de l’OIM en Libye, dans un communiqué. Dans un appel à la communauté internationale émis après cet incident, l’organisation enjoint plus spécifiquement l’Union européenne à réagir au plus vite en prenant « des mesures concrètes pour s’assurer que les vies sauvées en mer soient acheminées vers des ports sûrs, et pour mettre fin au système de détention arbitraire ».

    L’OIM plaide pour « un mécanisme de débarquement rapide et prévisible, dans lequel les États méditerranéens prennent une responsabilité égale pour trouver un port sûr aux personnes secourues ». Il demande aussi la reconnaissance des « efforts de sauvetage des navires des ONG opérant en Méditerranée » et une levée « de toute restriction et tout retard dans le débarquement ».

    Au moins 1 700 migrants ont été interceptés et renvoyés en Libye par les garde-côtes libyens depuis le début de la nouvelle année, selon l’OIM.

    https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/22909/pres-de-600-migrants-portes-disparus-en-libye-alerte-l-oim
    #disparitions #IOM #OIM #Libye #asile #migrations #réfugiés #disparitions #gardes-côtes_libyens #sauvetage (?) #Méditerranée #push-back #refoulements #Mer_Méditerranée

    @sinehebdo... c’est aussi un nouveau mot ?
    #migrants_volatilisés

  • Migrants expulsés à #Melilia : « L’Espagne n’a pas commis de violation » (#CEDH)

    Selon la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, l’Espagne n’a pas commis de violation en renvoyant au Maroc des migrants qui tentaient de franchir Melilia.

    La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme vient de rendre son verdict dans l’affaire de l’expulsion, en 2014, à Melilia, de deux migrants malien et ivoirien par les autorités espagnoles. Dans son arrêt, rendu ce jeudi 13 février, la juridiction a conclu que l’Espagne n’a commis aucune violation.

    L’affaire concerne le renvoi immédiat au Maroc de deux ressortissants malien et ivoirien qui ont tenté, le 13 août 2014, de pénétrer sur le territoire espagnol de manière irrégulière en escaladant les clôtures qui entourent Melilia, sur la côte nord-africaine.

    Dans son arrêt, la Cour a estimé « que les requérants se sont mis eux-mêmes dans une situation d’illégalité lorsqu’ils ont délibérément tenté, le 13 août 2014, d’entrer en Espagne en franchissant le dispositif de protection de la frontière de Melilia, à des endroits non autorisés et au sein d’un groupe nombreux, en profitant de l’effet de masse et en recourant à la force. Ils ont par conséquent décidé de ne pas utiliser les voies légales existantes permettant d’accéder de manière régulière au territoire espagnol. »

    Dans leur requête, les deux migrants avaient notamment affirmé qu’au moment de leur appréhension par la garde civile espagnole, ils n’ont pas « eu la possibilité de s’exprimer sur leur situation personnelle, ni d’être assistés par des avocats ou des interprètes », accusant sur cette base les autorités espagnoles de violations de la convention européenne des droits de l’homme.

    Rendu par la Grande chambre de la Cour européenne, l’arrêt de ce jeudi vient à rebours de celui prononcé en octobre 2017, et qui avait conclut à l’existence de plusieurs « violations » imputables aux autorités espagnoles.

    https://www.medias24.com/migrants-expulses-a-mellila-l-espagne-n-a-pas-commis-de-violation-cedh-761
    #CourEDH #push-back #refoulements #droits_fondamentaux #droits_humains #Espagne #devoluciones_en_caliente #justice (euh...) #migrations #asile #réfugiés #frontières

    ping @isskein @karine4

    • El Tribunal de Estrasburgo cambia de criterio y avala las devoluciones en caliente

      La Gran Sala del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos (TEDH) ha avalado las devoluciones en caliente en la frontera española y con ello anula su condena a España de 2017 por estas prácticas. El Tribunal considera que los migrantes denunciantes «se pusieron ellos mismos en una situación de ilegalidad al intentar entrar deliberadamente en España por la valla de Melilla».

      Estrasburgo ha concluido que «la falta de un estudio individualizado» de cada caso, como obliga el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos, «podía atribuirse al hecho de que los solicitantes no habían utilizado los procedimientos oficiales de entrada existentes para ese fin, y que, por lo tanto, [la devolución] había sido una consecuencia de su propia conducta».

      Según el fallo, en la legislación española existen «varios medios posibles» de entrada al país por la vía regular, por lo que las personas devueltas «podrían haber solicitado un visado o protección internacional, en particular en el puesto fronterizo, pero también en las representaciones diplomáticas y consulares de España en sus respectivos países de origen o tránsito o bien en Marruecos». La Corte destaca entre las vías de acceso legal a España las oficinas de asilo creadas en el paso fronterizo de Melilla.

      Las ONG denuncian los obstáculos a los que se enfrentan las personas subsaharianas para acceder a estas salas y la dificultad para llegar a España a través de vías legales y seguras. No obstante, el Tribunal responde que «el mero hecho -no discutido por el Gobierno - de que se presentasen en Beni Enzar muy pocas solicitudes de asilo antes del 1 de septiembre de 2014 no permiten la conclusión de que el Estado demandado no había proporcionado un acceso efectivo a ese cruce fronterizo».

      Según expone la sentencia, a lo largo del procedimiento ante la Gran Cámara «los demandantes no alegaron que tratasen de entrar en territorio español alguna vez por medios legales. Sólo en la audiencia de la Gran Cámara declararon que habían intentado acercarse a Beni Enzar [puesto fronterizo] pero habían sido ’perseguidos por oficiales marroquíes». El argumento de la dificultad de acceso a las salas de asilo de la frontera no ha convencido a la Gran Sala. «En ningún momento los demandantes habían alegado que la obstáculos encontrados fueron responsabilidad de las autoridades españolas. Por lo tanto, la Corte no estaba convencida de que, en el momento de los hechos, los demandantes hubieran tenido razones convincentes para no utilizar el puesto fronterizo».

      De esta manera, la Corte rompe con el criterio de los magistrados que estudiaron el caso en primera instancia, que concluyeron en 2017 que la expulsión inmediata de N.D y N.T el 13 de agosto de 2014 violó el Convenio Europeo de los Derechos Humanos, en relación a la prohibición de los retornos colectivos y la obligación de garantizar el derecho de recurso efectivo de las personas devueltas.

      Los denunciantes, de origen maliense y marfileño, se encontraban entre los centenares de personas que intentaron saltar la valla de Melilla el 13 de agosto de 2014. Alrededor de 70 migrantes permanecieron durante horas sentadas en lo alto de la alambrada más próxima a España. Finalmente, todos ellos descendieron por una escalera colocada por la Guardia Civil y, tras pisar suelo español, todos fueron esposados y entregados de forma inmediata a las fuerzas marroquíes.
      El giro de Estrasburgo

      En su sentencia de 2017, el Tribunal de Estrasburgo dio la razón por unanimidad a N.D. y N.T, de Mali y Costa de Marfil, respectivamente. Cuando ambos ciudadanos fueron esposados por los agentes españoles para ser devueltos a Marruecos, nadie les preguntó su nombre. No los identificaron ni les ofrecieron el acceso a un abogado ni a un intérprete, como establecen diferentes acuerdos internacionales de los que España forma parte, como la Convención de Ginebra, y como marcaba la Ley de Extranjería vigente en ese momento, meses después reformada a través de la Ley de Seguridad Ciudadana en un intento de regular estas prácticas.

      La Corte concluyó entonces que la expulsión inmediata de dos ciudadanos de origen subsahariano a Marruecos violó el Convenio Europeo de los Derechos Humanos que prohíbe los retornos colectivos y obliga a garantizar el derecho de recurso efectivo de las personas devueltas. El TEDH sostenía que los denunciantes «no tuvieron la oportunidad de explicar sus circunstancias para recibir asistencia de abogados, intérpretes o personal médico», lo que impedía de facto la posibilidad de solicitar asilo.

      «El Tribunal ha observado que los denunciantes habían sido expulsados y enviados a Marruecos en contra de sus deseos y que las medidas se adoptaron en ausencia de toda intervención administrativa o judicial previa», sentenció Estrasburgo en 2017. En este sentido, el Tribunal alegó que «existe un vínculo claro entre la expulsión colectiva y el hecho de que se les impedía acceder a un recurso que les hubiera permitido presentar su queja a una autoridad competente y obtener una minuciosa revisión de sus solicitudes antes de su devolución». No había duda, concluían, de que los hechos ocurrieron bajo jurisdicción española.

      Tras ser entregados a las autoridades marroquíes por los guardias civiles, N.D. y N.T fueron trasladados a la comisaría de la policía de Nador, y luego a Fez, a más de 300 kilómetros de Melilla, en compañía de los 75 a 80 inmigrantes que habían intentado entrar en Melilla en la misma fecha. El Tribunal Europeo ordenó entonces a España indemnizar a cada uno de ellos con 5.000 euros.

      Tirando de los mismos argumentos que el Partido Popular, el Gobierno español defendió estas expulsiones ante Estrasburgo y anunció que no abordaría ninguna reforma al respecto hasta conocer la decisión definitiva del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. «No hay una expulsión sino una prevención de entrada», alegó la Abogacía del Estado en el documento enviado a Estrasburgo. Los migrantes, añadió, «no lograron superar la línea policial» por lo que no entraron «en la jurisdicción española».

      La hipótesis del Ejecutivo, conocida como la «frontera flexible», fue la base levantada por el exministro del PP Jorge Fernández Díaz para justificar las expulsiones inmediatas en Ceuta y Melilla. Según su argumentario, el suelo español no empezaba a los pies de la valla hispano-marroquí, sino que su inicio estaría ligado a la línea imaginaria formada por los agentes de la Guardia Civil. No habría, insisten, una ’devolución en caliente’ sino un ’rechazo en frontera’. A su juicio, los migrantes no habrían entrado a España a pesar de sortear la alambrada fronteriza.

      En 2018, el Gobierno devolvió en caliente a 658 personas en las fronteras de Ceuta y Melilla, 51 más que el año anterior, según las cifras del Ministerio del Interior aportadas en una respuesta remitida a la exsenadora de Unidas Podemos Maribel Mora.

      Las devoluciones en caliente fueron regularizadas en la legislación española en 2015 por el Gobierno de Mariano Rajoy a través de la figura del «rechazo frontera», incluida en una disposición de la Ley de Seguridad Ciudadana. Esta semana, el Constitucional ha empezado a analizar los artículos de la llamada ’Ley Mordaza’ cuestionados en el recurso, incluida la disposición adicional primera que regula las devoluciones en caliente.

      https://www.eldiario.es/desalambre/Estrasburgo-devoluciones_en_caliente-derechos_humanos_0_994951426.html

    • Feu vert européen aux #expulsions_express de migrants

      L’Espagne n’a pas bafoué les droits humains en expulsant « à chaud », sans décision administrative ou judiciaire, deux migrants africains de son enclave de Melilla, dans le nord du Maroc, a statué la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH) dans un arrêt rendu jeudi à Strasbourg. La décision, définitive, est une surprise puisqu’elle inverse un arrêt rendu en 2017, qui donnait raison aux deux requérants et condamnait Madrid.

      Au-delà du cas de ces deux ressortissants, malien et ivoirien, l’Espagne a expulsé de façon expéditive, depuis une quinzaine d’années, des centaines de « sauteurs », ces migrants d’Afrique subsaharienne qui franchissent à mains nues les grilles, hautes de plus de 6 mètres et hérissées de lames tranchantes, qui séparent du Maroc les villes de Ceuta et Melilla, seules frontières terrestres entre l’Afrique et l’Europe. Parvenus en territoire espagnol, les migrants étaient reconduits au Maroc sans avoir pu faire valoir leur droit à une assistance juridique ou médicale ni déposer une demande d’asile. Au mépris du droit européen, opposé aux expulsions collectives, et de la Convention de Genève de 1951 sur les réfugiés.

      Pour Claire Rodier, du Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigré.e.s (Gisti), cofondatrice du réseau Migreurop, une telle décision est « catastrophique » en ce qu’elle « valide des pratiques contraires au droit international », et « s’inscrit dans un climat politique qui justifie le recours à l’illégalité des Etats ». Quelques exemples : « Les interdictions de débarquement des bateaux humanitaires en Méditerranée, de porter secours à leurs passagers, l’accord Turquie-UE de 2016… »

      Pour la responsable d’ONG, l’arrêt de Strasbourg est un nouveau cas où « les juges suivent les politiques ». La Hongrie, souligne-t-elle, procède à des expulsions illégales. La France aussi, à la frontière italienne, même si elle s’en défend.

      L’argument de la CEDH, qui reproche aux migrants de « choisir » la violence au lieu de se présenter aux postes frontières en faisant la queue avec les touristes, scandalise Claire Rodier car il « ignore une situation pourtant connue de tous et dénoncée depuis des années : les migrants noirs ne peuvent approcher des guichets frontaliers, tant du côté espagnol que marocain, tout est fait pour les empêcher d’y accéder. » Dès lors, ils n’ont pas le « choix », la voie illégale est la seule possible.

      https://www.liberation.fr/planete/2020/02/13/feu-vert-europeen-aux-expulsions-express-de-migrants_1778340
      #migrations #réfugiés #asile #machine_à_expulser

    • "El fallo de Estrasburgo significa que si entras de manera irregular no te amparan los derechos"

      Los impulsores del caso que ha llevado las devoluciones en caliente al Tribunal de Estrasburgo consideran que la decisión de la corte es «peligrosa» porque responsabiliza a los migrantes de poner en una situación de ilegalidad y les niega el amparo de los convenios europeos por infringir una norma

      Peligrosa, decepcionante, sin memoria histórica y sin empatía. Así han calificado este jueves los impulsores de la causa la decisión de la Gran Sala del Tribunal Europeo de derechos de Humanos (TEDH) que avala las devoluciones en caliente de migrantes en las vallas de Ceuta y Melilla y, por extensión, a todas las fronteras de la Unión Europea.

      «Es difícil encontrar palabras ante un texto jurídico redactado sin conciencia, sin memoria histórica, sin imaginación y sin empatía», ha afirmado en rueda de prensa Wolfgang Kaleck, fundador del Centro Europeo de Derechos Constitucionales y Humanos (ECCHR), la organización alemana que llevó al tribunal de Estrasburgo el caso de los dos jóvenes subsaharianos expulsados automáticamente tras saltar la valla de Melilla en 2014. Ganaron en primera instancia, por unanimidad de todos los jueces, pero menos de tres años después, también por unanimidad, el mismo tribunal con diferentes magistrados ha anulado la condena a España y ha cambiado de opinión.

      «Estamos sorprendidos. Afirmar que los demandantes tenían otra posibilidad legal [de entrar en España] es ir contra la realidad», ha criticado Kaleck. «No hay maneras legales para encontrar refugio en Europa. Por eso violan alguna regla», ha especificado, en referencia al fallo de la corte, que responsabiliza a los dos demandantes de ponerse ellos mismos «en una situación de ilegalidad al intentar entrar deliberadamente por la valla de Melilla». Para Kaleck, asumir esto significa «negar el Convenio de Derechos Humanos de la Unión Europea y la Convención de Ginebra sobre los refugiados».

      https://twitter.com/centre_IRIDIA/status/1227983447404285953?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E12

      El problema fundamental, según ha destacado Hanna Hakiki, abogada de la asociación alemana, es que la sentencia considera probado que había jurisdicción europea dentro de la valla y que se produjo una expulsión sin garantías, pero que al mismo tiempo existían vías legales para acceder que no los demandantes no utilizaron. Por eso la corte no encuentra una violación del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos, en concreto, al recurso efectivo de su expulsión. «Es una interpretación punitiva de la protección, significa que si entras de manera irregular no te amparan los derechos del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos», ha lamentado. «Creo que esta es una perspectiva peligrosa que va contra el Derecho Internacional», ha advertido la abogada.

      Hakiki ha recordado que el el TEDH ha asumido la postura del representante de España durante la vista del recurso que el Gobierno interpuso ante la condena de 2017. Según afirmó este representante, se puede pedir asilo en los puestos fronterizos y en las embajadas y consulados españoles en otros países. «Esto es falso y todos lo saben, desde el Defensor del Pueblo Español hasta el Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas para los Refugiados (ACNUR)», ha esgrimido la letrada.

      En la misma línea se ha pronunciado Gonzalo Boye, abogado defensor de los migrantes de la causa, que ha destacado «contradicciones» en la sentencia y ha pedido paciencia para analizarla en profundidad. «Confío en que este fallo no cree doctrina. Que no haga historia», ha deseado el letrado, que también defiende al expresidente de la Generatitat de Catalunya Cales Puigdemont. Según Boye, «es muy preocupante que cualquier personas que infrinja una norma —en este caso, una administrativa— pierda los derechos que le amparan. Esta decisión, en un caso penal, puede ser muy peligrosa», ha sentenciado el abogado.

      «Ya no hay tribunal de derechos humanos»

      «Creo sinceramente que el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos ha dejado de ser una referencia en Derechos Humanos», ha lamentado José Palazón, activista y presidente de la fundación Pro Derechos de la Infancia (Prodein) de Melilla, que lleva años denunciando públicamente las vulneraciones de derechos y la violencia empleada contra los migrantes por parte de las fuerzas de seguridad españolas y marroquíes. «Enfadado y sorprendido con esas 17 personas que llaman jueces», ha afirmado estar Palazón, el más contundente en la crítica.

      «Ya no hay tribunal de derechos humanos, hay un tribunal del derecho de los Gobiernos y corporaciones fascistas que crecen en toda Europa, que se deja influenciar y tiene miedo de defender los derechos humanos», ha proseguido el activista. «¿Será que a los negros les gusta saltar la valla?», se ha preguntado irónicamente para recordar que para los subsaharianos es imposible acercarse a la frontera entre Marruecos y España de otra forma. «Nos han robado una institución. Han ganado esta partida, pero la lucha sigue», ha afirmado.

      Por su parte, Kaleck ha recordado que su organización tiene pendientes otros procesos similares a este por devoluciones en otras fronteras de la Unión Europea y que esta decisión «no es una solución», por eso ha hecho un llamamiento al Gobierno español para que legisle "de acuerdo a la Constitución a la Convención de Derechos Humanos de la UE. «En 20 años, este tribunal se avergonzará de esta decisión».

      https://www.publico.es/sociedad/devoluciones-caliente-fallo-estrasburgo-significa-entras-manera-irregular-no

    • L’Espagne et l’Union européenne pourront faire prévaloir la protection des frontières européennes sur le #droit_d’asile

      La Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme (Cour-EDH) vient de rendre une décision favorable aux autorités espagnoles, en entérinant la pratique dite des « refoulements à chaud » des personnes tentant de rejoindre les enclaves espagnoles de Ceuta et Melilla. Alors même qu’une autre formation de la Cour avait condamné l’Espagne en 2017 pour cette pratique illégale[1], sa Grande Chambre a décidé cette fois que ce pays n’avait pas violé les droits des exilé·e·s qui avaient déjà franchi sa frontière en les renvoyant de façon expéditive et violente vers le Maroc. Par cette décision extrêmement grave, la Cour-EDH légitime le principe du refoulement généralisé. Par ailleurs, elle entérine l’impossibilité de déposer une demande d’asile en cas de franchissement illégal d’une frontière, et salue la bonne collaboration avec le Maroc dans la répression des exilé·e·s.

      Les personnes migrantes se heurtent aux pratiques de refoulement tout au long de leurs parcours aux frontières extérieures de l’UE, qui s’étendent toujours plus aux Sud et à l’Est. Elles y sont confrontées lorsqu’elles tentent de traverser le Sahara[2] ou les Balkans[3], ou tentent de fuir l’enfer libyen[4]. Cette réalité – qui, pour les cas les plus dramatiques mène à la mort – concerne aussi l’intérieur du territoire européen, comme l’illustrent les renvois récurrents de personnes migrantes aux frontières françaises avec l’Italie et l’Espagne[5]. Les pratiques de refoulement se multiplient et sont devenues une forme de gestion de plus en plus normalisée des mobilités illégalisées, qu’il faudrait entraver à tout prix.

      Depuis au moins deux décennies, les personnes migrantes subissent les violences des garde-frontières espagnols lors de leurs tentatives d’entrée dans les enclaves de Ceuta et Melilla. Les militaires marocains ne sont pas en reste : de multiples rapports d’ONG démontrent que le Maroc procède régulièrement à de violentes répressions et rafles pour éloigner les exilé·e·s de la frontière[6].

      Malgré cette réalité ancienne et documentée, la Cour-EDH conclut dans son arrêt du 13 février que l’Espagne n’a commis aucune violation, estimant « que les requérants [s’étaient] mis eux-mêmes dans une situation d’illégalité » en tentant de franchir la frontière de Melilla hors d’un poste-frontière habilité. Elle ajoute qu’« ils ont par conséquent décidé de ne pas utiliser les voies légales existantes permettant d’accéder de manière régulière au territoire espagnol ». Argument fallacieux s’il en est de considérer que seul·e·s pourraient être protégé·e·s du refoulement les exilé·e·s entré·e·s par un poste frontière habilité ou qu’ils/elles pourraient déposer sans entrave une demande d’asile au consulat. Pourtant, de nombreuses organisations de défense des droits – dont les rapports ont été sciemment ignorés par la Cour – ont pu documenter que les personnes noires sont particulièrement traquées par les forces sécuritaires marocaines, empêchées d’atteindre les postes frontières des enclaves. L’accès aux bureaux d’asile de Ceuta et Melilla (mis en place en 2015) leur est donc impossible, ne leur laissant d’autres choix que de tenter d’escalader les clôtures et leurs lames tranchantes, ou de prendre la mer, au péril de leur vie[7].

      La Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme, en revenant sur la condamnation de l’Espagne, donne un signal fort aux États européens pour la généralisation de ces pratiques violentes de refoulement et la légitimation de l’externalisation de l’asile. En effet, en estimant qu’un État membre peut limiter le droit de demander protection sur son territoire à certains lieux ou à certaines circonstances, la Cour cautionne des pratiques contraires au droit international, que l’UE essaye de longue date de promouvoir : empêcher l’arrivée de celles et ceux qui cherchent protection, soit en érigeant des barrières physiques ou juridiques, soit en sous-traitant ses obligations à des pays notoirement hostiles aux personnes migrantes.

      Les associations signataires condamnent fermement la décision de la Cour-EDH. Nous refusons que le principe de non-refoulement, pierre angulaire du droit d’asile, soit remis en cause au nom de la politique d’externalisation et de protection des frontières de l’UE et ses États membres. Nous soutenons les personnes migrantes dans l’exercice de leur liberté de circulation, et combattons les violences et le racisme qu’elles subissent tout au long de leurs trajectoires illégalisées.

      https://www.lacimade.org/presse/lespagne-et-lunion-europeenne-pourront-faire-prevaloir-la-protection-des-f

      –-> Communiqué inter-associatif signé par le réseau Migreurop, dont La Cimade est membre, publié à la suite d’une décision rendue par la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme sur les « refoulements à chaud » en Espagne.

  • Seis años del asesinato impune de 15 inmigrantes en la playa del #Tarajal

    Hoy hace 6 años del asesinato de 15 inmigrantes que trataban de llegar a España por la playa del Tarajal en Ceuta. Fueron recibidos por la Guardia Civil con pelotas de goma y botes de humo cuando aún estaban en el mar y murieron ahogados. El caso fue archivado por “falta de pruebas”. Seis años de impunidad.

    La madrugada del 6 de febrero de 2014 unos 200 inmigrantes se disponían a cruzar la frontera entre Marruecos y España saltando la valla que separa a los dos países a la altura de Ceuta en la Playa del Tarajal. Un grupo trata de pasar la frontera a nado, bordeando un espigón que separa ambos territorios. No son más de 30 metros hasta la playa ceutí del Tarajal. En ese momento comienza la tragedia. Varios agentes de la Guardia Civil les disparan pelotas de goma y gases lacrimógenos cuando aún están en el agua, lo que termina provocando que 15 hombres mueran ahogados según las cifras oficiales. Además 23 fueron expulsados mediante lo que se conoce como “#devoluciones_en_caliente”.

    Durante estos seis años, a pesar de la presión y reclamo por parte de distintas ONG, asociaciones de inmigrantes y otros colectivos por esclarecer lo ocurrido todavía no se ha dirimido la responsabilidad de las muertes de estos inmigrantes y la causa ha sido archivada por “falta de pruebas”.

    En el momento de lo sucedido el Gobierno de Rajoy se negó inicialmente a reconocer que la Guardia Civil había disparado pelotas de goma. Primero, el Cuerpo difundió un vídeo editado para enmascarar su responsabilidad. Pero pronto se descubrió la verdad. A los pocos días un vídeo verdadero salió a la luz. Arrancó una investigación, pero el Partido Popular, en ese momento en el gobierno, vetó la comisión encargada de esclarecer los hechos y censuró la información sobre lo ocurrido en Ceuta.

    A pesar de que un año después 16 Guardia Civiles fueron imputados por homicidio imprudente y citados a declarar en octubre de 2015, se terminó archivando la causa por primera vez de manera provisional argumentando que no había pruebas suficientes y que no lograron contactar con testimonios.

    Las ONG que se han dedicado a seguir el caso como Caminando Fronteras, la Coordinadora de Barrios o la Comisión Española de Ayuda al Refugiado (CEAR) −estas dos últimas personadas como acusación particular en el caso− no han encontrado más que obstáculos durante estos años por parte del Estado. El último, en agosto de 2019 cuando se reabrió la causa, pero terminó archivándose por segunda vez en un proceso en el que ni tan siquiera se tomó declaración a dos de los supervivientes. La ONG Caminando Fronteras había recogido previamente los testimonios de los supervivientes del Tarajal en un informe, pero este fue desestimado por la Justicia.

    La denuncia de todos estos colectivos es clara: no se trata únicamente de un caso de negligencia policial, sino que responde a una lógica de Estado de control migratorio, de ahí el veto claro a la investigación. Hablar del Tarajal es hablar de la política del Estado hacia los inmigrantes, una política que excede al gobierno de aquel entonces y que es criminal con aquellos que tratan de llegar a Europa.

    En 2017 vio la luz el documental Desmontando la impunidad de la frontera sur, un documental de los mismos directores de Ciutat morta (2013) que desglosa el caso tomando testimonios de supervivientes y activistas de asociaciones que buscaron desmontar la versión del gobierno y la Guardia civil apoyada por los medios de comunicación. En el documental también aparecen cargos del Estado y representantes de las fuerzas de seguridad que dejan ver el discurso y políticas xenófobas del Estado y sus garantes.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81MQN-6IaFM&feature=emb_logo

    El PSOE, en aquel momento en la oposición, no pasó de las críticas a la “gestión” del PP sobre el caso. Sin embargo, cuando se reabrió la causa en el verano de 2019, el PSOE recién llegado al gobierno en funciones no hizo ni una mención sobre el mismo. Algo que nadie esperaba ya que los gobiernos del PSOE han implementado gran parte de las medidas xenófobas del Estado español contra los inmigrantes, empezando por la creación de los CIEs -que ahora continúa con la creación del CIE de Algeciras- la utilización de concertinas en las vallas y las restrictivas leyes de extranjería, políticas que Pedro Sánchez no estaba dispuesto a cambiar. Ni tampoco se propone hacerlo sus socios de Unidas Podemos en e “gobierno progresista”.

    Los hechos de Tarajal no fueron una “tragedia” como sostuvo la prensa, sino un verdadero asesinato de 15 inmigrantes indefensos por parte de la Guardia Civil. Un crimen social que forma parte de una ofensiva imperialista y racista, de políticas fronterizas cada vez más restrictivas, que día a día llevan a la muerte a miles de personas intentando cruzar el mar o las alambradas.

    Oumar, Larios, Joseph, Armand, Daouda, Ibrahim, Ousman, Nana, Jeannot, Yves, Samba, Youssouf y todos los demás que aún siguen sin identificar, Presentes!

    http://www.izquierdadiario.es/Seis-anos-del-asesinato-impune-de-15-inmigrantes-en-la-playa-del-Tar
    #Ceuta #Espagne #Maroc #frontières #massacre #film #film_documentaire #décès #morts #impunité #assassinat #mourir_aux_frontières #morts_aux_frontières #6_février_2014 #refoulement #push-back

    Plus sur Tarajal sur seenthis:
    https://seenthis.net/tag/tarajal

    ping @reka

  • Hongrie : des #tirs de sommation pour dissuader des dizaines de migrants à la frontière avec la #Serbie

    Plusieurs dizaines de migrants ont tenté, mardi, de forcer la frontière grillagée serbo-hongroise afin de gagner l’Europe de l’Ouest. La police hongroise a répondu par des tirs de sommation pour les dissuader. Fait “rarissime” qui traduit un nouvel afflux sur la route migratoire des Balkans qui n’était quasi plus empruntée depuis 2015, explique un spécialiste.

    “De jeunes hommes organisés et agressifs”. C’est ainsi que les autorités hongroises ont décrit le groupe de 60 à 70 migrants qui a tenté de franchir la frontière entre la Serbie et la Hongrie, au petit matin du mardi 28 janvier. “C’est la première fois qu’un groupe de cette envergure est interpellé après avoir découpé les grillages” de cette frontière, indique Peter Van der Auweraert, le représentant de l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM), contacté par InfoMigrants. L’incident s’est produit précisément au niveau du poste-frontière d’#Horgos 2 près de la ville hongroise de #Röszke.

    Les forces de l’ordre sur place ont procédé à des #tirs_de_sommation afin de dissuader les migrants d’entrer en Hongrie. “C’est aussi une première à notre connaissance”, souligne l’OIM. Joint également par InfoMigrants, Philippe Bertinchamps, rédacteur en chef adjoint du Courrier des Balkans et spécialiste de la zone, confirme la rareté du geste. “Je ne suis toutefois pas surpris”, nuance-t-il. “La #police hongroise s’est déjà fait connaître par le passé pour des faits de violences envers les migrants, il y a des témoignages de personnes battues ou des téléphones volontairement cassés, par exemple.”

    D’après l’OIM, une quarantaine de migrants a été immédiatement renvoyée de l’autre côté de la frontière, en Serbie. Quatre hommes ont également été interpellés sur le territoire hongrois et placés en garde à vue. D"autres" sont parvenus à entrer en Hongrie, a indiqué à l’AFP un porte parole de la police locale, sans donner de précision sur le chiffre. Côté serbe, la police frontalière a intercepté “37 migrants qui tentaient de franchir illégalement la frontière pour pénétrer en Hongrie aux alentours de 5h du matin”, a sobrement déclaré le ministère de l’Intérieur.

    Explosion du nombre de tentatives de passages à la frontière serbo-hongroise

    Située sur la route migratoire dite des Balkans ainsi que sur l’une des frontières extérieures de l’espace Schengen, la Hongrie a érigé dès 2015 des clôtures partiellement électrifiées rendant le franchissement de ses frontières beaucoup plus périlleux pour les migrants espérant rejoindre l’Europe de l’Ouest. “Cette route s’était nettement tarie, mais de plus en plus de migrants actuellement bloqués en Bosnie sont brutalement refoulés par la police croate. Les conditions de vie étant infernales en Bosnie et le passage impossible vers la Croatie, les migrants se mettent naturellement à retenter l’ancienne route des Balkans via la Hongrie”, analyse Philippe Bertinchamps.

    Les chiffres parlent d’eux mêmes : quelque 3 400 tentatives de passages clandestins ont eu lieu depuis le début de l’année, a affirmé lors d’une conférence de presse mardi, Gyorgy Bakondi, le conseiller du Premier ministre souverainiste Viktor Orban. Il s’agit d’une très forte hausse comparativement à 2019 dont la moyenne mensuelle des tentatives de passages était d’environ un millier.

    Dirigé par une majorité politique hostile à l’accueil de réfugiés, le gouvernement hongrois n’a eu de cesse de marteler ces dernières années que les candidats à l’exil se devaient de déposer leur demande d’asile dans le premier pays européen par lequel ils sont passés, en vertu du Règlement Dublin qu’une partie des pays membres de l’Union européenne veut réformer pour plus plus d’équité. Mais la Hongrie s’y oppose fermement et refoule systématiquement vers la Serbie les candidats arrivant par voie terrestre. Elle refuse également d’accueillir sur son sol les rescapés de la Méditerranée qui font désormais l’objet d’un mécanisme de répartition européen entre certains des États membres.

    https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/22420/hongrie-des-tirs-de-sommation-pour-dissuader-des-dizaines-de-migrants-
    #Hongrie #frontières #migrations #asile #réfugiés #Route_des_Balkans #dissuasion #push-backs #push-back #refoulement
    #armes #armes_à_feu #arme_à_feu

  • Hoping To Survive, by #Razieh_Gholami, Afghanistan, 2019

    ‘The journey to safety is hard. Europe doesn’t want refugees. We thought we had arrived to safety but Europe is trying to make us struggle more and send us back to danger’

    https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/gallery/2019/dec/25/we-never-chose-this-refugees-use-art-to-imagine-a-better-world-in-pictu
    #dessin #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #refoulement #push-back #refoulements #Europe #frontières_extérieures #fermeture_des_frontières

    ping @karine4 @isskein

  • Privatised Push-Back of the #Nivin

    In November 2018, five months after Matteo Salvini was made Italy’s Interior Minister, and began to close the country’s ports to rescued migrants, a group of 93 migrants was forcefully returned to Libya after they were ‘rescued’ by the Nivin, a merchant ship flying the Panamanian flag, in violation of their rights, and in breach of international refugee law.

    The migrants’ boat was first sighted in the Libyan Search and Rescue (SAR) Zone by a Spanish surveillance aircraft, part of Operation EUNAVFOR MED – Sophia, the EU’s anti-smuggling mission. The EUNAVFOR MED – Sophia Command passed information to the Italian and Libyan Coast Guards to facilitate the interception and ‘pull-back’ of the vessel to Libya. However, as the Libyan Coast Guard (LYCG) patrol vessels were unable to perform this task, the Italian Coast Guard (ICG) directly contacted the nearby Nivin ‘on behalf of the Libyan Coast Guard’, and tasked it with rescue.

    LYCG later assumed coordination of the operation, communicating from an Italian Navy ship moored in Tripoli, and, after the Nivin performed the rescue, directed it towards Libya.

    While the passengers were initially told they would be brought to Italy, when they realised they were being returned to Libya, they locked themselves in the hold of the ship.

    A standoff ensured in the port of Misrata which lasted ten days, until the captured passengers were violently removed from the vessel by Libyan security forces, detained, and subjected to multiple forms of ill-treatment, including torture.

    This case exemplifies a recurrent practice that we refer to as ‘privatised push-back’. This new strategy has been implemented by Italy, in collaboration with the LYCG, since mid-2018, as a new modality of delegated rescue, intended to enforce border control and contain the movement of migrants from the Global South seeking to reach Europe.

    This report is an investigation into this case and new pattern of practice.

    Using georeferencing and AIS tracking data, Forensic Oceanography reconstructed the trajectories of the migrants’ vessel and the Nivin.

    Tracking data was cross-referenced with the testimonies of passengers, the reports by rescue NGO WatchTheMed‘s ‘Alarm Phone’, a civilian hotline for migrants in need of emergency rescue; a report by the owner of the Nivin, which he shared with a civilian rescue organisation, the testimonies of MSF-France staff in Libya, an interview with a high-ranking LYCG official, official responses, and leaked reports from EUNAVFOR MED.

    Together, these pieces of evidence corroborate one other, and together form and clarify an overall picture: a system of strategic delegation of rescue, operated by a complex of European actors for the purpose of border enforcement.

    When the first–and preferred–modality of this strategic delegation, which operates through LYCG interception and pull-back of the migrants, did not succeed, those actors, including the Maritime Rescue Co-ordination Centre in Rome, opted for a second modality: privatised push-back, implemented through the LYCG and the merchant ship.

    Despite the impression of coordination between European actors and the LYCG, control and coordination of such operations remains constantly within the firm hands of European—and, in particular, Italian—actors.

    In this case, as well as in others documented in this report, the outcome of the strategy was to deny migrants fleeing Libya the right to leave and request protection in Italy, returning them to a country in which they have faced grave violations. Through this action, Italy has breached its obligation of non-refoulement, one of the cornerstones of international refugee law.

    This report is the basis for a legal submission to the United Nations Human Rights Committee by Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) on behalf of an individual who was shot and forcefully removed from the Nivin.

    https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/nivin
    #Méditerranée #rapport #Charles_Heller #asile #frontières #migrations #réfugiés #mer_Méditerranée #push-back #push-backs #refoulement #refoulements #privatisation #Italie #Libye #operation_sophia #EUNAVFOR_Med #gardes-côtes_libyens #sauvetage #Misrata #torture #privatised_push-back #push-back_privatisé #architecture_forensique #externalisation #navires_marchands #Salvini #Matteo_Salvini

    Pour télécharger le rapport :
    https://content.forensic-architecture.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-12-18-FO-Nivin-Report.pdf

    –-----

    Sur le cas du Nivin, voir aussi, sur seenthis, ce fil de discussion :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/735627

    • Migrants refoulés en Libye : l’Italie accusée d’embrigader la marine marchande

      En marge du Forum mondial sur les réfugiés, plusieurs ONG ont annoncé mercredi saisir un comité de l’ONU dans l’espoir de faire cesser les refoulements de migrants vers la Libye .

      De son identité il n’a été révélé que ses initiales. SDG a fui la guerre au Soudan du Sud. En novembre 2018, avec une centaine d’autres migrants embarqués sur un canot pour traverser la Méditerranée, il est secouru par un cargo battant pavillon panaméen, le Nivin. Mais l’équipage, suivant ainsi les instructions des autorités italiennes, ramène les naufragés vers la Libye et le port de Misrata. Les migrants refusent de débarquer, affirmant qu’ils préfèrent mourir sur le navire plutôt que de retourner dans les centres de détention libyens.

      Il s’ensuit un bras de fer d’une dizaine de jours. Finalement, les Libyens donnent l’assaut et les migrants sont débarqués de force. SDG est blessé, puis emprisonné et maltraité. Il restera avec une balle en plastique dans la jambe pendant six mois. Le jeune homme est aujourd’hui à Malte, où il a pu déposer une demande d’asile. Il a finalement réussi la traversée, à sa huitième tentative.

      C’est en son nom que plusieurs ONG ont déposé une plainte contre l’Italie mercredi auprès du Comité des droits de l’homme de l’ONU. Cet organe, composé de 18 experts, n’émet que des avis consultatifs. « Cela ira plus vite que devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH). Nous visons l’Italie, car le comité de l’ONU ne se prononce que sur les violations commises par des Etats, nous ne pourrions attaquer l’Union européenne », justifie Violeta Moreno-Lax, de l’ONG Global Legal Action. L’Italie, en première ligne face à l’arrivée de boat people, avait déjà été condamnée par la CEDH en 2012 pour le refoulement de migrants en Libye. « Depuis, Rome fait tout pour contourner cet arrêt », dénonce la juriste.

      « Le choix impossible des équipages »

      L’une des tactiques, ont exposé les ONG lors d’une conférence de presse, est d’embrigader la marine marchande pour qu’elle ramène les naufragés en Libye. « La décision de l’ancien ministre de l’Intérieur Matteo Salvini de fermer les ports italiens aux navires de sauvetage en juin 2018 a créé une onde de choc en Méditerranée, décrit le chercheur suisse Charles Heller, qui documente la disparition de migrants en mer. Les autres pays européens ont retiré leurs bateaux, parce qu’ils risquaient d’être bloqués faute de ports où débarquer les migrants. Ce sont donc les navires marchands qui sont appelés à remplir le vide. Ces équipages sont face à un choix impossible. Soit ils se conforment aux instructions des autorités maritimes italiennes et violent le droit de la mer, qui oblige les marins à débarquer les naufragés vers un port sûr. Soit ils résistent et s’exposent à des poursuites judiciaires. Dans les faits, beaucoup de navires évitent de porter secours aux embarcations en détresse. »

      Ces derniers mois, Charles Heller a recensé 13 navires marchands qui ont refoulé des migrants en Libye. Parmi ces cas, deux tentatives n’ont pas réussi, les naufragés se rebellant contre un retour en Libye. « Il faut comprendre qu’une fois débarqués en Libye, les migrants sont détenus de façon totalement arbitraire. Les centres sont inadaptés, la nourriture est insuffisante, les maladies comme la tuberculose y font des ravages et les disparitions ne sont pas rares, en particulier les femmes », détaille Julien Raickman, le chef de mission de Médecins sans frontières en Libye.


      https://www.letemps.ch/monde/migrants-refoules-libye-litalie-accusee-dembrigader-marine-marchande

    • Migranti, un report accusa l’Italia: «Respingimento illegale dei 93 salvati dal mercantile Nivin e riportati in Libia con la forza»

      Le prove in un documento della Forensic Oceanography presso la Goldsmith University of London. Nell’ultimo anno, chiamando navi commerciali a soccorrere barche in difficoltà, sarebbero stati 13 i casi analoghi.

      «Qui MRCC Roma. A nome della Guardia costiera libica per la salvezza delle vite in mare vi preghiamo di procedere alla massima velocità per dare assistenza ad una barca in difficoltà con circa 70 persone a bordo. Vi preghiamo di contattare urgentemente la Guardia costiera libica attraverso questo centro di ricerca e soccorso ai seguenti numeri di telefono». Ai quali rispondono sempre gli italiani.

      Un dispaccio del centro di ricerca e soccorso di Roma delle 19.39 del 7 novembre del 2018 dimostra che a coordinare l’operazione di salvataggio di un gruppo di migranti poi riportati in Libia dal mercantile Nivin battente bandiera panamense fu l’Italia. In 93, segnalati prima da un aereo di Eunavformed, poi dal centralino Alarmphone, furono presi a bordo dal Nivin e, con l’inganno, sbarcati con la forza a Misurata dall’esercito libico dopo essere rimasti per dieci giorni asserragliati sul ponte del mercantile. Picchiati, feriti, rinchiusi di nuovo nei centri di detenzione in un paese in guerra.

      Un respingimento di massa illegittimo, contrario al diritto internazionale, che sarebbe stato dunque coordinato dall’Italia secondo una strategia di salvataggio delegato ai privati per applicare il controllo delle frontiere. Un «modello di pratica» che - secondo un rapporto redatto da Charles Heller di Forensic Oceanography, ramo della Forensic Architecture Agency basata alla Goldsmiths University of London - l’Italia e l’Europa avrebbero applicato ben 13 volte nell’ultimo anno, in coincidenza con la politica italiana dei porti chiusi.

      Caso finora unico, alcune delle persone riportate in Libia sono state rintracciate nei centri di detenzione da Msf che ne ha raccolto le testimonianze che - incrociate con i documenti e le risposte alle richieste di informazione date da Eunavformed e dalla stessa Guardia costiera libica - hanno consentito di ricostruire quello che viene definito nello studio «una pratica ricorrente di respingimenti, una nuova modalità di soccorso delegato ai privati» che verrebbe attuato quando le motovedette della guardia costiera libica, come avvenne nel caso del 7 novembre 2018, sono impegnate in altri interventi. «Impegnandosi in questa pratica - è l’accusa del report - l’Italia usa violenza extraterritoriale per contenere i movimenti dei migranti e viola l’obbligo di non respingimento». Per questo il Glan, l’organizzazione di avvocati, accademici e giornalisti investigativi Global Legal Action Network ha presentato una denuncia contro l’Italia al Comitato per i diritti umani delle Nazioni Unite per conto di uno dei migranti riportati indietro. E’ la prima volta che accade.

      La partenza
      Nella notte tra il 6 e 7 novembre 2018 dalla costa di Zlitan parte un gommone con 93 persone a bordo di sette nazionalità diverse. C’è anche una donna con un bimbo di quattro mesi. Alle 15.25 del 7 novembre la barca viene avvistata in zona Sar libica da un aereo spagnolo dell’operazione Sophia che - secondo quanto riferito da Eunavformed - «dichiara che non c’erano assetti navali nelle vicinanze». Tramite il quartier generale della missione che, in quel momento, era sulla nave San Marco della marina italiana, l’informazione con le coordinate navali della posizione della barca viene passata al centro di ricerca e soccorso di Roma che le trasmette a quello libico. Il commodoro libico Masoud Abdalsamd riferisce che le motovedette libiche sono impegnate in altre attività e il gommone continua la sua navigazione.

      La richiesta di soccorso
      Due ore dopo, alle 17.18, dal gommone un primo contatto con il centralino Alarm Phone che comunica le coordinate al centro di soccorso di Roma e monitora la zona: non ci sono navi vicine e l’unica Ong presente, la Mare Jonio, è a Lampedusa. Roma ( che era già informata) chiama Tripoli, la guardia costiera libica identifica la Nivin, un mercantile già in rotta verso Misurata ma le manca l’attrezzatura per comunicare e dirigere la Nivin e chiede a Roma di farlo «a suo nome». Da quel momento è MRCC a prendere in mano il coordinamento, dà istruzioni al comandante della Nivin e dirige il soccorso.

      L’arrivo dei libici
      Alle 21.34, un dispaccio del centro di ricerca e soccorso dei libici annuncia la presa del coordinamento delloperazione ma la comunicazione parte dallo stesso numero nella disponibilità della Marina italiana sulla nave di stanza a Tripoli. Alle 3.30 la Nivin soccorre i migranti. Saliti a bordo i marinai li tranquillizzano dicendo loro che saranno portati in Italia. Ma quando vedono arrivare una motovedetta libica i migranti capiscono di essere stati ingannati, rifiutano il trasbordo e si barricano sulla tolda della nave. I libici dopo un poò rinunciano e la Nivin prosegue verso Misurata dicendo ai migranti di essere in rotta verso Malta. Un’altra bugia.

      Lo sbarco a Misurata
      I migranti rimangono asserragliati anche quando la nave entra nel porto libico. Ci resteranno dieci giorni chiedendo disperatamente aiuto ai media internazionali con i telefoni cellulari. Il 20 novembre l’intervento di forza dei militari libici armati pone fine alla loro odissea. Alcuni migranti vengono picchiati, feriti, ricondotti nei centri di detenzione dove alcuni di loro vengono intercettati dall’equipe di Medici senza frontiere che raccoglie le loro testimonianze che si incrociano perfettamente con i documenti recuperati.

      Il ruolo dell’Italia
      Ne viene fuori un quadro che combacia perfettamente con quanto già evidenziato da un’inchiesta in via di conclusione della Procura di Agrigento coordinata dal procuratore aggiunto Salvatore Vella. Un quadro in cui l’Italia, nonostante gli accordi con la Libia, prevedono un ruolo di semplice assistenza e supporto tecnico alla Guardia costiera libica, di fatto svolge - tramite la nave della Marina militare di stanza a Tripoli - svolge una funzione di centro di comunicazione e coordinamento «dando un contributo decisivo - si legge nel report - alla capacità di controllo e coordinamento che ha saldamente in mano».
      «Quando i libici non sono in grado di intervenire - è l’accusa di Forensic Oceanography - Roma opta per una seconda modalità, quella del respingimento privato attraverso le mavi mercantili che - secondo un recente report semestrale di Eunavformed - ha prodotto 13 casi nell’ultimo anno con un aumento del 15-20 per cento».

      https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2019/12/18/news/migranti_l_italia_dietro_il_respingimento_dei_93_salvati_dal_mercantile_n

  • UNHCR Serbia Update, November 2019

    • 1,035 asylum seekers reported collective expulsion from neighbouring countries (439 from Romania, 357 from Hungary, 133 from Croatia and 96 from BiH). 51% of them alleged to have been denied access to asylum and 19% maltreatment by authorities of these countries. Amongst them were asylum seekers, who were expelled to Serbia outside lawful procedures from Hungary (three) or BiH (two), though they had never been in Serbia before. The terrible danger of irregular movements was again illustrated in the early morning of 11 November, when a dinghy with ten migrants heading from the port of #Apatin towards Croatia overturned in the Danube, leading to four missing passengers, feared to have drowned.

    https://reliefweb.int/report/serbia/unhcr-serbia-update-november-2019
    #Serbie #push-back #refoulement #refoulements #push-backs #refoulements_collectifs #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Roumanie #Hongrie #Croatie #Bosnie #Bosnie-Herzégovine #par_ricochet

    Il y a aussi, dans ce rapport, la nouvelle de #décès #morts :

    The terrible danger of irregular movements was again illustrated in the early morning of 11 November, when a dinghy with ten migrants heading from the port of #Apatin towards Croatia overturned in the Danube, leading to four missing passengers, feared to have drowned

    Sur les #refoulements_en_chaîne...

    Comme ce qui se passait en 2013, et que j’avais signalé dans un texte écrit pour la revue Vivre Ensemble (@vivre) paru en septembre 2014 :
    Serbie | L’antichambre de l’Europe

    Une fois récolté l’argent nécessaire, ils et elles reprennent leur route vers l’Europe, souvent via la Hongrie. L’UE ayant renforcé les contrôles à la frontière hongro-serbe, les migrants restent fréquemment bloqués en Serbie. Quant à ceux qui parviennent à la franchir, ils risquent de se retrouver… en Grèce ! Les conditions d’accueil en Hongrie conduisent en effet nombre de migrants à refuser de donner leurs empreintes digitales pour ne pas s’y trouver coincés par le jeu du système Dublin. Ils sont alors acheminés vers la frontière serbe, selon les témoignages que nous avons recueillis. Et lorsqu’ils sont interceptés en Serbie, ils sont condamnables à une peine de prison (10 à 15 jours) ou à une amende et reçoivent un ordre d’expulsion. Parfois, ils sont directement retransférés en Macédoine. La Macédoine ayant notamment signé un accord de réadmission avec Athènes, les migrants peuvent, au final, se retrouver en Grèce. Un pays structurellement défaillant en matière de protection, au point que les renvois Dublin y sont illégaux depuis 2011. La Hongrie continue ainsi d’y renvoyer indirectement les migrants, par le jeu de refoulements en chaîne.

    https://asile.ch/chronique/serbie-lantichambre-de-leurope

    ping @isskein

  • Namibia turns away fleeing SA refugees

    The Namibian government has turned desperate immigrants, who fled South Africa last month following a recent wave of xenophobic attacks, away because they are not recognised as asylum seekers. Home Affairs Commissioner for Refugees Likius Valombola told New Era yesterday that the 42 foreign nationals were being deported back to South Africa.

    A screening process is underway at Noordoewer to deport them. He added that 11 had already returned to South Africa and have since been integrated into the community.

    “They are being returned to South Africa. If there are those genuine ones, then the Namibian government is ready to take them in,” he assured.

    The African News Agency (ANA) reported this week that 53 foreign nationals fled South Africa following attacks on foreigners in that country.

    According to Valombola, the foreign nationals were illegally in the country because they did not go through legal procedures to seek asylum status.

    “I am aware there are a number of refugees who desired to come to Namibia from South Africa. We received close to 200 refugees from South Africa during the violence in that country around June, July and August. Of recently, it is not clear why these asylum seekers are coming to Namibia,” he said. Equally, he noted, there are about 400 refugees who wanted to come to Namibia but were blocked by South Africa.

    He explained that such a blockage was due to the commitment by the South Africa government, who assured they have the desire and capacity to protect the immigrants. However, Valombola made it clear that it is up to an individual who wishes to come to Namibia to follow proper procedures by approaching the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in South Africa, who will then engage the Namibian authorities.

    ANA quoted //Kharas police chief David Indongo as saying the 53 foreign nationals who had camped at the Osire refugee camp were transported on Saturday morning by immigration officials to the southern border settlement of Noordoewer in preparation for their deportation this week. In this regard, Valombola denied that these refugees camped at Osire.

    “I called that commissioner and told him that these people were never at Osire refugee settlement. For them to go to Osire, one has to be authorised. Any person-seeking asylum should report himself or herself to a police officer or immigration officer, then they will inform us to make arrangements to transport them to the settlement.

    If they did go to Osire, then they did it illegally,” he clarified. Valombola revealed that these refugees entered the country via trucks coming to Namibia from South Africa. The refugees, who include 14 men, 13 women and 26 children, were being accommodated at the EHW Baard Primary School hostel in Noordoewer.

    According to the Namibian police, the majority of the refugees are Congolese and Angolan nationals who have South African-issued asylum permits.

    The 53 formed part of more than 600 refugees and asylum seekers who had camped at the UN’s High Commission for Refugees offices in Cape Town and Pretoria while demanding to be taken to safer countries.

    https://reliefweb.int/report/namibia/namibia-turns-away-fleeing-sa-refugees
    #Afrique_du_Sud #Namibie #réfugiés #asile #migrations #xénophobie #racisme #refoulement #renvois #expulsions #push-back #Noordoewer

  • « Longue vie à l’arbitraire ! » Les avocats exclus des auditions en zone d’attente

    Par une décision du 6 décembre, le #Conseil_constitutionnel a refusé de reconnaître le droit d’être assistées d’un·e avocat·e aux personnes étrangères qui font l’objet d’#auditions par la #police à leur arrivée aux #frontières. Encore une preuve du régime dérogatoire réservé aux personnes étrangères aux frontières !

    Saisi par une ressortissante nicaraguayenne qui avait subi ces auditions et par nos organisations, le Conseil constitutionnel n’a pas saisi l’opportunité qui lui était ainsi donnée de consacrer l’application du principe fondamental des droits de la défense pendant les auditions de personnes étrangères précédant ou suivant la notification d’une décision de #refus_d’entrée_sur_le territoire et de maintien en #zone_d’attente.

    En déclarant les articles L.213-2 et L.221-4 du code de l’entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d’asile conformes à la Constitution, il a fait de la zone d’attente le seul lieu où la contrainte et la #privation_de_liberté peuvent s’exercer sans la présence d’un·e avocat·e.

    Or, ces auditions en zone d’attente – autrement dit ces #interrogatoires, parfois musclés – sont lourdes de conséquences pour les personnes étrangères, qui risquent non seulement d’être refoulées avant même d’avoir pu entrer en #France mais aussi d’être préalablement enfermées pour une durée qui peut aller jusqu’à vingt-six jours. En dépit de la gravité de ces enjeux, la zone d’attente restera hors d’atteinte des droits de la défense.

    « Dis que tu viens travailler ! Avoue ! » : ceci n’est pas un témoignage isolé de #pressions_policières fréquemment subies par les personnes qui se présentent aux frontières pour leur faire déclarer les raisons présupposées – voire fantasmées – de leur venue sur le territoire Schengen. En refusant que ces auditions soient menées sous le regard des avocat·es le Conseil constitutionnel permet que de tels comportements perdurent.

    Les "sages" du Conseil constitutionnel ne sont-ils pas, pourtant, les garants des libertés constitutionnellement protégées ? Il faut croire que – pas plus que les droits de la défense – la sagesse n’a sa place en zone d’attente.

    Dénonçant un inquiétant déni des droits des personnes retenues aux frontières, nos organisations continueront d’exiger la mise en place d’une permanence gratuite d’avocat·es en zone d’attente, seule garantie d’un véritable accès aux droits pour les personnes qui y sont enfermées.

    http://www.anafe.org/spip.php?article548
    #justice #conseil_juridique #refoulement #push-back #enfermement #tri #catégorisation #migrations #asile #réfugiés #rétention

    ping @karine4

  • Migranti, sentenza del Tribunale: «I respingimenti sono illegali»

    Chi li subisce può chiedere i danni e presentare domanda di protezione.

    I respingimenti sono illegali e chi li subisce ha diritto a vedersi risarcire il danno, ma soprattutto a presentare domanda di protezione internazionale in quel Paese. E’ una sentenza importante quella emessa nei giorni scorsi dal tribunale civile di Roma che, accogliendo un ricorso dell’Asgi e da Amnesty international Italia, ha deliberato che un gruppo di migranti soccorsi da una nave militare italiana nel 2009 e respinti hanno diritto al risarcimento del danno e all’ ingresso in territorio italiano per presentare domanda di asilo.

    I fatti sono del 27 giugno 2009 quando un gommone con 89 persone a bordo (quasi tutti eritrei) partito dalla Libia fu intercettato da una nave militare italiana con il motore in avaria ma i migranti vennero tutti riportati in Libia. Il ministro dell’Interno era Roberto Maroni che disse: «Svolta storica contro i clandestini, è un nuovo modello di contrasto in mare per chi cerca di arrivare illegalmente». Nel 2016 per loro conto Asgi e Amnesty international Italia hanno presentato ricorso al tribunale civile di Roma che il 28 novembre scorso ha emesso questa sentenza destinata a costituire un importante precedente.

    https://www.repubblica.it/cronaca/2019/12/03/news/migranti_sentenza_del_tribunale_i_respingimenti_sono_illegali_-242483557
    #Italie #justice #dédommagement #push-back #refoulement #Libye #Méditerranée #jurisprudence #migrations #asile #réfugiés

    • Riconosciuto il diritto ad entrare in Italia a chi è stato respinto illegittimamente in Libia

      Importante sentenza del Tribunale civile di Roma. Grande la soddisfazione di Amnesty International Italia e ASGI: “Il giudice ha applicato l’articolo 10 della costituzione italiana”.

      Lo ha chiarito il 28 novembre 2019 il Tribunale di Roma che, applicando l’art. 10 della Costituzione italiana, a seguito di un’azione promossa da Amnesty International Italia con il supporto di Asgi e curata da un collegio di difensori, fra cui gli avvocati Cristina Laura Cecchini e Salvatore Fachile, ha accertato il diritto di entrare sul territorio dello Stato allo scopo di presentare domanda di riconoscimento della protezione internazionale per 14 cittadini eritrei respinti in Libia il 1° luglio 2009 dalla Marina militare italiana oltre al diritto a risarcimento dei danni subiti.

      Questa sentenza storica riguarda quanto avvenuto tra il 2009 e il 2010 quando, a seguito della conclusione dell’Accordo con la Libia, l’Italia ha effettuato numerosi respingimenti. Tale prassi era stata ritenuta illegittima già dalla Corte europea per i diritti umani con la sentenza Hirsi Jamaa e altri c Italia, ma, nonostante la condanna all’Italia, molti richiedenti asilo sono rimasti in attesa del giusto risarcimento e, soprattutto, senza la possibilità di accedere a una forma di protezione.

      La base di tale decisione, individuata dalla giudice Dott.ssa Velletti, della I Sezione del Tribunale civile di Roma emessa nell’ambito del procedimento RG 5615/2016 – si trova nell’art 10 comma 3 della Costituzione che riconosce allo straniero il diritto di asilo e che deve ritenersi applicabile anche quando questi si trovi fuori dal territorio dello Stato per cause a esso non imputabili.

      La sentenza è estremamente rilevante e innovativa laddove riconosce la necessità di “espandere il campo di applicazione della protezione internazionale volta a tutelare la posizione di chi, in conseguenza di un fatto illecito commesso dall’autorità italiana si trovi nell’impossibilità di presentare la domanda di protezione internazionale in quanto non presente nel territorio dello Stato, avendo le autorità dello stesso Stato inibito l’ingresso, all’esito di un respingimento collettivo, in violazione dei principi costituzionali e della Carta dei diritti dell’Unione europea.”

      È evidente da tali poche righe la rilevanza e l’attualità della decisione e la sua potenziale ricaduta anche in termini numerici su tutti coloro a cui sia impedito nel proprio paese l’effettivo esercizio delle libertà democratiche garantite dalla Costituzione e che, nel tentativo di entrare nel territorio dello stato per fare richiesta di asilo politico, sono quotidianamente respinti attraverso prassi illegittime dell’autorità italiana nelle zone di confine terrestri e marittime e di transito nei porti e negli aeroporti.

      In particolare, la decisione apre uno scenario estremamente interessante in relazione alle politiche di esternalizzazione della frontiera e di gestione della rotta mediterranea attuata attraverso la collaborazione con le autorità libiche.
      È evidente, infine, che ove fosse accertata una responsabilità delle autorità italiane nell’attuazione dell’insieme di misure che ha trasformato i respingimenti in una progressiva delega alla Libia per il blocco dei migranti, con i medesimi risultati in termine di mancato accesso alla protezione, migliaia di persone potrebbero essere interessate dai principi contenuti nella sentenza.

      https://www.asgi.it/asilo-e-protezione-internazionale/asilo-costituzione-italiana-migranti
      #constitution

    • Diritto d’asilo: importantissima sentenza del Tribunale civile di Roma

      Con una sentenza del Tribunale civile di Roma è stato riconosciuto il diritto ad entrare in Italia a chi è stato respinto illegittimamente in Libia.

      Questa sentenza storica riguarda quanto avvenuto tra il 2009 e il 2010 quando, a seguito della conclusione dell’Accordo con la Libia, l’Italia ha effettuato numerosi respingimenti. Tale prassi era stata ritenuta illegittima già dalla Corte europea per i diritti umani con la sentenza Hirsi Jamaa e altri c Italia, ma, nonostante la condanna all’Italia, molti richiedenti asilo sono rimasti in attesa del giusto risarcimento e, soprattutto, senza la possibilità di accedere a una forma di protezione.

      La base di tale decisione, individuata dalla giudice Dott.ssa Velletti, della I Sezione del Tribunale civile di Roma emessa nell’ambito del procedimento RG 5615/2016 – si trova nell’art 10 comma 3 della Costituzione italiana che riconosce allo straniero il diritto di asilo e che deve ritenersi applicabile anche quando questi si trovi fuori dal territorio dello Stato per cause a esso non imputabili.

      La sentenza è estremamente rilevante e innovativa laddove riconosce la necessità di “espandere il campo di applicazione della protezione internazionale volta a tutelare la posizione di chi, in conseguenza di un fatto illecito commesso dall’autorità italiana si trovi nell’impossibilità di presentare la domanda di protezione internazionale in quanto non presente nel territorio dello Stato, avendo le autorità dello stesso Stato inibito l’ingresso, all’esito di un respingimento collettivo, in violazione dei principi costituzionali e della Carta dei diritti dell’Unione europea.”

      È evidente da tali poche righe la rilevanza e l’attualità della decisione e la sua potenziale ricaduta anche in termini numerici su tutti coloro a cui sia impedito nel proprio paese l’effettivo esercizio delle libertà democratiche garantite dalla Costituzione e che, nel tentativo di entrare nel territorio dello stato per fare richiesta di asilo politico, sono quotidianamente respinti attraverso prassi illegittime dell’autorità italiana nelle zone di confine terrestri e marittime e di transito nei porti e negli aeroporti.

      In particolare, la decisione apre uno scenario estremamente interessante in relazione alle politiche di esternalizzazione della frontiera e di gestione della rotta mediterranea attuata attraverso la collaborazione con le autorità libiche. È evidente, infine, che ove fosse accertata una responsabilità delle autorità italiane nell’attuazione dell’insieme di misure che ha trasformato i respingimenti in una progressiva delega alla Libia per il blocco dei migranti, con i medesimi risultati in termine di mancato accesso alla protezione, migliaia di persone potrebbero essere interessate dai principi contenuti nella sentenza.

      La sentenza del Tribunale di Roma arriva a seguito di un nostro ricorso promosso con il supporto di Asgi e curato da un collegio di difensori, fra cui gli avvocati Cristina Laura Cecchini e Salvatore Fachile.

      Con la sentenza del 28 novembre il tribunale ha accertato il diritto di entrare sul territorio dello stato allo scopo di presentare domanda di riconoscimento della protezione internazionale per 14 cittadini eritrei respinti in Libia il 1° luglio 2009 dalla Marina militare italiana oltre al diritto a risarcimento dei danni subiti.

      https://www.amnesty.it/diritto-asilo-tribuna-roma

  • Maroc : Les refoulements des Subsahariens vers la frontière avec l’Algérie reprennent

    Cette semaine, les autorités marocaines ont mené à nouveau des raids sur des camps de migrants à #Nador, procédant par la même occasion au #déplacement_forcé d’un groupe de 90 Subsahariens vers la frontière avec l’#Algérie. Une action qui indigne les associatifs et militants des droits humains, dont l’AMDH et le GADEM.

    Les conditions météorologiques difficiles en ce début d’hiver ne semblent pas empêcher les autorités marocaines à Nador de poursuivre les campagnes de #déplacements_forcés de migrants subsahariens loin des côtes méditerranéennes.

    Jeudi, la section Nador de l’Association marocaine des droits humains (AMDH) a affirmé avoir « constaté deux bus devant le centre d’enfermement d’Arekmane à Nador, au bord desquels 90 #migrants_subsahariens viennent d’être éloignés de nuit et dans un #froid glacial vers la région désertique de la frontière algéro-marocain ».

    « Ces bus ne s’arrêtent qu’une fois à l’extrême sud de #Jerada ou #Oujda, dans une désertique où il #neige des fois et où il fait très froid actuellement », compète Omar Naji, président de l’AMDH-Nador, joint ce vendredi par Yabiladi.


    https://twitter.com/NadorAmdh/status/1197587135072747522?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E11

    Conditions difficiles et risques sécuritaires sur une frontière théoriquement fermée

    Pour le militant, « ce ne sont plus des déplacements vers le Sud, et notamment Tiznit et nous n’avons pas encore d’explications ». Il rappelle que c’était déjà le cas en 2013 et 2014 lorsque ces migrants étaient plutôt renvoyés vers les frontières Est du royaume. « Ces déplacements avaient pourtant cessé pour une période. Si ces migrants ne sont pas interpellés par l’armée algérienne, ils retournent à Nador et dans le nord », déplore-t-il.

    Cette campagne de déplacements forcés depuis les villes du nord semble reprendre. Mercredi, l’AMDH a dénoncé un assaut mené par les autorités marocaines sur des maisons louées par des migrants dans l’optique de les déplacer aussi. Il risquent tout autant un déplacement forcé vers le Sud ou éventuellement vers la frontière avec l’Algérie. Le même jour, des attaques nocturnes contre les campements des migrants à Nador ont été dénoncées par l’ONG via sa page Facebook.

    Contactée par Yabiladi, la coordinatrice général du Groupe antiraciste d’accompagnement et de défense des étrangers et migrants (GADEM), Camille Denis, précise ne pas avoir plus d’informations sur cette nouvelle campagne. Mais elle rappelle que ces déplacements forcés vers la frontière avec l’Algérie ne sont pas une pratique nouvelle. « Déjà l’année dernière, le GADEM avait soulevé cette question pour le cas d’un groupe de migrants et en 2016 aussi. La pratique avait diminué depuis l’annonce de la politique migratoire du royaume mais n’a jamais cessé », nous rappelle-t-elle.

    « Au-delà des conditions météorologiques difficiles actuellement, ces déplacements forcés soulèvent de sérieuses questions sur les risques sécuritaires pour ces migrants qui, pour certains qui passent du côté algérien, peuvent être renvoyés vers le Niger », déplore-t-elle.

    Des migrants déplacés de Nador qui finissent au Mali ?

    Et c’est d’ailleurs le cas. Jointe par notre rédaction, Aimée Lokaké, présidente de la Communauté congolaise au Maroc et membre du Conseil des migrants subsahariens au Maroc rapporte le cas d’une migrante subsaharienne. « J’ai l’appelée et elle m’a indiqué qu’elle était à Nador avant d’être déplacée avec d’autres migrants vers l’Algérie, qui les a à son tour expulsés vers le #Niger. Elle se retrouve actuellement au Mali », informe-t-elle. « Ce qui se passe en route et ce qu’ils subissent, on ne le sait pas. Mais nous sommes dans le devoir de protéger les humains », ajoute-t-elle.

    « J’ai appelé des ressortissants à Oujda qui m’ont indiqué qu’il s’agit de migrants en situation administrative irrégulière qui voulaient faire la traversée », informe-t-elle encore. Aimée Lokaké insiste aussi sur la nécessité d’encadrer ces personnes et les sensibiliser « au lieu de les déplacer comme ça, surtout qu’un drame peut leur arriver alors que leurs familles croient qu’ils se trouvent ici au Maroc ».

    Président ODT-I (syndicat pour les travailleurs migrants), Amadou Sadio Baldé dénonce aussi ces déplacements. « A l’état où nous sommes, soit une phase de l’intégration de migrants, nous déplorons ces déplacements et la précarité qu’ils occasionnent. Nous ne pouvons pas cautionner ces actes », affirme-t-il.

    Pour lui, « l’intégration étant un processus long, le Maroc doit prendre en considération la situation de ces migrants et leurs conditions ».

    https://www.yabiladi.com/articles/details/85882/maroc-refoulements-subsahariens-vers-frontiere.html

    #Algérie #renvois #expulsions #migrations #réfugiés #asile #abandon #désert #frontières #refoulements #push-back #refoulement

    ping @isskein @karine4

    Voir aussi le fil de discussion commencé en 2017, qui relate des mêmes refoulements jusqu’en 2018 :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/627118

  • Balkan Region - Report July 2019

    The Border Violence Monitoring Network has just published it’s August report summarizing the current situation regarding pushbacks and police violence in the Western Balkans, primarily in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Se​rbian borders with Croatia and Hungary, but also including Italy, Slovenia, North Macedonia and Greece.

    This report analyzes, among other things:

    – Torture: Recurrence of extreme violence and abuse
    – Pushback from Italy
    – Beyond police: Actors within the pushback framework
    – Further dispersion of pushback sites in NW Bosnia
    – Trends in pushback sites to and from Greece

    More broadly, monitoring work continues to note the trans-national and bilateral cooperation between EU member states in the north of the Balkan route. Instances of chain pushbacks from Italy to Bosnia and Herzegovina, though relatively rare, offer insight into the web of actors engaged in the refoulement of groups across multiple borders, and liminality of due process in these cases. The intersection of unlawful acts also raises key concerns about aiding and abetting of pushbacks by Brussels. Specifically, analysis from this month elaborates on the involvement of Frontex in facilitating pushbacks.

    https://www.borderviolence.eu/wp-content/uploads/August-Report.pdf
    #rapport #migrations #réfugiés #Balkans #route_des_Balkans #asile #frontières #violence #push-back #push-backs #refoulement #refoulements

    –------

    v. aussi la liste des push-back avec armes à feu (août 2017-octobre 2019) :
    Push-back reports from Croatia with gun violence
    https://seenthis.net/messages/814569

    • Je mets ici les passages qui m’intéressent particulièrement... et notamment sur la #frontière_sud-alpine

      Push-back from Italy

      Chain push-backs from Italy are comparatively rare. Yet notably one report (see 1.1: https://www.borderviolence.eu/violence-reports/august-5-2019-0700-fernetti-italy conducted last month provided evidence of this sequential phenomena of expulsion from Italy back to BiH, via Slovenia and Croatia; drawing into question why such uncommon and illegal procedure was conducted by Italian police officers. The transit group was initially apprehended by Italian police officers in a small village on theoutskirts of Trieste from where they described being brought to a government building. Both in Italy and later in Slovenia, the transit group in question was detained, made to give their fingerprints, had their pictures taken and were asked to sign paperswritten in languages that they did not understand.

      “We asked the woman, what was on the paper because it was in Italian. She didn’t translate and we didn’t understand what we signed.” “I told the translator that they have to find a solution. They can’t just bring us back to Slovenia, knowing that we were in Italy. And they said, we are just migrants, we are not tourists.”Once they arrived in Croatia, the transit group was detained in a police station and interviewed one at a time before being brought to the border with Bosnia-Herzegovina where the group had their phones individually broken with a hammer by a Croatian police officer. They were then told to walk through a forest into Bosnia-Herzegovina. The chronology of events above alludes also to the complicit nature of preliminary actors within the wider pushbacks. Arguably initiators such as Slovenia and Italy -who often afford groups with translators and legal documents -have an intimate relationship to the violence and terror that accompanies subsequent push-backs from Croatia to BiH. The feigning of due process by these countries, despite prior knowledge of violent chain refoulement, forms a central part of their conceit. Italy and Slovenia mask their actions in a malaise of procedures (regularly untranslated or explained), in order to hide the institutionalisation of illegal chain pushbacks. The nature of chain pushbacks are defined by these bit-part processes, which simultaneously imitate regular procedures, while providing ample space for state authorities to deviate from legal obligations.

      (pp.6-7)
      #Italie #push-back #Slovénie #refoulement

    • And on the

      Construction of further fencing along Slovenian-Croatian border

      This August the Slovenian government authorized the construction (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-slovenia/slovenia-erects-more-border-fence-to-curb-migrant-inflow-idUSKCN1VC19Q) of a fence 40 kms long on the banks of the river Kolpa, on the border with Croatia. The security device, installed by Serbian firm LEGI SGS, will add up to an already existing fence, making the barrier a total of 219km long. The exact location of the construction was not made public, and a spokeswoman for the interior ministry said itwill be a temporary measure to prevent people crossing the border. She did however directly cite migration as a threat to the security of citizens’ in her statement, arguably reinforcing the ideological bordering that accompanies this further fencing. Theconstruction is part of an escalating approach to border security which includes the deployment of military (https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2019/07/slovenia-deploy-soldiers-boost-border-patrols-migrants-190721191235190.ht), stationed on the border since 2016, and bolstered this year alongside regular police forces.

      The opposition party NSi demanded tighter control (https://balkaninsight.com/2019/07/05/slovenia-opposition-demands-tighter-border-controls-with-croatia) sat the border with Croatia in July, and there seems little, or no will to challenge the mainstream rhetoric on migration. These demands, as BVMN reported last month (http://www.nonamekitchen.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Final-Report-July-2019.pdf), coincided with concerns of Italy building a wall on the border with Slovenia, were the ongoing joint border not to stem movement from Slovenia into Italy. Thus it seems somewhat ironic to observe the construction of a barrier on Slovenia’s Southern border, preempting the machinations of Italian interior minister, Matteo Salvini.

      Unfortunately, the domino effect being played out between these states only feeds into Croatia’s intensifying security measures. While interior minister David Bozinovic was plethoric, stating that “what Slovenians are doing, is their own decision” (https://www.total-croatia-news.com/politics/38042-migrants), his assertion that a joint European solution would be more welcome rings fairly hollow when viewed in tandem with the heightened repression around pushbacks this month and the already complicit role of Frontex. To this end, there seems to be no escape from the vicious circle of reborderization and loss of human rights in Europe, shown most recentlyby Slovenia’s harder borders.

      Allegations of smuggling made against asylum centerstaff in Ljubljana

      A statement (https://push-forward.org/novica/izjava-iniciative-prosilcev-za-azil-la-lutte-de-la-liberte-6-8-2019-az) by the asylum seekers initiative La lutte de la Liberté, and released at the beginning of August highlights what may be a serious case of abuse by security personnel in the asylum seekers camp Vič, Slovenia. According to the group, a resident in the camp called Ibrahim witnessed a number of security guards smuggling migrants out of the camp with cars in exchange for money. After the incident, which took place at the beginning of July, Ibrahim told the director of the camp who flatly denied the allegations, yet simultaneously removed two guards from their posts, causing great suspicion. In retaliation, other guards started to mob Ibrahim resulting in a series of episodes of violence culminating in a fight, for which Ibrahim was taken to a detention centre in #Postojna.

      Ibrahim has now been released and three security guards in the camp are under investigation, a source from InfoKolpa shared. Even though the actual occurrence of smuggling remains a supposition, the event highlights an important grey zone in which camp staff are operating, and the potential for systemic abuse of the asylum system. It can be argued that such cases can only emerge in the void left by inaccessible procedures and it is well known that extremely long waiting times are built into the asylum system in Slovenia. The behaviorof the security guards, in a position of absolute power over the migrants, can be explained by the fact that they are virtually invisible to the outside world, unless the migrants can organizethemselves as in this case. There has already been proof of violent behaviorby the guards in Vic, as shown in this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4GP0qLTsg0

      ) taken some six months ago.

      People on the move, for their part, are in a position of structural and individual disadvantage, susceptible to many types of violence. As the statement correctly underlines, regardless of some staff being amenable, one person abusing a position of power is enough to ruin the life of someone held captive in a protracted asylum system. Infact, evidence would go further to suggest that in this case it seems like the guards were more of an organizedmob, rather than rogue individuals.

      The waiting period for asylum which reaches nine months maximum in theory (with only 18 euros a month granted to applicants by the state), makes the tenure of asylum seekers even more precarious, adding to the poor or nonexistent measures taken to integrate them into society: asylum seekers have no access to welfare, assistance in access to work or social housing and their placement in the detention center in Postojna is decided arbitrarily bythe police. The entire Slovenian asylum system goes thus into inquiry, if viewed through thelensof this case, which both expounds its flaws and the potential corruption within.

      (pp.18-20)

      #murs #barrières_frontalières #militarisation_des_frontières

  • The Swiss Federal Administrative suspended the return of asylum seeker to Croatia according to Dublin due to police violence taking place at the Croatian-Bosnian border. The asylum- seeker experienced violent pushbacks from the Croatian border 18 times, which left him with physical and psychological consequences. This ruling confirmed all the testimonies of refugees and numerous reports from both international and local organizations, institutions and the media that warned about this continuing practice of the Croatian police.

    Reçu via la newsletter de Inicijativa Dobrodosli, le 26.08.2019

    #suspension #Dublin #asile #renvois_Dublin #Suisse #migrations #réfugiés #expulsion #Croatie #violences_policières #frontières #violent_border #violence #Bosnie #push-back #push-backs #refoulement #police

    –------

    Source:
    Švicarski sud suspendirao vraćanje izbjeglice zbog prijetnje ponavljanja pushback-a

    Švicarski Federalni upravni sud suspendirao vraćanje po Dublinu zbog policijskog nasilja nad izbjeglicama.

    Švicarski Federalni upravni sud suspendirao je vraćanje tražitelja azila prema Dublinu u Hrvatsku zbog policijskog nasilja koje se događa na hrvatsko-bosanskoj granici. Tražitelj je 18 puta iskusio nasilne pushbackove s hrvatske granice što je na njemu ostavilo fizičke i psihičke posljedice. Ovom presudom potvrđena su sva svjedočanstva izbjeglica i mnogobrojni izvještaji kako međunarodnih tako lokalnih organizacija, institucija i medija koje već godinama upozoravaju na kontinuiranu praksu hrvatske policije.

    https://www.cms.hr/hr/azil-i-integracijske-politike/svicarski-sud-suspendirao-vracanje-izbjeglice-zbog-prijetnje-ponavljanja-pushbac

    ping @i_s_ @isskein

  • Border Violence Monitoring Network - Report July 2019

    The Border Violence Monitoring Network just published a common report summarizing current developments in pushbacks and police violence in the Western Balkans, mainly in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and along the Serbian borders with Croatia and Hungary.

    Due tu a new cooperation with the Thessaloniki-based organisation Mobile Info Team, we were also able to touch on the Status quo of pushbacks from and to Greece.

    This report analyzes, among other things:

    – BiH politicians’ rhetoric on Croatian push-backs
    – Whistleblowers increasing pressure on Croatian authorities
    – Frontex presence in Hungarian push-backs to Serbia
    – The use of k9 units in the apprehension of transit groups in Slovenia
    – The spatial dispersion of push-backs in the Una-Sana Canton

    Competing narratives around the legality of pushbacks have emerged, muddying the waters. This has become especially clear as Croatian president Grabar-Kitarovic admitted that pushbacks were carried out legally, which is contradictory to begin with, and that “of course […] a little violence is used.” Croatia’s tactic of de facto condoning illegal pushbacks is similar to Hungary’s strategy to legalize these operations domestically, even though they violate international and EU law. On the other side of the debate, a whistleblower from the Croatian police described a culture of secrecy and institutional hurdles, which prevent legal and organizational challenges to the practice. The role of the EU in this debate remains critical. However, despite paying lip service to the EU’s value, Brussels’ continues to shoulder the bill for a substantial part of the frontier states’ border operations.

    https://www.borderviolence.eu/wp-content/uploads/July-2019-Final-Report.pdf

    #frontières #violence #push-back #refoulement #route_des_Balkans #Frontex #Subotica #Bosnie-Herzégovine #Croatie #Italie #Serbie #Hongrie #rapport

    • Croatia Is Abusing Migrants While the EU Turns a Blind Eye

      The evidence of Croatian police violence toward migrants is overwhelming, but Brussels continues to praise and fund Zagreb for patrolling the European Union’s longest external land border.

      BIHAC, Bosnia and Herzegovina—Cocooned in a mud-spattered blanket, thousands of euros in debt, and with a body battered and bruised, Faisal Abas has reached the end of the line, geographically and spiritually. A year after leaving Pakistan to seek greener pastures in Europe, his dreams have died in a rain-sodden landfill site in northern Bosnia. His latest violent expulsion from Croatia was the final straw.

      “We were just a few kilometers over the border when we were caught on the mountainside. They wore black uniforms and balaclavas and beat us one by one with steel sticks,” he recalled. “I dropped to the ground and they kicked me in the belly. Now, I can’t walk.”

      Faisal rolled up his trousers to reveal several purple bruises snaking up his shins and thighs. He has begun seeking information on how to repatriate himself. “If I die here, then who will help my family back home?” he said.

      The tented wasteland outside the Bosnian city of Bihac has become a dumping ground for single male migrants that the struggling authorities have no room to accommodate and don’t want hanging around the city. Bhangra music blasts out of a tinny speaker, putrid smoke billows from fires lit inside moldy tents, and men traipse in flip-flops into the surrounding woods to defecate, cut off from any running water or sanitation.

      A former landfill, ringed by land mines from the Yugoslav wars, the hamlet of Vucjak has become the latest squalid purgatory for Europe’s largely forgotten migrant crisis as thousands escaping war and poverty use it as a base camp to cross over the Croatian border—a process wryly nicknamed “the game.”

      The game’s unsuccessful players have dark stories to tell. A young Pakistani named Ajaz recently expelled from Croatia sips soup from a plastic bowl and picks at his split eyebrow. “They told us to undress and we were without shoes, socks, or jackets. They took our money, mobiles and bags with everything inside it, made a fire and burnt them all in front of us. Then they hit me in the eye with a steel stick,” he said. “They beat everyone, they didn’t see us as humans.”

      Mohammad, sitting beside his compatriot, pipes up: “Last week we were with two Arabic girls when the Croatian police caught us. The girls shouted to them ‘sorry, we won’t come back,’ but they didn’t listen, they beat them on their back and chest with sticks.”

      Down the hill in Bihac, in a drafty former refrigerator factory turned refugee facility, a metal container serves as a quarantine area for the infectious and infirm. Mohammad Bilal, a scrawny 16-year-old, lies on a lower bunk with his entire leg draped in flimsy bandage. Three weeks ago, at the cusp of winning the game and crossing into Italy, he was seized in Slovenia and then handed back to Croatia. That’s when the violence began.

      “They drove us in a van to the Bosnian border and took us out one at a time,” he said, describing the Croatian police. “There were eight police, and one by one they beat us, punching, kicking, hitting with steel sticks. They broke my leg.”

      A nearby Bosnian camp guard grimaced and wondered out loud: “Imagine how hard you have to hit someone to break a bone.”

      Among the fluctuating migrant population of 7,000 thought to be in the area, vivid descriptions of violent episodes are being retold every day. The allegations have been mounting over the last two years, since Bosnia became a new branch in the treacherous Balkan migratory route into Europe. Denunciations of Croatian border policy have come from Amnesty International, the Council of Europe, Human Rights Watch, and a United Nations special rapporteur. Officials in Serbia have even alleged “physical and psychological torture” by Croatia’s police forces.

      In November 2018, the Guardian published a video shot by a migrant in which haunting screams can be heard before a group of migrants emerge from the darkness wild-eyed and bloodied. A month later, activists secretly filmed Croatian police marching lines of migrants back into Bosnian territory.

      Croatian President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic even appeared to let the cat out of the bag in an interview with the Swiss broadcaster Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen, during which she remarked that “a little bit of force is needed when doing pushbacks.” Despite the videos showing injured migrants, explicit video evidence of Croatian officials carrying out actual beatings has never been seen, and migrants report that one of the first commands by border guards is to surrender mobile phones, which are then either taken or destroyed before a thorough search is performed.

      The abuse appears to be rampant. Both the violence and humiliation—migrants are often forced to undress and walk back across the border to Bosnia half-naked for several hours in freezing temperatures—seem to be used as a deterrent to stop them from returning. And yet the European Union is arguably not only facilitating but rewarding brute force by a member state in the name of protecting its longest land border.

      In December 2018, the European Commission announced that it was awarding 6.8 million euros to Croatia to “strengthen border surveillance and law enforcement capacity,” including a “monitoring mechanism” to ensure that border measures are “proportionate and are in full compliance with fundamental rights and EU asylum laws.”

      According to European Commission sources, a sum of 300,000 euros was earmarked for the mechanism, but they could not assess its outcome until Croatia files a report due in early 2020. Details of oversight remain vague. A spokesperson for the United Nations refugee agency in Croatia told Foreign Policy that the agency has no involvement. The Croatian Law Center, another major nongovernmental organization, also confirmed it has no role in the mechanism. It appears to be little more than a fig leaf.

      https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/12/06/croatia-is-abusing-migrants-while-the-eu-turns-a-blind-eye
      #Slovénie

    • AYS Special 2019/2020: A Year of Violence — Monitoring Pushbacks on the Balkan Route

      In 2019, The Border Violence Monitoring Network (BVMN) shared the voices of thousands of people pushed back from borders on the Balkan Route. Each tells their own tale of illegal, and regularly violent, police actions. Each represents a person denied their fundamental rights, eyewitnesses to EU led reborderization. This article shares just some of the more startling trends which define border management on the eve of 2020, such as the denial of asylum rights, systemic firearms use, water immersion, and dog attacks.

      With a shared database of 648 reports, BVMN is a collaborative project of organisations with the common goal of challenging the illegal pushback regime and holding relevant institutions to account.

      “Pushback” describes the unlegislated expulsion of groups or individuals from one national territory to another, and lies outside the legal framework of “deportations”. On a daily basis, people-on-the-move are subject to these unlawful removals; a violent process championed by EU member states along the Balkan Route. In 2019, BVMN continued to shine a spotlight on these actions, perpetrated in the main part by states such as Croatia, Hungary, and Greece. Supporting actors also included Slovenia and Italy, and non-member states with the aid of Frontex which has seen its remit and funding widened heading into 2020.

      Volunteers and activists worked across the route in 2019 to listen to the voice of people facing these violations, taking interviews in the field and amplifying their calls for justice. Just some of the regular abuses that constitute pushbacks are listed below.
      Guns and Firearm Abuse

      The highest volume of BVMN reported pushbacks were from Croatia, a state which has been acting as a fulcrum of the EU’s external border policy in the West Balkans. It’s approximately 1300 kilometer long border with the non-member states of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro have been a flashpoint for extremely violent pushbacks. Even in the challenging winter conditions, people make daily attempts to cross through the mountainous landscape of Croatia and are pushed back from the territory by a web of police actors who deny them the proper procedure and use crude physical abuse as a deterrent.

      Of major concern is the huge rise in gun use by Croatian officials against transit populations. In the first ten months of 2019 BVMN recorded 770 people who were pushed back by police officers who used guns to shoot or threaten. In November, shots were fired directly at transit groups, resulting in the near fatal wounding of one man, and causing a puncture wound in the shoulder of another. AYS reported on the shooting of two minors in 2017, showing this isn’t the first time guns were turned on unarmed transit people in Croatia.
      Dog Attacks and K9 Units

      The use of canine units in the apprehension and expulsion of transit groups is also a telling marker of the extreme violence that characterises pushbacks. Since the summer of 2019, a spike in the level of brutal dog attacks, and the presence of K9 units during pushbacks has been noted by BVMN. In a recent case, one man was mauled by a Croatian police dog for ten minutes under the direct guidance of the animals police handlers who laughed and shouted, “good, good”, as it almost severed a major blood vessel in the victim’s leg.

      Fortunately, the man survived, but with permanent injuries that he nurses still today in Bosnia-Herzegovina where he was illegally pushed back, in spite of his request for asylum and urgent physical condition. Sadly this is not an unfamiliar story. Across the route canine units remain a severe threat within pushbacks, as seen in cases recorded from North Macedonia to Greece where a man was severely bitten, or in chain a pushback from Slovenia where 12 unmuzzled police dogs traumatised a large transit group. Dogs as weapons are a timely reminder of the weighting of border policy towards violent aggression, and away from due legal access to asylum and regulated procedure.
      Gatekeeping Asylum Access

      K9 units and guns are ultra-violent policing methods that contribute directly to the blocking of asylum access. In the first eleven months of 2019, over 60% of Croatian pushbacks to Bosnia-Herzegovina saw groups make a verbal request for asylum. Yet in these cases, group members were pushed back from the territory without having their case heard, in direct contravention of European asylum law.

      Croatian authorities, along with a host of other states, have effectively mobilised pushbacks to remove people from their territories irrespective of claims for international protection. A host of actors, such as police officers and translators have warped the conditions for claiming asylum, regularly coercing people to sign removal documents, doctoring the ages of minors, or avoid any processing at all by delivering them to the green border immediately where they are pushed back with violence. Slovenia are also participants in this chain of asylum violation, seen most brutally in a case from July when pepper spray was used to target specifically the people who spoke out asking for asylum.
      Wet Borders: River Pushbacks

      Most pushbacks occur at remote areas of the green border, especially at night, where violence can be applied with effective impunity. A particular feature of police violence on the border is the weaponisation of rivers to abuse groups. Monitoring work from September revealed 50% of direct pushbacks from Croatia involved respondents being forced into rivers or immersed in water. This is accompanied regularly by the stripping of people (often to their underwear) and burning of their possessions. Then, police officer push them into the rivers that mark the boundary with Bosnia-Herzegovina (often the Glina and Korana), putting people at a high risk of drowning and hypothermia.

      A recent case from November combined the use of firearms with this dangerous use of wet borders. A group of Algerians were pushed into a river by Croatian officers who were returning them to Bosnia-Herzegovina.

      The respondent recalled how: “They pushed me into the river and said, ‘Good luck.’”, while the officers fired guns into the air.

      Meanwhile in the Evros region of Greece, the river border is used regularly to pushback people-on-the-move into Turkey. As in Croatia, the incidents often occur at night, and are carried out by officials wearing ski masks/balaclavas. Taken by force, transit groups report being loaded violently onto small boats and ferried across to the Turkish side. This regular and informal system of removal stands out as a common violation across Greece and the Balkan area, and raises major concerns about the associated risks of water immersion given the high levels of drowning which occur in the regions rivers.
      2019 at the EU’s Doorstep

      Border management on the Balkan Route has systematised a level of unacceptable, illegal and near fatal violence.

      The trends noted in 2019 are an astonishing reminder that such boundaries are no longer governed by the rule of law, but characterised almost entirely by the informal use of pushback violations.

      Gun use stands out as the most extreme marker of violence within pushbacks. But the shooting of weapons sits within a whole arsenal of policing methods that also include blunt physical assault, unlawful detention, abuse during transportation, taser misuse and stripping. Though Croatia emerged as a primary actor within BVMN’s dataset, common practive between EU member states were also clear, as across the region: Hungary, Slovenia and Greece continued to target people-on-the-move with a shared set of illegal and violent methods. The new interventions of Frontex outside of EU territory also look to compliment this reborderisation effort, as non-member states in the Western Balkans become integrated into the pushback regime.

      The Border Violence Monitoring Network will continue to elevate the brave voices of those willing to expose these violent institutions. Their stories are a testament to the dire situation at Europe’s borders on the eve of 2020, and accountability will continue to be sought.

      https://medium.com/are-you-syrious/ays-special-2019-2020-a-year-of-violence-monitoring-pushbacks-on-the-balkan-
      #2019 #chiens #armes #armes_à_feu

  • Ventimiglia : sempre più caro e pericoloso il viaggio dei migranti al confine Italia-Francia

    Confine Francia-Italia: migranti fermati, bloccati, respinti

    I respingimenti sono stati monitorati uno ad uno dagli attivisti francesi del collettivo della Val Roja “#Kesha_Niya” (“No problem” in lingua curda) e dagli italiani dell’associazione Iris, auto organizzati e che si danno il cambio in staffette da quattro anni a Ventimiglia per denunciare gli abusi.

    Dalle 9 del mattino alle 20 di sera si piazzano lungo la frontiera alta di #Ponte_San_Luigi, con beni alimentari e vestiti destinati alle persone che hanno tentato di attraversare il confine in treno o a piedi. Migranti che sono stati bloccati, hanno passato la notte in un container di 15 metri quadrati e infine abbandonati al mattino lungo la strada di 10 km, i primi in salita, che porta all’ultima città della Liguria.

    Una pratica, quella dei container, che le ong e associazioni Medecins du Monde, Anafé, Oxfam, WeWorld e Iris hanno denunciato al procuratore della Repubblica di Nizza con un dossier il 16 luglio. Perché le persone sono trattenute fino a 15 ore senza alcuna contestazione di reato, in un Paese – la Francia – dove il Consiglio di Stato ha stabilito come “ragionevole” la durata di quattro ore per il fermo amministrativo e la privazione della libertà senza contestazioni. Dall’inizio dell’anno i casi sono 18 mila, scrive il Fatto Quotidiano che cita dati del Viminale rilasciati dopo la richiesta di accesso civico fatta dall’avvocata Alessandra Ballerini.

    Quando sia nato Sami – faccia da ragazzino sveglio – è poco importante. Più importante è che il suo primo permesso di soggiorno in Europa lo ha avuto a metà anni Duemila. All’età di 10 anni. Lo mostra. È un documento sloveno. A quasi 20 anni di distanza è ancora ostaggio di quei meccanismi.

    A un certo punto è stato riportato in Algeria – o ci è tornato autonomamente – e da lì ha ottenuto un visto per la Turchia e poi la rotta balcanica a piedi. Per provare a tornare nel cuore del Vecchio Continente. Sami prende un foglio e disegna le tappe che ha attraversato lungo la ex Jugoslavia. Lui è un inguaribile ottimista. Ci riproverà la sera stessa convinto di farcela.

    Altri sono in preda all’ansia di non riuscire. Come Sylvester, nigeriano dell’Edo State, vestito a puntino nel tentativo di farsi passare da turista sui treni delle Sncf – le ferrovie francesi. È regolare in Italia. Ha il permesso di soggiorno per motivi umanitari, oggi abolito da Salvini e non più rinnovabile.

    «Devo arrivare in Germania perché mi aspetta un lavoro come operaio. Ma devo essere lì entro ottobre. Ho già provato dal Brennero. Come faccio a passare?», chiede insistentemente.

    Ventimiglia: le nuove rotte della migrazione

    Il flusso a Ventimiglia è cambiato. Rispetto ai tunisini del 2011, ai sudanesi del 2015, ma anche rispetto all’estate del 2018. Nessuno, o quasi, arriva dagli sbarchi salvo sporadici casi, mostrando plasticamente una volta di più come la cosiddetta crisi migratoria in Europa può cambiare attori ma non la trama. Oggi sono tre i canali principali: rotta balcanica; fuoriusciti dai centri di accoglienza in Italia in seguito alle leggi del governo Conte e ai tagli da 35 a 18-21 euro nei bandi di gare delle Prefetture; persone con la protezione umanitaria in scadenza che non lavorano e non possono convertire il permesso di soggiorno. Questa la situazione in uscita.

    In entrata dalla Francia si assiste al corto circuito del confine. Parigi non si fida dell’Italia, pensa che non vengano prese le impronte digitali secondo Dublino e inserite nel sistema #Eurodac. Perciò respinge tutti senza badare ai dettagli, almeno via treno. Incluse persone con i documenti che devono andare nelle ambasciate francesi del loro Paese perché sono le uniche autorizzate a rilasciare i passaporti.

    Irregolari di lungo periodo bloccati in Italia

    In mezzo ci finiscono anche irregolari di lungo periodo Oltralpe che vengono “rastrellati” a Lione o Marsiglia e fatti passare per nuovi arrivi. Nel calderone finisce anche Jamal: nigeriano con una splendida voce da cantante, da nove mesi in Francia con un permesso di soggiorno come richiedente asilo e in attesa di essere sentito dalla commissione. Lo hanno fermato gli agenti a Breil, paesotto di 2 mila anime di confine, nella valle della Roja sulle Alpi Marittime. Hanno detto che i documenti non bastavano e lo hanno espulso.

    Da settimane gli attivisti italiani fanno il diavolo a quattro con gli avvocati francesi per farlo rientrare. Ogni giorno spunta un cavillo diverso: dichiarazioni di ospitalità, pec da inviare contemporaneamente alle prefetture competenti delle due nazioni. Spesso non servono i muri, basta la burocrazia.

    Italia-Francia: passaggi più difficili e costosi per i migranti

    Come è scontato che sia, il “proibizionismo” in frontiera non ha bloccato i passaggi. Li ha solo resi più difficili e costosi, con una sorta di selezione darwiniana su base economica. In stazione a Ventimiglia bastano due ore di osservazione da un tavolino nel bar all’angolo della piazza per comprendere alcune superficiali dinamiche di tratta delle donne e passeurs. Che a pagamento portano chiunque in Francia in automobile. 300 euro a viaggio.

    Ci sono strutture organizzate e altri che sono “scafisti di terra” improvvisati, magari per arrotondare. Come è sempre stato in questa enclave calabrese nel nord Italia, cuore dei traffici illeciti già negli anni Settanta con gli “spalloni” di sigarette.

    Sono i numeri in città a dire che i migranti transitato, anche se pagando. Nel campo Roja gestito dalla Croce Rossa su mandato della Prefettura d’Imperia – l’unico rimasto dopo gli sgomberi di tutti gli accampamenti informali – da gennaio ci sono stabilmente tra le 180 e le 220 persone. Turn over quasi quotidiano in città di 20 che escono e 20 che entrano, di cui un minore.

    Le poche ong che hanno progetti aperti sul territorio frontaliero sono Save The Children, WeWorld e Diaconia Valdese (Oxfam ha lasciato due settimane fa), oltre allo sportello Caritas locale per orientamento legale e lavorativo. 78 minori non accompagnati da Pakistan, Bangladesh e Somalia sono stati trasferiti nel Siproimi, il nuovo sistema Sprar. Il 6 e il 12 luglio, all’una del pomeriggio, sono partiti due pullman con a bordo 15 e 10 migranti rispettivamente in direzione dell’hotspot di Taranto. È stato trasferito per errore anche un richiedente asilo a cui la polizia ha pagato il biglietto di ritorno, secondo fonti locali.

    Questi viaggi sono organizzati da Riviera Trasporti, l’azienda del trasporto pubblico locale di Imperia e Sanremo da anni stabilmente con i conti in rosso e che tampona le perdite anche grazie al servizio taxi per il ministero dell’Interno: 5 mila euro a viaggio in direzione dei centri di identificazione voluti dall’agenda Europa nel 2015 per differenziare i richiedenti asilo dai cosiddetti “migranti economici”.
    A Ventimiglia vietato parlare d’immigrazione oggi

    A fine maggio ha vinto le elezioni comunali Gaetano Scullino per la coalizione di centrodestra, subentrando all’uscente Pd Enrico Ioculano, oggi consigliere di opposizione. Nel 2012, quando già Scullino era sindaco, il Comune era stato sciolto per mafia per l’inchiesta “La Svolta” in cui il primo cittadino era accusato di concorso esterno. Lui era stato assolto in via definitiva e a sorpresa riuscì a riconquistare il Comune.

    La nuova giunta non vuole parlare di immigrazione. A Ventimiglia vige un’ideologia. Quella del decoro e dei grandi lavori pubblici sulla costa. C’è da completare il 20% del porto di “Cala del Forte”, quasi pronto per accogliere i natanti.

    «Sono 178 i posti barca per yacht da 6,5 a oltre 70 metri di lunghezza – scrive la stampa del Ponente ligure – Un piccolo gioiello, firmato Monaco Ports, che trasformerà la baia di Ventimiglia in un’oasi di lusso e ricchezza. E se gli ormeggi sono già andati a ruba, in vendita nelle agenzie immobiliari c’è il complesso residenziale di lusso che si affaccerà sull’approdo turistico. Quarantaquattro appartamenti con vista sul mare che sorgeranno vicino a un centro commerciale con boutique, ristoranti, bar e un hotel». Sui migranti si dice pubblicamente soltanto che nessun info point per le persone in transito è necessario perché «sono pochi e non serve».

    Contemporaneamente abbondano le prese di posizione politiche della nuova amministrazione locale per istituire il Daspo urbano, modificando il regolamento di polizia locale per adeguarsi ai due decreti sicurezza voluti dal ministro Salvini. Un Daspo selettivo, solo per alcune aree della città. Facile immaginare quali. Tolleranza zero – si legge – contro accattonaggio, improperi, bivacchi e attività di commercio abusivo. Escluso – forse – quello stesso commercio abusivo in mano ai passeurs che libera la città dai migranti.

    https://www.osservatoriodiritti.it/2019/07/24/ventimiglia-migranti-oggi-bloccati-respinti-francia-situazione/amp
    #coût #prix #frontières #asile #migrations #Vintimille #réfugiés #fermeture_des_frontières #France #Italie #danger #dangerosité #frontière_sud-alpine #push-back #refoulement #Roya #Vallée_de_la_Roya

    –----------

    Quelques commentaires :

    Les « flux » en sortie de l’Italie, qui entrent en France :

    Oggi sono tre i canali principali: rotta balcanica; fuoriusciti dai centri di accoglienza in Italia in seguito alle leggi del governo Conte e ai tagli da 35 a 18-21 euro nei bandi di gare delle Prefetture; persone con la protezione umanitaria in scadenza che non lavorano e non possono convertire il permesso di soggiorno. Questa la situazione in uscita.

    #route_des_Balkans et le #Decrét_Salvini #Decreto_Salvini #decreto_sicurezza

    Pour les personnes qui arrivent à la frontière depuis la France (vers l’Italie) :

    In entrata dalla Francia si assiste al corto circuito del confine. Parigi non si fida dell’Italia, pensa che non vengano prese le impronte digitali secondo Dublino e inserite nel sistema Eurodac. Perciò respinge tutti senza badare ai dettagli, almeno via treno. Incluse persone con i documenti che devono andare nelle ambasciate francesi del loro Paese perché sono le uniche autorizzate a rilasciare i passaporti.
    (...)
    In mezzo ci finiscono anche irregolari di lungo periodo Oltralpe che vengono “rastrellati” a Lione o Marsiglia e fatti passare per nuovi arrivi.

    #empreintes_digitales #Eurodac #renvois #expulsions #push-back #refoulement
    Et des personnes qui sont arrêtées via des #rafles à #Marseille ou #Lyon —> et qu’on fait passer dans les #statistiques comme des nouveaux arrivants...
    #chiffres

    Coût du passage en voiture maintenant via des #passeurs : 300 EUR.

    Et le #business des renvois de Vintimille au #hotspot de #Taranto :

    Il 6 e il 12 luglio, all’una del pomeriggio, sono partiti due pullman con a bordo 15 e 10 migranti rispettivamente in direzione dell’hotspot di Taranto. È stato trasferito per errore anche un richiedente asilo a cui la polizia ha pagato il biglietto di ritorno, secondo fonti locali.

    Questi viaggi sono organizzati da #Riviera_Trasporti, l’azienda del trasporto pubblico locale di Imperia e Sanremo da anni stabilmente con i conti in rosso e che tampona le perdite anche grazie al servizio taxi per il ministero dell’Interno: 5 mila euro a viaggio in direzione dei centri di identificazione voluti dall’agenda Europa nel 2015 per differenziare i richiedenti asilo dai cosiddetti “migranti economici”.

    –-> l’entreprise de transport reçoit du ministère de l’intérieur 5000 EUR à voyage...

  • 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

  • Découvrir la #France derrière des barbelés

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    http://cqfd-journal.org/Decouvrir-la-France-derriere-des

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

    ping @karine4 @isskein

  • "Ho eseguito gli ordini ma mi vergogno. Quei disperati ci chiedevano aiuto"

    «È l’ordine più infame che abbia mai eseguito. Non ci ho dormito, al solo pensiero di quei disgraziati», dice uno degli esecutori del «respingimento». "Dopo aver capito di essere stati riportati in Libia - aggiunge - ci urlavano: «Fratelli aiutateci». Ma non potevamo fare nulla, gli ordini erano quelli di accompagnarli in Libia e l’abbiamo fatto. Non racconterò ai miei figli quello che ho fatto, me ne vergogno".

    Parlano i militari delle motovedette italiane - quella della Guardia di Finanza, la «#Gf_106» e quella della Capitaneria di porto, la «#Cpp_282» - appena rientrati dalla #missione_rimpatrio. Sono stati loro a riportare in Libia oltre 200 extracomunitari, tra i quali 40 donne (3 incinte) e 3 bambini, dopo averli soccorsi mercoledì scorso nel Canale di Sicilia. Un «successo», lo ha definito il ministro Maroni, che finanzieri e marinai delle due motovedette non condividono anche se hanno eseguito quegli ordini. Niente nomi naturalmente, i marinai delle due motovedette rischierebbero quanto meno una punizione se non peggio. Ma molti non nascondono il loro sdegno per quello che hanno vissuto e dovuto fare. «Eravamo impegnati in altre operazioni - dicono fiamme gialle e marinai della capitaneria - poi improvvisamente è arrivato l’ordine di andare a soccorrere quelle tre imbarcazioni, di trasbordarli sulle nostre motovedette e di riportarli in Libia».

    Non è stato facile, a bordo di quelle carrette del mare c’erano donne incinte, tre bambini e tutti gli altri che avevano tentato di raggiungere Lampedusa. «Molti stavano male, alcuni avevano delle gravi ustioni, le donne incinte erano quelle che ci preoccupavano di più, ma non potevamo fare nulla, gli ordini erano quelli e li abbiamo eseguiti. Quando li abbiamo presi a bordo dai tre barconi ci hanno ringraziato per averli salvati. In quel momento, sapendo che dovevamo respingerli, il cuore mi è diventato piccolo piccolo. Non potevo dirgli che li stavamo portando di nuovo nell’inferno dal quale erano scappatati a rischio della vita».

    A bordo hanno anche pregato Dio ed Allah che li aveva risparmiati dal deserto, dalle torture e dalla difficile navigazione verso Lampedusa. Ma si sbagliavano, Roma aveva deciso che dovevano essere rispediti in Libia. «Nessuno di loro lo aveva capito, ci chiedevano come mai impiegavamo tanto tempo per arrivare a Lampedusa, rispondevamo dicendo bugie, rassicurandoli».

    La bugia non è durata molto, poco prima dell’alba qualcuno ha notato che le luci che vedevano da lontano non erano quelle di Lampedusa ma quelle di Tripoli. Alla fine i marinai italiani sono stati costretti a spiegare: «Non è stato facile dire a tutta quella gente che li avevamo riportati da dove erano partiti. Erano stanchi, avevano navigato con i barconi per cinque giorni, senza cibo e senza acqua. Non hanno avuto la forza di ribellarsi, piangevano, le donne si stringevano i loro figli al petto e dai loro occhi uscivano lacrime di disperazione».

    Lo sbarco a Tripoli è avvenuto poco dopo le sette del mattino: "Vederli scendere ci ha ferito tantissimo. Ci gridavano: «Fratelli italiani aiutateci, non ci abbandonate»". Li hanno dovuti abbandonare, invece, li hanno lasciati al porto di Tripoli dove c’erano i militari libici che li aspettavano. Sulla banchina c’erano anche i volontari delle organizzazioni umanitarie del Cir e dell’Onu, ma non hanno potuto far nulla, si sono limitati a contare quei disperati che a fatica, scendevano dalla passerelle delle motovedette per tornare nell’inferno dal quale erano scappati. Le donne sono state separate dagli uomini e portati in «centri d’accoglienza» vicino Tripoli. Non si sa che fine faranno.
    Solo uno è riuscito a sfuggire al rimpatrio. Un ventenne del Mali che aveva intuito cosa stava succedendo a bordo e si era nascosto sotto un telone. Ha messo la testa fuori solo quando la motovedetta della Finanza è attraccata a Lampedusa, ha aspettato che a bordo non ci fosse più nessuno e poi è sceso anche lui. È stato rintracciato mentre passeggiava nelle strade dell’isola ed ha subito confessato. Adesso si trova nel centro della base Loran di Lampedusa. Un miracolato.

    http://www.repubblica.it/2009/04/sezioni/cronaca/immigrati-6/nave-viviano/nave-viviano.html
    #témoignage #police #Libye #Italie #asile #migrations #réfugiés #push-back #renvois #refoulement #Méditerranée

    ajouté à la métaliste sur les témoignages de policiers
    https://seenthis.net/messages/723573