• En #Algérie, près de 11000 #migrants_subsahariens expulsés en #2019

    L’Algérie poursuit les expulsions de migrants subsahariens vers le nord du Niger, comme tout au long de l’année 2019. Après des #arrestations au cours de la semaine dernière, un convoi de plusieurs centaines de personnes était en route ce mercredi pour la frontière.

    Transmise le 13 janvier aux responsables de 30 régions du pays par le ministère des Affaires étrangères, une circulaire publiée dans la presse explique le déroulement d’une opération d’expulsion de migrants subsahariens vers la frontière avec le Niger.

    Des bus ont convergé des régions du nord et du centre du pays vers la ville de Ghardaïa, à 600 kilomètres au sud d’Alger. Le 13 janvier au soir, selon un témoin, plusieurs dizaines de bus transportant des migrants étaient arrivés dans la ville. Ces personnes ont été arrêtées par les forces de sécurité dans les jours précédents.

    Réseaux de mendicité

    La plupart sont originaires du Niger. Alger s’appuie sur un accord passé avec Niamey en 2014 (http://www.rfi.fr/hebdo/20151016-niger-algerie-reprise-expulsions-departs-volontaires-agadez-tamanrasset) pour rapatrier ces personnes, impliquées dans des réseaux de #mendicité, que l’Algérie considère comme des réseaux criminels. Mais au cours des arrestations, les forces de l’ordre arrêtent aussi des ressortissants d’autres nationalités.

    En 2019, des expulsions ont eu lieu chaque mois. Selon les données de l’Organisation internationale des migrations qui enregistre les migrants qui le souhaitent à leur arrivée dans le nord du Niger, presque 11 000 personnes ont été expulsées de janvier à novembre, dont 358 qui n’étaient pas nigériennes.


    www.rfi.fr/afrique/20200115-algerie-reprise-expulsions-migrants-niger ##migrants_sub-sahariens
    #Niger #renvois #expulsions #statistiques #chiffres #migrants_nigériens #déportation #refoulement #refoulements

    ping @karine4 @_kg_
    signalé par @pascaline via la mailing-list Migreurop

    Ajouté à la métaliste sur les expulsions de l’Algérie vers le Niger :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/748397

  • 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

  • L’UE choisit le #Rwanda pour relocaliser les #demandeurs d’asile

    L’Union européenne va conclure un accord avec le Rwanda pour tenir les demandeurs d’asile à l’écart de ses frontières. Déchirée sur la question des migrants, l’Europe poursuit une politique déjà expérimentée et critiquée, analyse The New York Times.

    L’Union européenne s’apprête à conclure un accord financier avec le Rwanda pour que le pays accueille des demandeurs d’asile en provenance de Libye, afin qu’ils n’entrent pas sur le Vieux Continent. Un mécanisme dont l’UE est coutumière. Cette dernière, rappelle The New York Times, a déchiré le continent et entraîné une recrudescence du populisme en Europe :

    Depuis trois ans, et dans un contexte de montée des partis populistes hostiles aux migrants, l’Union européenne paye d’autres pays pour tenir à distance du continent les demandeurs d’asile

    https://www.courrierinternational.com/article/vu-des-etats-unis-lue-choisit-le-rwanda-pour-relocaliser-les-

    #Union européenne #Externalisation #Demande d’asile #Frontières #Rwanda #Populismes

  • France : Des enfants migrants privés de protection
    Human Rights Watch

    Le rapport de 80 pages, intitulé « ‘Ça dépend de leur humeur’ : Traitement des enfants migrants non accompagnés dans les Hautes-#Alpes », montre que les évaluateurs, dont le travail consiste à certifier la minorité d’un enfant, c’est-à-dire qu’il a moins de 18 ans, ne se conforment pas aux normes internationales. Human Rights Watch a constaté que les évaluateurs utilisent diverses justifications pour refuser d’octroyer une protection aux enfants, telles que des erreurs minimes de dates, une réticence à aborder dans le détail des expériences particulièrement traumatisantes, des objectifs de vie jugées irréalistes, ou encore le fait d’avoir travaillé dans le pays d’origine ou au cours du parcours migratoire.



    Vidéo https://www.hrw.org/fr/news/2019/09/05/france-des-enfants-migrants-prives-de-protection
    et rapport https://www.hrw.org/fr/report/2019/09/05/ca-depend-de-leur-humeur/traitement-des-enfants-migrants-non-accompagnes-dans-les
    #mineurs #MNA #frontière #refoulement #France #Italie #âge #réfugiés #asile #migrations #frontière_sud-alpine

    ping @cdb_77 @cede @isskein

    • Hautes-Alpes : HRW pointe des violations des droits des enfants migrants

      L’ONG Human Rights Watch publie ce jeudi 5 septembre un rapport sur la situation des mineurs migrants non accompagnés dans le département des #Hautes-Alpes, à la frontière franco-italienne. Basé sur une enquête auprès d’une soixantaine d’enfants et adolescents, essentiellement originaires de l’Afrique de l’Ouest, ce rapport dénonce de multiples violations aussi bien du droit français que des normes internationales de protection des #droits_des_enfants.

      Ils ont entre 15 et 18 ans. Victimes d’abus dans leurs pays d’origine, ils ont traversé la Méditerranée pour chercher refuge en Europe. Mal accueillis en Italie, ils tentent de passer en France, au risque d’être refoulés par la police aux frontières.

      « D’après ce que les enfants que nous avons interviewé nous ont raconté, quand il y a des renvois, ils sont souvent arbitraires et reposent souvent sur le bon vouloir d’un ou des agents. La conséquence, c’est que de nombreux enfants -pour éviter une interpellation- passent la frontière à travers la montagne dans des conditions extrêmement difficiles », explique Bénédicte Jeannerod de Human Rights Watch (HRW).

      Et quand ils arrivent à passer en France, ils ne sont pas au bout de leurs obstacles. La reconnaissance de la #minorité leur est souvent refusée. « Les procédures, telles qu’elles sont mises en oeuvre dans le département des Hautes-Alpes, sont extrêmement défectueuses, souligne encore Bénédicte Jeannerod. Par exemple, dans son entretien d’évaluation, l’enfant va être accusé de mentir ; ou alors il va donner beaucoup de détails sur son parcours et on va lui dire que c’est un signe de (sa) majorité... Tous les éléments donnés par l’enfant sont retournés contre lui et aboutissent à des rejets de minorité #arbitraire. »

      Human Rights Watch rappelle que la France a l’obligation de protéger tout migrant mineur et de lui assurer l’accès à l’hébergement, à l’éducation et à la santé.

      Les personnes aidant les migrants également ciblées

      HRW dénonce aussi le harcèlement policier à l’encontre des bénévoles humanitaires qui participent aux opérations de recherches et de sauvetages des migrants en montagne. « Ce ne sont pas des associations en particulier, ce sont vraiment les personnes qui mènent ce travail d’assistance et de secours en montagne et qui subissent des contrôles d’identité injustifiés, qui sont poursuivies par la justice ou alors qui vont voir leur véhicule fouillé de manière abusive », poursuit Bénédicte Jeannerod.

      Ce sont des #pratiques_policières qui dissuadent ces opérations qui peuvent être des opérations vitales et qui s’opposent à la dernière décision du Conseil constitutionnel qui considère « qu’une aide apportée à des migrants, même en situation irrégulière, ne peut pas être criminalisée ou sanctionnée tant que cette aide s’effectue dans un objectif humanitaire et qu’elle ne bénéficie pas de contrepartie. »

      Le Conseil constitutionnel a consacré l’an passé la valeur constitutionnelle du « principe de fraternité » en réponse précisément à une requête de plusieurs associations et particuliers dont Cédric Herrou, un agriculteur devenu le symbole de la défense des migrants de la vallée de la Roya (Alpes Maritimes), l’un des principaux points de passage des migrants arrivés en Europe par l’Italie.

      https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/19312/hautes-alpes-hrw-pointe-des-violations-des-droits-des-enfants-migrants

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVQjCoUTzPs


      #frontières #enfants #enfance #PAF #solidarité #délit_de_solidarité #maraudes_solidaires

      Le rapport en pdf:
      https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/france0919fr_web.pdf

    • Les militants promigrants dans les Hautes-Alpes harcelés par la police, selon HRW

      Contrôles d’identité, contraventions pour un prétexte fallacieux… Human Rights Watch déplore, dans un rapport, les manœuvres des forces de l’ordre pour « entraver les activités humanitaires ».

      « #Harcèlement » et « #intimidation », tels sont les outils de la police française pour « entraver les activités humanitaires » des militants venant en aide aux migrants à la frontière franco-italienne, affirme, dans un rapport publié jeudi 5 septembre, l’organisation non gouvernementale (ONG) Human Rights Watch (HRW).

      La publication, qui intervient une semaine après la condamnation de trois dirigeants de l’organisation d’extrême droite Génération identitaire pour une opération menée dans cette même région en 2018, documente également les refoulements de « mineurs non accompagnés » vers l’Italie.

      Lors de leurs maraudes, les bénévoles et militants associatifs sont régulièrement ciblés par des contrôles d’identité « abusifs », souligne le rapport, qui se focalise sur la situation dans les Hautes-Alpes.

      « Dans de nombreux cas, la police semble recourir à ces procédures de façon sélective, à des fins d’intimidation et de harcèlement ou pour entraver les activités humanitaires », poursuit l’ONG de défense des droits humains qui réclame une enquête sur ces pratiques. L’objectif, « c’est de leur mettre des bâtons dans les roues » et de « gêner leurs actions », résume pour l’Agence France-Presse (AFP) Bénédicte Jeannerod, directrice France chez HRW.
      « Le délit de solidarité continue d’être utilisé »

      « Systématiquement, lorsqu’on part en maraude à Montgenèvre [commune limitrophe de l’Italie], il y a des contrôles (…), souvent plusieurs fois dans la soirée », raconte un bénévole cité dans le rapport, qui porte sur une enquête menée entre janvier et juillet 2019.

      Contraventions pour un balai d’essuie-glace défectueux, une absence d’autocollant signalant des pneus cloutés… « Le délit de solidarité continue d’être utilisé », déplore Mme Jeannerod.

      Même si le pic de la crise migratoire est passé, en matière de flux, « la pression sur les militants continue de s’accentuer », confirme Laure Palun, codirectrice de l’Association nationale d’assistance aux frontières pour les étrangers (Anafé), qui a publié en début d’année un rapport sur la situation à la frontière franco-italienne.

      Légalement, l’aide à l’entrée, à la circulation ou au séjour irréguliers en France est passible d’une peine maximale de cinq ans d’emprisonnement et de 30 000 euros d’amende. En juillet 2018, le Conseil constitutionnel a jugé qu’un acte « humanitaire » ne pouvait pas faire l’objet de sanctions, sauf s’il est effectué dans le cadre d’une aide à l’entrée sur le territoire.

      Malgré cette décision, des poursuites continuent d’être engagées contre des personnes soutenant des migrants, déplore encore Human Rights Watch.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2019/09/05/les-militants-pro-migrants-dans-les-hautes-alpes-harceles-par-la-police-selo
      #mineurs_non_accompagnés

  • 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

  • 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...

  • Création de zones frontalières (au lieu de lignes de frontière) en vue de refoulements

    Je viens de lire dans un compte-rendu de réunion qui a eu lieu à Milan en juin 2019, ce commentaire, sur la situation à la #frontière italo-slovène :

    Gianfranco Schiavone :

    «Quello che sicuramente dovrebbe diventare una questione delicata é l’annunciato avvio delle pattuglie italo slovene in frontiera con l’obiettivo dichiarato alla stampa di bloccare gli arrivi. Con riammissione senza formalita’ delle persone irregolari intercettate nella fascia dei 5 km dalla frontiera . Queste sono le dichiarazioni pubbliche di questi giorni»

    Une #zone_frontalière de #5_km dans laquelle ont lieu des #refoulements directs.

    #Italie #Slovénie #frontière_sud-alpine #migrations #réfugiés #asile #frontière_mobile #bande_frontalière #frontières_mobiles

    Ceci me rappelle d’autres cas, en Europe et ailleurs, dans lesquels des procédures semblables (la frontière n’est plus une #ligne, mais une #zone) ont été mises en place, j’essaie de les mettre sur ce fil de discussion.
    Si quelqu’un a d’autres cas à signaler, les contributions sont bienvenues...

    #métaliste

    ping @reka @simplicissimus @karine4 @isskein

    • A la frontière entre franco-italienne :

      Dans un amendement, l’élu a proposé « une zone limitée aux communes limitrophes ou une bande de 10 kms par rapport à la frontière. » Le gouvernement en a accepté le principe, mais « le délimitera de manière précise par décret pour coller à la réalité du terrain. »

      http://alpesdusud.alpes1.com/news/locales/67705/alpes-du-sud-refus-d-entree-pour-les-migrants-vers-une-evolution-
      #France #Italie #frontière_sud-alpine

    • L’article 10 de la loi renforçant la sécurité intérieure et la lutte contre le terrorisme modifie l’article 78-2 du Code de procédure pénale relatif aux contrôles d’identités. Il permet ainsi des contrôles aux frontières pour une durée de douze heures consécutives (contre six auparavant). Il les élargit « aux abords » de 373 gares et dans un rayon de dix kilomètres des ports et aéroports au nombre des points de passage frontaliers. Bien au-delà des simples frontières de l’Hexagone, c’est une partie importante du territoire français qui est ainsi couvert, dont des villes entières comme Paris, Lyon, Toulouse, Marseille, etc.

      source, p.25 : https://www.lacimade.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/La_Cimade_Schengen_Frontieres.pdf
      #France

    • This month saw the introduction of joint Slovenian and Italian police patrols on their mutual border, raising concerns about the retrenchment of national boundaries contra the Schengen Agreement. The collaboration between authorities, due to be implemented until the end of September, mobilises four joint operations per week, with respective police forces able to enter 10km into the territory of their neighboring state in order to apprehend migrants. Mixed operations by member states signifies a growing trend towards the securitization of the EU’s internal borders, and in this case a tightening of controls on the departure point from the West Balkan route.

      The patrols aim at stemming the transit of migrants from the western Slovenian regions of #Goriška and #Obalno-kraška, into the eastern region of Friuli Venezia Giulia, Italy. Given the extensive pushback apparatus being employed by Slovenian and Croatian officials, arrival in Italy has often been the first place where persons-in-transit can apply for international protection without the threat of summary removal. However, these developments in cross border patrols highlight a growing effort on the part of the Italian government to prevent people seeking sanctuary on its territory.

      (p.15-16)

      https://www.borderviolence.eu/wp-content/uploads/July-2019-Final-Report.pdf
      #Italie #Slovénie #10_km

    • Kuster Backs Bill To Reduce 100-Mile Zone for Border Patrol Checkpoints

      Congresswoman Ann McLane Kuster is cosponsoring legislation to reduce border zones from 100 to 25 miles from the border (https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3852?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22border+zone%22%5D%7D&s=1&r=1), within which U.S. Customs and Border Patrol can set up immigration checkpoints.

      Congressman Peter Welch of Vermont is the prime sponsor of the legislation.

      Kuster was stopped at one such immigration checkpoint in June of this year. The checkpoint, on I-93 in Woodstock, around 90 miles from the border, resulted in 29 tickets for alleged immigration violations.

      The violations were for legal visitors who did not have appropriate paperwork on them, according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

      According to a map from CityLabs, the entire state of New Hampshire falls within a border zone (which includes coastal borders).

      “I think it has a chilling effect,” says Kuster. “It’s not the free and open America that we know.”

      Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy introduced a similar bill to the Senate.

      https://www.nhpr.org/post/kuster-backs-bill-reduce-100-mile-zone-border-patrol-checkpoints#stream/0
      #USA #Etats-Unis

    • Inside the Massive U.S. ’Border Zone’

      All of Michigan, D.C., and a large chunk of Pennsylvania are part of the area where Border Patrol has expanded search and seizure rights. Here’s what it means to live or travel there.

      https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/who-lives-in-border-patrols-100-mile-zone-probably-you-mapped/558275
      #cartographie #visualisation
      #100-Mile_Zone

      déjà signalé sur seenthis par @reka en 2018 :
      https://seenthis.net/messages/727225

    • En #Hongrie, les pushbacks, largement pratiqués depuis des années, ont été légalisés en mars 2017 par de nouvelles dispositions permettant aux forces de l’ordre de refouler automatiquement toute personne interpellée sur le territoire hongrois et considérée en situation irrégulière. Ces personnes sont ramenées jusqu’à la clôture et renvoyées de l’autre côté. Si elles manifestent leur volonté de demander l’asile, on leur signifie qu’elles doivent repartir en Serbie et passer par les zones de transit. Pourtant, se trouvant géographiquement et juridiquement en Hongrie (le mur étant situé à 1,5 mètre à l’intérieur du tracé officiel de la frontière), les autorités ont l’obligation de prendre en compte ces demandes d’asile en vertu des conventions européennes et des textes internationaux dont la Hongrie est signataire.

      Tiré du rapport de La Cimade (2018), pp.37-38 :
      https://www.lacimade.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/La_Cimade_Schengen_Frontieres.pdf

    • Le zone di transito e di frontiera – commento dell’ASGI al decreto del Ministero dell’Interno del 5 agosto 2019

      Il 7 settembre 2009 sulla Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 210 (https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2019/09/07/19A05525/sg) è stato pubblicato il decreto del Ministero dell’Interno del 5 agosto 2019 che individua le zone di transito e di frontiera dove potrà trovare applicazione la procedura accelerata per l’esame nel merito delle domande di protezione internazionale e istituisce due nuove sezioni delle Commissioni territoriali , come previsto dall’art. 28 bis co. 1 quater del D.lgs. n. 25/2008, introdotto dal d.l. n. 113/2018.

      Le zone di frontiera o di transito sono individuate in quelle esistenti nelle seguenti province:

      –Trieste e Gorizia;

      –Crotone, Cosenza, Matera, Taranto, Lecce e Brindisi;

      –Caltanissetta, Ragusa, Siracusa, Catania, Messina;

      –Trapani, Agrigento;

      –Città metropolitana di Cagliari e Sud Sardegna.

      Il decreto ministeriale istituisce altresì due nuove sezioni , Matera e Ragusa, le quali operano rispettivamente nella commissione territoriale per il riconoscimento dello status di rifugiato di Bari, per la zona di frontiera di Matera, e nella commissione territoriale di Siracusa, per la zona di frontiera di Ragusa.

      Nel commento qui pubblicato ASGI sottolinea come le nuove disposizioni paiono contrastare con le norme dell’Unione Europea perché si riferiscono in modo assolutamente generico alle “zone di transito o di frontiera individuate in quelle esistenti nelle province” e non ad aree delimitate, quali ad esempio i porti o le aree aeroportuali o altri luoghi coincidenti con frontiere fisiche con Paesi terzi non appartenenti all’Unione europea.

      ASGI evidenzia come “l’applicazione delle procedure accelerate alle domande presentate nelle zone individuate nel decreto ministeriale comporta una restrizione dell’effettivo esercizio dei diritti di cui ogni straniero è titolare allorché manifesta la volontà di presentare la domanda di asilo e una conseguente contrazione del diritto di difesa, in ragione del dimezzamento dei termini di impugnazione e dell’assenza di un effetto sospensivo automatico derivante dalla proposizione del ricorso previsti, in modo differente per le varie ipotesi specifiche, dall’art. 35 bis D. Lgs. 25/08”.

      A tal fine ASGI ricorda che:

      – ai cittadini di Paesi terzi o apolidi tenuti in centri di trattenimento o presenti ai valichi di frontiera, comprese le zone di transito alla frontiere esterne, che desiderino presentare una domanda di protezione internazionale, gli Stati membri devono garantire l’informazione, anche sull’accesso procedura per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale, adeguati servizi di interpretariato,
      nonché l’effettivo accesso a tali aree alle organizzazioni e alle persone che prestano consulenza e assistenza ai richiedenti asilo (art. 8 Direttiva 2013/32/UE);

      – gli Stati membri devono provvedere affinché l’avvocato o altro consulente legale che assiste o rappresenta un richiedente possa accedere alle aree chiuse, quali i centri di trattenimento e le zone di transito (art. 23 par. 2) e analoga possibilità deve essere garantita all’UNHCR (art. 29, par. 1);

      – ai sensi dell’art. 46 par. 1 il richiedente ha diritto a un ricorso effettivo dinanzi a un giudice anche nel caso in cui la decisione sulla domanda di protezione internazionale venga presa in frontiera o nelle zone di transito.

      E’ evidente, conclude ASGI nel commento al Decreto, che vi sia il rischio che lo straniero espulso o respinto e che abbia presentato domanda di protezione internazionale dopo l’espulsione o il respingimento in una zona di frontiera tra quelle indicate nel nuovo decreto ministeriale si veda esaminata la sua domanda in modo sommario mentre è trattenuto in condizioni e luoghi imprecisati e inaccessibili di fatto a difensori e organizzazioni di tutela dei diritti.

      Occorre invece ribadire che la presentazione della domanda di protezione internazionale in frontiera riguarderà spesso persone rese ulteriormente vulnerabili dalle condizioni traumatiche del viaggio ed alle quali andrà perciò in ogni caso garantito un esame adeguato della domanda di protezione internazionale e l’applicazione delle garanzie e dei diritti previsti a tutela dei richiedenti protezione internazionale dalle disposizioni nazionali e dell’Unione Europea.

      https://www.asgi.it/asilo-e-protezione-internazionale/asilo-zone-transito-frontiera

    • La loi renforçant la lutte contre le terrorisme étend à nouveau les contrôles d’identités frontaliers

      Avant l’entrée en vigueur de la loi du 30 octobre 2017, les #contrôles_frontaliers étaient autorisés dans les espaces publics des #gares, #ports et #aéroports ouverts au trafic international (désignés par un arrêté ministériel) et dans une zone située entre la frontière terrestre et une ligne tracée de 20 kilomètres en deçà. Le législateur avait étendu les zones frontalières, notamment dans les territoires ultra-marins (où la convention de Schengen n’est pourtant pas applicable).

      https://www.editions-legislatives.fr/actualite/la-loi-renforcant-la-lutte-contre-le-terrorisme-etend-a-nouvea
      #France #20_km #20_kilomètres #espace_public #gares_internationales

    • The Grand Chamber Judgment in Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary: Immigration Detention and how the Ground beneath our Feet Continues to Erode

      The ECtHR has been for a long time criticized for its approach to immigration detention that diverts from the generally applicable principles to deprivation of liberty in other contexts. As Cathryn Costello has observed in her article Immigration Detention: The Ground beneath our Feet, a major weakness in the Court’s approach has been the failure to scrutinize the necessity of immigration detention under Article 5(1)(f) of the ECHR. The Grand Chamber judgment in Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary delivered on 21 November 2019 has further eroded the protection extended to asylum-seekers under the Convention to the point that restrictions imposed upon asylum-seekers might not even be qualified as deprivation of liberty worthy of the protection of Article 5. The Grand Chamber overruled on this point the unanimously adopted Chamber judgment that found that the holding of asylum-seekers in the ‘transit zone’ between Hungary and Serbia actually amounts to deprivation of liberty.

      In this blog, I will briefly describe the facts of the case, the findings of the Grand Chamber under Article 3 ECHR that was also invoked by the applicants and then I will focus on the reasoning as to the applicability of Article 5.

      The case concerned two Bangladeshi nationals who transited through Greece, the Republic of Northern Macedonia (as it is now known) and Serbia before reaching Hungary, where they immediately applied for asylum. They found themselves in the transit zone on the land border between Hungary and Serbia, where they were held for 23 days pending the examination of their asylum applications. The applications were rejected on the same day on the ground that the applicants had transited through Serbia that, according to Hungary, was a safe third country. The rejections were confirmed on appeal, an order for their expulsion was issued, the applicants were escorted out of the transit zone and they crossed back into Serbia.

      Procedural Breach of Article 3 ECHR

      The Grand Chamber established that Hungary ‘failed to discharge its procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to assess the risks of treatment contrary to that provision before removing the applicants from Hungary’ to Serbia (para 163). No finding was made on the issue as to whether Hungary was substantively in breach of the right not to be subjected to refoulement given the conditions in Serbia and the deficiencies in the Serbian asylum procedures that might lead to chain refoulement. This omission follows a trend in the Court’s reasoning that can be described as a procedural turn: focus on the quality of the national decision making processes rather than on the substantive accuracy of the decisions taken at national level.[1] This omission, however, had important consequences for the application of Article 5 to the applicants’ case, the most controversial aspect in the Grand Chamber’s reasoning.

      The Chamber’s reasoning under Article 5 ECHR

      On this aspect, the Grand Chamber departed from the Chamber’s conclusion that the applicants were deprived of their liberty. The fundamental question here is whether ‘the stay’ (Hungary used the term ‘accommodation’) of asylum-seekers in the ‘transit zone’ with an exit door open to Serbia, but closed to Hungary, amounts to deprivation of liberty (i.e. detention) in the sense of Article 5 ECHR. Asylum seekers in the transit zone were denied access to the Hungarian territory,[2] but they could leave to Serbia. This creates a complex intertwinement between deprivation of liberty (Article 5(1)(f)) normally understood as not allowing somebody to leave a place, on the one hand, and not allowing somebody to enter a place. Entering a State can be very relevant from the perspective of the obligation upon this State not to refoule, which necessitates a procedure for determining whether there is a risk of refoulement.

      In its judgment from 14 March 2017 the Chamber unanimously answered in positive: by holding them in the transit zone, Hungary deprived the applicants from their liberty, which was in violation of Article 5(1)(f) since this measures had no legal basis in the national law. The Chamber clarified that‘[t]he mere fact that it was possible for them to leave voluntarily returning to Serbia which never consented to their readmission cannot rule out an infringement of the right to liberty.’ (para 55). In this way the Chamber reaffirmed the reasoning in Amuur v France where the Court observed ‘[…] this possibility [to leave voluntary the country] becomes theoretical if no other country offering protection comparable to the protection they expect to find in the country where they are seeking asylum is inclined or prepared to take them in.’ (para 48) It follows that although the transit zone at the French airport was, as France argued, “open to the outside”, the applicants were still considered as having been detained since this ‘outside’ did not offer a level of protection comparable to the one in France.

      The Chamber followed this reasoning from Amuur v France in Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary, which led to the recognition that ‘[…] the applicants could not have left the transit zone in the direction of Serbia without unwanted and grave consequences, that is, without forfeiting their asylum claims and running the risk of refoulement’ (para 55). The Chamber also added that ‘To hold otherwise would void the protection afforded by Article 5 of the Convention by compelling the applicants to choose between liberty and the pursuit of a procedure ultimately aimed to shelter them from the risk of exposure to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.’ (para 56)

      The ‘practical and realistic’ approach of the Grand Chamber under Article 5 ECHR

      The Grand Chamber in its reasoning broke precisely this linkage between the applicability of Article 5 (the qualification of a treatment as deprivation of liberty) and Article 3 (protection from refoulement). The Grand Chamber performed the following important moves to achieve this. First, it stated that ‘its approach should be practical and realistic, having regard to the present-day conditions and challenges’, which implied that States were not only entitled to control their borders, but also ‘to take measures against foreigners circumventing restrictions on immigration.’ (para 213). With Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary the Court has thus added another nuance to its well-established point of departure in cases dealing with migrants. This point of departure has been that States are entitled, subject to their treaty obligations, to control their borders. The new addition introduced with Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary and also repeated in Z.A. and Others v Russia, a Grand Chamber judgment issued on the same day, concerns States’ right to prevent ‘foreigners circumventing restrictions on immigration’. This addition, however, does not seem appropriate given that the applicants themselves in Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary never circumvented any immigration control restrictions. They applied immediately for asylum.

      This ‘practical and realistic approach’ also implied an endorsement of the representation of the situation as one of ‘crisis’:[3] ‘the Court observes that the Hungarian authorities were in conditions of a mass influx of asylum-seekers and migrants at the border, which necessitated rapidly putting in place measures to deal with what was clearly a crisis situation.’ (para 228) In the same paragraph, the Grand Chamber went on to almost praise Hungary for having processed the applicants’ claims so fast event though it was ‘a crisis’: ‘Despite the ensuring very significant difficulties, the applicants’ asylum claims and their judicial appeals were examined within three weeks and two days.’ It appears as if the Grand Chamber at this stage had already forgotten its findings made earlier in the judgment under Article 3 that the national procedure for examining the applicants’ claims was deficient. This ultimately gave the basis for the Grand Chamber to find a violation of Article 3.

      The distinction based on how asylum-seekers arrive and the type of border they find themselves at

      The second move performed by the Grand Chamber implied the introduction of a distinction between ‘staying at airport transit zones’ (para 214) and at reception centers located on islands (para 216), on the one hand, and a transit zone located on the land border between two Council of Europe Member States (para 219). This meant, as the Court reasoned, that the applicants did not have to take a plane to leave the zone, they could simply walk out of the zone. In other words, it was practically possible for them to do it on their own and they did not need anybody’s help. As the Court continued to reason in para 236, ‘Indeed, unlike the case of Amuur, where the French courts described the applicants’ confinement as an “arbitrary deprivation of liberty”, in the present case the Hungarian authorities were apparently convinced that the applicants could realistically leave in the direction of Serbia [emphasis added].’ This quotation also begs the comment as to why what the national authorities were or were not convinced about actually mattered. In addition, the reference in Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary as to how the national authorities had qualified the situation is also bizarre given that ‘deprivation of liberty’ is an autonomous concept under the Convention. On this point, the two dissenting judges, Judge Bianku and Judge Vućinić criticized the majority by highlighting that ‘the Court has reiterated on many occasions that it does not consider itself bound by the domestic courts’ legal conclusions as to the existence of a deprivation of liberty.’

      Narrowing down the importance of Amuur v France

      The third move performed by the Court is playing down the importance of and narrowing the relevance of Amuur v France. In Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary the Grand Chamber reiterated (para 239) the most significant pronouncement from Amuur: the possibility to leave the zone ‘becomes theoretical if no other country offering protection comparable to the protection they expect to find in the country where they are seeking asylum is included to take them in.’ It then noted that this reasoning ‘must be read in close relation to the factual and legal context in that case.’ This meant that in contrast to the situation in Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary, in Amuur the applicants could not leave ‘without authorization to board an airplane and without diplomatic assurance concerning their only possible destination, Syria, a country “not bound by the Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.’ (para 240) On this point Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary can be also distinguished from Z.A. and Others v Russia, where the Grand Chamber observed that ‘[…] unlike in land border transit zones, in this particular case leaving the Sheremetyevo airport transit zone would have required planning, contacting aviation companies, purchasing tickets and possibly applying for a visa depending on the destination.’ (para 154) For the applicants in Ilias and Ahmed ‘it was practically possible […] to walk to the border and cross into Serbia, a country bound by the Geneva Convention.’ (para 241). The Grand Chamber acknowledged that the applicants feared of the deficiencies in the Serbian asylum procedure and the related risk of removal to the Republic of North Macedonia or Greece. (para 242) However, what seems to be crucial is that their fears were not related to ‘direct threat to their life or health’ (para 242). It follows that the possibility to leave for a place will not preclude the qualification of the situation as one of detention, only if this place poses a direct threat to life or health.

      As noted by the two dissenting judges, it did not seem to matter for the majority that the applicants could not enter Serbia lawfully. In this way, the majority’s reasoning under Article 5 appears to endorse a situation where people are just pushed out of the border without some formal procedures with elementary guarantees.

      Read as a whole the Grand Chamber judgment in Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary is inconsistent: it contains two findings that are difficult to square together. The Court concluded that since the applicants would not be exposed to a direct risk in Serbia, they were not detained in Hungary. At the same time, Hungary violated Article 3 of the Convention since it did not conduct a proper assessment of the risks that the applicants could face if they were to return to Serbia.

      Overall weakening of the protection of Article 5 ECHR

      One final comment is due. In Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary, the Grand Chamber summarized the following factors for determining whether ‘confinement of foreigners in airport transit zones and reception centers’ can be defined as deprivation of liberty: ‘i) the applicants’ individual situation and their choices, ii) the applicable legal regime of the respective country and its purpose, iii) the relevant duration, especially in the light of the purpose and the procedural protection enjoyed by applicants pending the events, and iv) the nature and degree of the actual restrictions imposed on or experienced by the applicants.’ (para 217) (see also Z.A. and Others v Russia, para 145) Among these criteria particular attention needs to be directed to the applicable legal regime and the availability of procedural protection. In principle, Article 5, if found applicable, offers certain guarantees (e.g. statutory basis for the deprivation of liberty, access to proceedings for challenging the lawfulness of the detention). The Court seems to have inserted such considerations at the definitional stage of its analysis. For example, in Z.A. and Others v Russia, the Grand Chamber when it examined whether the confinement of the applicants in the airport transit zone amounted to deprivation of liberty, noted that they were left ‘in a legal limbo without any possibility of challenging the measure restricting their liberty’ (para 146). This played a role for the Grand Chamber to conclude that the applicants in Z.A. and Others v Russia were indeed deprived of liberty and Article 5 was thus found applicable. In contrast, the Grand Chamber in Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary observed that certain procedural guarantees applied to the applicants’ case (para 226), which also played a role for the final conclusion that Article 5 was not applicable. In sum, instead of scrutinizing the national legal regime and the access to procedural guarantees as part of the substantive analysis under Article 5, where a single deficiency leads to a finding of a violation (i.e. it is sufficient to find a violation of Article 5 if there is no strictly defined statutory basis for the applicants’ detention), the Court has muddled these criteria together with other factors and made them pertinent for the definitional analysis. This ultimately weakens the roles of these criteria and creates uncertainty.

      [1] See V Stoyanova, ‘How Exception must “Very Exceptional” Be? Non-refoulement, Socio-Economic Deprivation and Paposhvili v Belgium’ (2017) International Journal of Refugee Law 29(4) 580.

      [2] See B Nagy, ‘From Reluctance to Total Denial: Asylum Policy in Hungary 2015-2018’ in V Stoyanova and E Karageorgiou (eds) The New Asylum and Transit Countries in Europe during and in the Aftermath of the 2015/2016 Crisis (Brill 2019) 17.

      [3] Boldizsar Nagy has argued that this representation made by the Hungarian government is a lie. See B Nagy, Restricting access to asylum and contempt of courts: illiberals at work in Hungary, https://eumigrationlawblog.eu/restricting-access-to-asylum-and-contempt-of-courts-illiberals-at

      https://strasbourgobservers.com/2019/12/23/the-grand-chamber-judgment-in-ilias-and-ahmed-v-hungary-immigra
      #justice #CEDH #Hongrie #CourEDH

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    https://www.eitb.eus/es/noticias/sociedad/detalle/6554667/francia-expulsa-dos-mujeres-nigerianas-centro-retencion-hendaia
    #Pyrénées #asile #migrations #réfugiés #refoulement #renvoi #expulsion #Espagne #France #CRA #détention_administrative #rétention

  • 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

  • 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

  • Pour archivage... un #rapport de Migreurop sur les « #frontières assassines » de l’Europe... c’était 2009, et on parlait notamment dans ce rapport des #push-back (#refoulements) dans la région de l’#Evros :


    http://www.migreurop.org/IMG/pdf/Rapport-Migreurop-oct2009-def.pdf

    Je le partage aujourd’hui car ce qui est raconté ici, donc autour de 2009, se répète dans l’Evros autour des années 2012-2013 (j’en avais parlé sur @visionscarto : https://visionscarto.net/a-kumkapi-avant-de-passer-la-frontiere) et on en reparle aujourd’hui, v. notamment : https://seenthis.net/messages/710720

    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Grèce #Turquie

  • Report on illegal practice of collective expulsion on Slovene-Croatian border

    Last year Slovenian police officially deported 4653 people to Croatia under the regulation of the readmission agreement. This is means that more than half of 9149 people who were processed for illegally crossing the border were handed over to Croatian police and in further expelled to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Large majority of people who were processed under the readmission agreement were denied their right to asylum procedure by Slovenian police who is still conducting systematic expulsions to Croatia under the guise of the readmission. This practice of denial of right to seek asylum has become systematic with the issue of general police instructions on end of May 2018 when official number of readmission increased dramatically. For example, in police station Črnomelj which the closest in walking distance from Velika Kladuša in May out of 379 people who were processed for illegally crossing the border 371 applied for asylum, but after the issue of police commands in June out of 412 people who crossed the border illegally only 13 officially asked for asylum. Threats, violence, abuse of power and denial of basic rights has became a common practice in other border police stations, collective expulsions to Croatia are happening daily with the knowledge and support of high police and government officials despite high risk of further violence and theft done by police in Croatia.

    In this article is attached a report on collective expuslion from Slovenia and Croatia and work of civil iniciative Info Kolpa which operated a phone line to act as mediator between police and migrants in asylum procedurees. The phone line was used when migrants who contacted the phone number were on the territory of the Republic of Slovenia with the intention to seek asylum and would express a desire for the volunteers to inform the police about their location. In such cases the nearest was informed. The phone line volunteers would send the geographical location, information on people seeking asylum and a clear statement that people are in dire need of help and wish to apply for international protection in Slovenia to the regional police station. This was done via phone or an email sent to the police station in jurisdiction. Also the Office of Ombudsman in Slovenia and different NGOs involved with protection of human rights were informed. This report contains 20 such recorded cases (106 persons); in 6 cases, persons were admitted to the asylum procedure in Slovenia (27 persons); in 7 cases they were pushbacked to Croatia and then illegally expelled to Bosnia and Herzegovina (39 persons); only one person was able to initiate the procedure for international protection after extradition to Croatia and was not expelled to Bosnia and Herzegovina. In 7 cases (39 people) there is no information of what had happened with the people, as they haven’t made any contact after they were apprehended by Slovenian police.

    You can find the full report in attachments along with censored police instructions and documents from Ombudsman office.


    https://push-forward.org/porocilo/report-illegal-practice-collective-expulsion-slovene-croatian-border
    #push-back #refoulement #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #Slovénie #Croatie #rapport

    Pour télécharger le rapport:


    https://push-forward.org/sites/default/files/2019-05/Report%20on%20illegal%20practice%20of%20collective%20expulsion%20on%20

    • Balkan Region – Report June 2019

      No Name Kitchen and Border Violence Monitoring have 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.

      As such, this report contains analysis and a review of the situation in these areas as well. This report covers 41 reports of push-backs involving 237 people in transit. 21 of these were incidents of push-backs to BiH, 4 of these were incidents of push-backs to Serbia, and 4 of these were incidents of push-backs from BiH to Montenegro. The reports were conducted with a wide demographic variety of respondents ranging from families to single men to unaccompanied minors. The respondents to these reports also originate from a wide variety of countries such as Tunisia, Kurdistan Iraq, Syria, Pakistan and Algeria to name a few.
      The report details, among other things:

      Push-backs to the Sturlic area of the Una-Sana Canton
      The use of balaclava masks as an accessory to push-back violence
      The Croatian Ministry of the Interior’s June media event in Grabovac
      The trend of reverse flows along the Balkan Route
      The publication of an open letter by a hiker in Croatia who witnessed the apprehension of a transit group by the country’s Special Police
      The situation in northern Serbia related to border violence

      https://www.borderviolence.eu/balkan-region-report-june-2019

      Plus précisément pour les refoulements depuis la Slovénie :


      –-> les précisions sur les différents cas :
      https://www.borderviolence.eu/violence-reports/may-28-2019-0400-smarje-sap-slovenia
      https://www.borderviolence.eu/violence-reports/may-29-2019-0800-kortino-slovenia
      https://www.borderviolence.eu/violence-reports/may-31-2019-0300-bogovolja-croatia
      https://www.borderviolence.eu/violence-reports/may-31-2019-0100-near-sturlic-bosnia-herzegovina
      https://www.borderviolence.eu/violence-reports/june-5-2019-0400-croatian-bosnian-border-next-to-poljana
      https://www.borderviolence.eu/violence-reports/june-7-2019-0700-kocevje-slovenia

    • Bosnia-Croatia border: Needs grow for migrants losing EU entry ‘#game’

      It’s referred to by everyone here as “The Game”, but there are few winners and a humanitarian crisis is brewing on the Bosnia-Croatia border as thousands of migrants and asylum seekers trying to reach the EU find themselves stuck with limited access to food, shelter, or healthcare.

      They are caught between two poles: EU policies designed to reduce irregular crossings and keep people out, and political stalemate in Bosnia, which aid groups say is preventing local authorities from providing those in limbo with adequate protection or living conditions.

      Since the closing of the old migrant route through the Balkans in 2016, Bosnia has emerged as a new way station for those trying to reach Croatia and head on to other nations like France and Germany in the EU’s Schengen free movement zone.

      Migrants and asylum seekers bide their time in northwest Bosnia before attempting “The Game” – the cat-and-mouse evasion of Croatian police as they cross the highly securitised border and try to navigate dense woodland further into EU territory. The majority making this trip are pushed back by Croatian police, who are supported financially in their border operations by the EU.

      Bosnia’s northwestern canton of Una-Sana has become the locus of the ensuing crisis, especially around its main city and administrative centre of Bihać.

      As of June 2019, the UN’s migration agency, IOM, runs four migrant centres in Una-Sana, housing more than 3,100 migrants and asylum seekers. However, with an estimated 6,000 migrants in the canton, it’s not enough and thousands are sleeping rough.

      Faced with sustained protests from local residents about the pressure this has placed on their communities, authorities have scrambled to find solutions.

      In April, Una-Sana police increased measures that were introduced in October 2018 to prevent migrants and asylum seekers from entering the canton. In June, Bihać City Council began to clear the urban centre, with police rounding up and relocating groups of people to a new location at Vučjak, eight kilometres from the city centre.

      The UN has refused to operate at Vučjak, citing concerns about its close proximity to minefields and situation on top of a former landfill site, referring to it as “unsuitable for human habitation”.

      Opening additional accommodation centres would ease the pressure, but politicians have failed to create a national plan to share the burden. Milorad Dodik, Bosnian Serb member of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s tripartite presidency, has notably refused to host migrants and asylum seekers in Bosnia’s mainly Serb entity of Republika Srpska.

      “The Ministry of Security doesn’t have a strategy,” Šuhret Fazlić, mayor of Bihać, told The New Humanitarian. “The only strategy they have is to try and close the border between Bosnia and Serbia, and to let migrants go to Croatia. But it doesn’t work because Croatia is pushing migrants back, and because Dodik won’t allow police from the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina or the army on the border with Serbia.”

      Decision-making is complicated by the fact that the outgoing government has been acting in a caretaker capacity since October 2018 elections.

      “If you look at who is currently the Minister of Security, his party and he as a person will definitely not be part of the new government,” said Peter Van der Auweraert, IOM’s chief of mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina. “The parties that will eventually form the government have no incentive to collaborate with him.”

      With weak central leadership, IOM must navigate Bosnia’s local politics to open additional centres for migrants and asylum seekers who currently fall outside of the system.

      “We have identified six alternative locations and now need a political decision at the canton level on which one of those is acceptable,” Van der Auweraert said. “In Bosnia it is so decentralised that canton authorities can really block that from happening. It takes a level of political courage to explain to people on the ground that there are actually economic benefits attached to opening a migrant centre. Unfortunately this has not happened, for example, in Una-Sana canton.”

      As winter nears and thousands of migrants and asylum seekers continue to live in squalid conditions, the urgency of agreeing on the location of a new centre will only grow.

      “Somebody has to find a solution,” said Fazlić. “The only thing that is up to the city is to propose new locations. We are ready for this, but we have only land and somebody has to find a way to build and prepare conditions for them.”

      Journalist and photojournalist Nick Newsom spent 10 days in July talking to aid workers, migrants, and asylum seekers in northwestern Bosnia. Their testimonies and photos follow.
      “We’re scared that the police will catch us”

      “We don’t go into the city centre because we’re scared that the police will catch us. You should see how we were when we lived in Turkey – I looked nothing like this," said Sufyan Al Sheikh Ahmad, 23, from Syria. “The circumstances here are very hard. Last time, we walked for six days in Croatia and reached Slovenia, but the Slovenian police caught us after two days. They handed us over to Croatian police, who took our money and bag, and broke our telephones. They took us to the border and we had to walk about 30 kilometres to Bihać. That was the fifth attempt. Inshallah, I will try again. I don’t have 3,000 euros to pay a smuggler, so I’m trying to walk. Wallah, I feel very tired.”

      View from the road towards #Šturlić

      Many migrants and asylum seekers set off into Croatia from the Bosnian village of Šturlić, which lies just a few hundred metres from the border. The landscape on the Bosnian side is mountainous, densely forested, and becomes more so once one enters Croatian territory. Croatian authorities, funded to the tune of 131 million euros by the EU, deploy a wide range of technologies to detect and apprehend migrants on their territory. By contrast, the EU has provided 24 million euros to Bosnia since 2018 to help the country manage the migration crisis, on top of 24.6 million euros of assistance in the area of asylum, migration, and border management since 2007.

      “I didn’t even have a t-shirt or shoes”

      “I’ve been in Bosnia four months,” said Zuhaib Arif, 18, from Pakistan. "I got here by train but got off about 70 kilometres from here, at Banja Luca, and walked the rest. The police told me to get off the train there, and anyone who this happens to has to come here by foot. Police tell us to go back and not go to Bihać. I went to Jungle Camp [Vučjak] but I didn’t have a blanket – I didn’t even have a t-shirt or shoes – they were stolen from me whilst I was sleeping.”

      “They didn’t let me inside because they told me there is no space”

      “They didn’t let me inside the [Bira] camp because they told me there is no space. When the police came, they told us, ‘do not run – if you have no ID card, no problem,’ but when we stopped for them, they arrested us and took us to Jungle Camp. We walked for one and a half hours there. More than 200 people were walking. I think 30 to 40 percent came back here from Jungle Camp. If we don’t find a way to jump over the fence [into Bira], we will stay here tonight.”

      “We urgently need more support”

      With the EU and UN having refused to support operations at Vučjak, the City of Bihać Red Cross is the only humanitarian organisation providing assistance to migrants at the camp, providing two meals a day for up to 700 people and first aid. “We are extremely stretched, both financially and in terms of human resources,” Rajko Lazic, secretary-general of the Red Cross Society of Bosnia and Herzegovina, told TNH. “Our volunteers and staff are exhausted. Our funds are running out. We urgently need more support.”

      “We don’t want problems with the #police

      Independent groups providing support to migrants and asylum seekers have been forced to operate more covertly as the political context in Una-Sana has changed and patience has begun to wear thin. No Name Kitchen, an NGO of volunteers from several countries that predominantly helps migrants and asylum seekers in Bosnia, runs a free clothes shop and carries out a distribution of food and non-food items to about 30 people a day in the town of Velika Kladuša, about 50 kilometres north of Bihać. “The way that we do that is low profile, hidden… because we don’t want problems with the police,” a No Name Kitchen volunteer told TNH. “As the political will to keep people contained within camps outside of cities has become more salient, there has been an effort to control independent organisations.”

      “The conditions are always violent with the Croatian police”

      “I’ve made six trips from Bosnia,” said Rachid Boudalli, 35, from Morocco. Each time the Slovenian police have caught me and handed me over to the Croatian police. The conditions are always violent with the Croatian police, they hit us, take our stuff from us: our money, our telephones, anything we have. They’ve taken eight power banks from me and four mobiles. I ask the responsible European parties to look into our situation.”

      “They are shameless beyond belief”

      “The Croatian police steal our money, our personal papers – everything that we need," said Eman Muhammad Al Ahmad, a 30-year-old Palestinian refugee from Syria. “As an already persecuted people escaping war, we now suffer from bandits in European countries. When I asked for my Syrian ID card back, they shouted in my face ‘shut up’ and threatened to hit me in the head with their truncheon. They are shameless beyond belief, searching us in a filthy way that doesn’t fit the police of a developed European state. They persecute women by removing her hijab under the guise that she’s got something hidden in there. What does a refugee want to hide? As refugees, we just want to cross peacefully into a European state to be with our families and children – no more and no less.”

      “I told them that I want asylum in Slovenia, but they didn’t reply”


      “I see all kinds of animals in the forest,” Yassin Nowar, 24, from Algeria told TNH. “After eight days of walking, we found this bear in Croatia. Four days later the police caught us.”

      For some, the circumstances are too much to endure any longer. “I want to go back to my country because the situation here is very difficult,” Amjad Al Ghanem, a 24-year-old from the Occupied Palestinian Territories told TNH. “I’ve tried ‘the game’ six times. Three times I reached Slovenia and I told them that I want asylum in Slovenia, but they didn’t reply and returned us to Croatia. At least in Palestine I can take care of myself. I had a dream, but it’s gone: I’ve had enough.”

      https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/photo-feature/2019/08/05/bosnia-croatia-border-needs-grow-migrants-losing-eu-entry-game
      #The_game #Sturlic #police #violences_policières

    • More and more different voices are speaking out loud: not only local and international journalists try to investigate and raise awareness on the illegal behavior by Croatian authorities: the same policemen keep on talking and contributing with pieces of evidence in support of what Welcome! Initiatives write about in the last three years: systematic push backs and illegal practices, among others the denial of access to asylum for people in search for safety, perpetrated by Croatian police officers. “Action corridor” is the way in which it has been called - “Our interlocutor warns that the intervention and special police, in particular, are encouraged to be as “harsh” as possible in deterring migrants (https://net.hr/danas/hrvatska/zastrasujuca-devijacija-akcije-koridor-policija-sve-dogovara-na-whatsappu-a-pose). Because they are thought to be so discouraged that they later won’t try to cross the border again. The Ogulin area is allegedly also used with dogs to attack, which is actually illegal and extremely inhumane in dealing with migrants, an anonymous police officer told Net.hr”.In the article, you can see picture of people, including migrants, kept in cages at Croatian border crossing areas. This is not the first time that policemen speak publicly about the illegal behavior of Ministry of Interior - this has been addressed by the Ombudswoman (https://www.telegram.hr/politika-kriminal/pucka-pravobraniteljica-primila-anonimno-pismo-policajca-tvrdi-kako-je-isti), and by an anonymous police source that decided to speak with the journalist Barbara Matejcic (https://welcome.cms.hr/index.php/en/2019/07/26/new-evidence-of-violent-pushbacks-executed-by-croatian-police-and-the-eu). Unfortunately, still we do not have any information about any investigation or sanctioning the responsibles of these actions.

      If you want to read more about police abuses in the whole region, read the report for November period published by the Network “Border Violence Monitoring” (https://www.borderviolence.eu/balkan-region-report-november-2019/#more-14026). The reports analyse the situation in Italy, Croatia, Slovenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, giving an overview of the whole situation in the region. Violence has no nationality - once again, authorities are abusing their power and their force against people who are looking for safety in Europe.

      The failure EU approach toward the migration phenomenon and the situation at the Croatian borders are well explained in this article (https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/12/06/croatia-is-abusing-migrants-while-the-eu-turns-a-blind-eye), which well explains the hypocritical behavior of European Union institutions. 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.

      Reçu via Inicijativa dobrodosli, mail du 17.12.2019.

  • La police croate renvoie de plus en plus de migrants en #Serbie

    4 avril 2019 – 17h30 : La police croate déporte de plus en plus de migrants en Serbie, y compris des personnes qui n’ont jamais transité par ce pays. Il s’agit donc de #déportations illégales. Des migrants sont également renvoyés de Hongrie. La police serbe tolère ces « retours » infondés, dénoncent plusieurs organisations de soutien aux migrants au réfugiés, notamment les ONG croates Are you Syrious, Centar za mirovne studije et l’Initiative Dobrodošli.

    https://www.courrierdesbalkans.fr/fil-info-refugies

    #route_des_balkans #Balkans #renvois #expulsions #push-back #refoulement #Croatie #migrations #asile #réfugiés #frontières


    • https://twitter.com/APC_CZA/status/1120619893068636160?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E11

      Commentaire en anglais :

      the Asylum Protection Centre published photos and information that more than 50 people were violently pushed back by the Croatian police back to Serbia, near Šid. They were heavily beaten with police bats on legs and back. The people describe being beaten, robbed of their belongings, having their phones destroyed, all between April 19 and 22.

      https://medium.com/are-you-syrious/ays-daily-digest-23-4-19-weekend-of-violent-push-backs-from-croatia-and-bosn

    • The situation in #Šid is worsening - many people are arriving to Serbia and trying to cross the border, while at the same time weather conditions are getting worse, with temperatures getting lower and lower. The police began emptying the streets and spaces used by refugees for temporary accommodation and taking people into camps at the border, which are overcrowded and in very poor conditions. On Friday the police cleared the streets in Šid (https://www.facebook.com/NoNameKitchenBelgrade/videos/973792239674633) and several makeshift lodgings in the city, including a squatted area where 30 minors were living. They took people into a police station and later to a camp. The police action in the weekend involved more than 150 people in Šid and the surrounding area. Moreover, a reception center in Preševo, in which people will be accommodated during the winter, has reopened (http://www.rts.rs/page/stories/sr/story/125/drustvo/3754805/prihvatni-centar-u-presevu-ponovo-otvoren.html).

      Reçu via Inicijativa dobrodosli, mail du 04.11.2019.

      –-----

      In the early hours of Friday, 22nd November 2019 a large-scale police eviction took place in Šid, Serbia. Some might recall the illegal burning of a migrant encampment close to the border of October 20th, among many others. Sweeping all squats and unofficial settlements, the recent operation aimed to remove all undocumented people in transit from the streets of Šid. The action targeted approximately 150 people in and around Šid. The largest eviction of people was carried out at the settlement in the former Grafosrem industrial facility, but was accompanied by the clearance of multiple other smaller squats throughout the city. Authorized by municipality of Šid and supported by regional police, as well as units from Sremska Mitrovica and Belgrade, the apprehensions started at 06:00 am.

      Outwardly justified as a measure to meet the security concerns of the local population, the operation is clearly part of a larger scheme of internal displacement being realized throughout Serbia during the past week. No Name Kitchen strongly condemn the forced removal of systemically marginalised communities, and the ruthlessness used during these operations.

      Concerning the eviction of the Grafosrem squat, there was no official notice given or information on a relocation operation. While around 50 officers conducted the physical apprehension of the ca. 110 people living there, the deputy mayor Zoran Semenović was also in attendance, declaring the abandoned factory site to be his property, loudly insulting NNK volunteers that were present and – together with police - removing these witnesses from the area.

      The removal of the inhabitants was followed by the “cleansing” of the grounds - making use of a bulldozer, two forklift trucks, and around 30 workers of the municipality, along with multiple transport vehicles. Under the eyes of the media present, the entirety of the people’s belongings such as cell phones, power banks, clothing, electricity supply, personal money, 40 tents, over 200 blankets and sleeping bags were confiscated by city workers. The flattening of the Grafosrem surroundings lasted until nightfall.

      No information on the confiscated possessions was given to NNK, despite requests by volunteers. It is likely these items - provided by NNK and charitable donations from across the region - were destroyed by the authorities, when the hundred plus people were forcibly removed from the site. Similar actions were carried out at various other smaller squat settlements (this time only by police authorities). Persons apprehended did not receive preliminary eviction notices and were conveyed to the local police station to give their information before being removed to reception camps, such as Kikinda and Pirot. Minors were reported to have been taken to Sjenica or housing around Belgrade.

      In the days after the operation, volunteers in Šid have been under constant scrutiny. Private people have been observed monitoring the volunteer’s house and filming use of the organisations vehicle. Even the mayor himself began to harass volunteers with his car when they were documenting the remains of the settlements.

      Several key questions arise following Fridays events. Do fundamental rights still exist for Serbia’s transit population? What awaits these people in the camps across the country to which they have been forcibly removed? And locally, did Zoran Semenović act in an official capacity when claiming to be the owner of Grafosrem? What will happen to the confiscated possesions of the people expelled in this operation? Will they be returned or wilfully destroyed?

      This goes connected with this new agreement: “the European Union signed an agreement with Serbia on border management cooperation between Serbia and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex)”.

      Text by: Davy Jones

      We’re sorry for the delay in reporting about the situation, but the volunteers there are overwhelmed.
      It would be great if someone could manage to go there and take sleeping bags, tents and other materials.

      https://www.facebook.com/NoNameKitchenBelgrade/videos/973792239674633

  • Offshoring the Border : The #1981 United States–#Haiti Agreement and the Origins of Extraterritorial Maritime Interdiction

    Extraterritorial maritime interdiction is a common tactic used by destination states to keep unwanted migrants from reaching their borders. But it is problematic, raising legal concerns about #refoulement as well as political concerns about sovereignty. Where did extraterritorial interdiction come from, and how has it become so widespread? This article draws on archival sources and contemporaneous legal opinions from within the #Reagan administration to tell the origin story of the pivotal 1981 United States–Haiti agreement that pioneered this model of border control. Even at the time of adoption, this agreement faced legal challenges, and was viewed as a solution of last resort. Yet many of the legal challenges of modern extraterritorial interdiction trace back to the unique circumstances shaping this first agreement—including the need to cooperate with countries of embarkation, anticipatory determination of attempted entry and the offshoring of protection responsibilities. They were locked in by path-dependent feedback mechanisms domestically and then diffused internationally.

    https://academic.oup.com/jrs/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/jrs/fez005/5310345
    #USA #Etats-Unis #Haïti #externalisation #origine #interdiction_extraterritoriale #contrôles_frontaliers #migrations #asile #réfugiés #frontières #externalisation #externalisation_des_frontaliers #accord #push-back #souveraineté

    via @isskein

    ajouté à cette métaliste sur l’externalisation des contrôles frontaliers :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/731749