• La Turquie au centre des questions migratoires

    Le plan de la Turquie est de créer dans le nord de la Syrie une vaste zone sécurisée pour renvoyer les réfugiés. Mais au-delà des obstacles politiques et militaires, un tel projet coûterait des milliards d’euros. Ankara fait donc pression sur les Européens pour qu’ils mettent la main au porte-monnaie.

    https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/19897/la-turquie-au-centre-des-questions-migratoires?ref=tw_i

    #safe_zones #zones_sures #réfugiés #réfugiés_syriens #Turquie #Syrie #renvois #expulsions #retour_au_pays #safe_zone #zone_sure

    ping @isskein

    • La Turquie veut-elle rapatrier deux millions de réfugiés au Nord de la Syrie ?

      À plusieurs reprises, le président turc Recep Tayyip Erdogan a fait part de son souhait d’établir une zone de sûreté dans le Nord-Est du pays pour y réinstaller entre un et trois million de réfugiés syriens.

      Bonjour,

      Lors de son discours à la tribune des Nations Unies, le 24 septembre 2019, le président turc Recep Tayyip Erdogan a évoqué son plan pour l’établissement d’« un corridor de paix d’une profondeur de 30 kilomètres et d’une longueur de 480 kilomètres » dans le Nord-Est de la Syrie, où il souhaite « permettre l’installation de 2 millions de Syriens avec l’appui de la communauté internationale ». L’idée d’une zone de sûreté n’est pas neuve puisqu’elle est discutée entre la Turquie et les Etats-Unis depuis le mois de janvier 2019. Les 13 et 14 janvier, le président Donald Trump avait déjà twitté qu’il souhaitait créer une « safe zone de 20 miles », soit un peu plus de 30 kilomètres. Début août, les médias turcs et américains, comme le Washington Post, rapportaient deux pays ont convenu de coopérer à la création d’une « zone sûre » dans le nord de la Syrie.
      Erdogan souhaite rapatrier entre 1 et 3 millions de réfugiés syriens dans une « zone de sûreté » au Nord-Est de la Syrie

      Lors de son intervention à l’ONU (à partir de 15 minutes et 33 secondes dans la vidéo suivante, en anglais), ainsi que quelques jours plus tôt en Turquie, le président Erdogan a accentué sa volonté de mettre en place une telle zone de sécurité, en avançant qu’elle pourrait permettre la relocalisation d’un à trois millions de réfugiés syriens, selon la taille de la zone. Ainsi à New York, le chef d’État turc a exposé une carte, où l’on distingue la zone de sûreté planifiée, tout en détaillant : « Si cette zone de sûreté peut être déclarée, nous pouvons réinstaller en toute confiance entre 1 et 2 millions de réfugiés […] Les réfugiés peuvent être réinstallés en les sauvant de camps de tentes ou de camps de conteneurs. Nous pouvons prendre ensemble [avec les États-Unis, les forces de la coalition, la Russie et l’Iran] les mesures qui s’imposent pour aller de l’avant. Ce n’est pas un fardeau que nous pouvons supporter exclusivement en tant que République de Turquie. Nous devons prendre les mesures nécessaires dès que possible. Si nous pouvions étendre la profondeur de cette région jusqu’à la ligne Deir Ez-Zor, Raqqa, nous pourrions augmenter le nombre de Syriens jusqu’à 3 millions qui reviendront de Turquie, d’Europe et d’autres parties du monde vers leur patrie. Nous sommes très résolus dans la réalisation de ce programme et nous sommes impliqués dans les préparatifs nécessaires ».
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bve1yt0SEb4

      Selon les données du Haut-commissariat aux réfugiés des nations unies, plus de 3,6 millions de réfugiés syriens vivent actuellement en Turquie. Selon une étude préliminaire pour l’installation 1 million de réfugiés dans la zone tampon, qui a été partagée par Ankara avec d’autres pays lors du sommet de l’ONU en septembre et que le site américain Bloomberg a pu consulter, la Turquie souhaite construire des villages et des villes pour les réfugiés pour un coût estimé d’environ 26 milliards de dollars, qui seraient réglés par la communauté internationale.

      Cependant, la zone de sûreté souhaitée par Ankara et convenue avec Washington tarde à se concrétiser rapidement, puisqu’une telle aire nécessiterait de repousser vers le Sud les forces kurdes de l’YPG, alliées des Américains. Mercredi 2 octobre, d’Hulusi Akar, le ministre de la défense turque, faisant part de l’impatience d’Ankara, a déclaré que le « but ultime [de la Turquie] est de mettre fin à la présence terroriste du PKK, du PYD de l’YPG dans le nord de la Syrie, d’établir un corridor de paix et de faire en sorte que nos frères et sœurs syriens dans notre pays rentrent chez eux. »
      La position du Quai d’Orsay

      Contactée par CheckNews pour connaître la position de la France sur cette « zone de sûreté » souhaitée par la Turquie, une source diplomatique française au Quai d’Orsay répond que « des discussions sont en cours entre les États-Unis et la Turquie pour établir un mécanisme de sécurité frontalière. Nous souhaitons que ces discussions permettent d’apaiser les tensions sur la frontière syro-turque et d’éviter toute action unilatérale. Le retour des réfugiés syriens doit être sûr, digne et volontaire, conformément au droit international. Comme exprimé dans la déclaration conjointe des ministres des affaires étrangères du Small Group sur la Syrie du 26 septembre dernier, nous saluons les efforts remarquables des voisins de la Syrie qui accueillent sur leurs territoires la grande majorité des réfugiés syriens. Nous encourageons la communauté internationale à apporter une assistance humanitaire ainsi qu’un soutien financier à ces pays afin d’apporter une réponse collective à la crise des réfugiés syriens, jusqu’à ce que ces derniers puissent revenir volontairement dans leurs régions d’origine, dans la dignité et en sécurité. La France continuera d’œuvrer pour une solution politique crédible en Syrie, conforme à la résolution 2254 du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies, pour que les conditions d’un tel retour soient réunies. »

      https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2019/10/06/la-turquie-veut-elle-rapatrier-deux-millions-de-refugies-au-nord-de-la-sy

  • Italy presents plan to accelerate expulsion of migrants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Analyse de Matteo Villa sur twitter

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

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

      Seguitemi, ve lo spiego.

      Cos’è successo.

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Oggi, il tredicesimo diventa l’Italia.

      Insomma, siamo in buona compagnia.

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

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

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

      Cosa succede se designi un paese come sicuro?

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

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

      La conseguenza? Aumentano gli irregolari.

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

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

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

      Sì, ma i rimpatri?

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

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

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

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

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

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

      CONCLUSIONE.

      La lista di «paesi sicuri»:

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

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

  • ’Inhumane’ Frontex forced returns going unreported

    On a late evening August flight last year from Munich to Afghanistan, an Afghan man seated in the back of the plane struggled to breath as a German escort officer repeatedly squeezed his testicles.

    The man, along with another Afghan who had tried to kill himself, was being forcibly removed from Germany and sent back to a country engulfed in war.

    The EU’s border agency Frontex coordinated and helped pay for the forced return operation, as part of a broader bid to remove from Europe unwanted migrants and others whose applications for international protection had been rejected.

    By then, almost 20 years of war and civil conflict had already ravaged Afghanistan - with 2018 registering its worst-ever civilian death rate since counting had started.

    Also seated on the plane for the 14 August flight were independent observers of the anti-torture committee (CPT) of the human rights watchdog, the Strasbourg-based Council of Europe.

    In a report, they describe in detail how six escort officers had surrounded the terrified man in an effort to calm him.

    The ’calming’ techniques involved an officer pulling the man’s neck from behind while yanking his nose upwards.

    His hands and legs had been cuffed and a helmet placed on him. Another knelt on the man’s knees and upper legs, using his full weight to keep him seated.

    After 15 minutes, the kneeling officer “then gripped the returnee’s genitals with his left hand and repeatedly squeezed them for prolonged periods.”

    Another 503 have been sent to Afghanistan in flights coordinated by Frontex since the start of this year.

    Vicki Aken, the International Rescue Committee’s Afghanistan country director, says those returned are invariably put in harm’s way.

    “You cannot say that Kabul is ’conflict-free’. Kabul is actually one of the most dangerous places in Afghanistan,” she said, noting Afghanistan has the highest number of child casualties in the world.

    The day after the Munich flight landed on 14 August 2018, a blast ripped through a high school in the capital city, Kabul, killing 48 people, including over 30 students.
    Accountability

    The flight journey from Munich highlights a stunning omission from Frontex responsibilities - adding to concerns the EU agency is failing to maintain standards when it comes to coordinating forced-returns in a humane manner.

    For one, all return operations must be monitored in accordance with EU law, and a forced-return monitor is required to deliver a report to Frontex and to all the member states involved.

    Such reports, handed over to Frontex’s executive director, are supposed to act as an internal check and balance to stem alleged abuse by escort guards in a system that has been in place since the start of 2017.

    These monitors come from a “pool of forced-return monitors”, as required under the 2016 European Border and Coast Guard Regulation and the 2008 Return Directive, and are broadly sourced from the member states themselves.

    The CPT in their report noted that the flight on 14 August 2018 had also been monitored by Frontex staff itself, and concluded that its “current arrangements cannot be considered as an independent external monitoring mechanism”.

    When the agency compiled its own internal report spanning the latter half of 2018, which included the 14 August flight, no mention was made of the Afghan man who had been manhandled by six officers.

    Asked to explain, the Warsaw-based agency whose annual budget for 2020 is set to increase to €420.6m, has yet to respond to Euobserver.

    Instead, the report, which had been written up by Frontex’s fundamental rights officer, highlighted other issues.

    It demanded escorts not place restraints on children. It said minors who are alone cannot be sent back on a forced-return flight, which is exactly what had happened on two other operations.

    No one on the 14 August flight had issued a “serious incident report” label, used by Frontex whenever a particularly bad incident has been deemed to have transpired.

    During 2018 Frontex coordinated and helped fund 345 such return operations, by charter flights during which only one “serious incident report” was filed - posing questions on the reliability and independence of the monitors and return escorts, as well as the sincerity of internal Frontex efforts to stem any abuse.

    The accountability gap was highlighted by the outgoing head of the Council of Europe, Thorbjorn Jagland, who in his farewell speech earlier this month, deliberately singled out Frontex.

    “Frontex is bound by EU laws that prohibit torture and any form of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” he said, in reference to reports of alleged human rights violations that occurred during Frontex support operations observed since mid-2018.
    Monitoring the monitors

    For Markus Jaeger, a Council of Europe official who advises the Frontex management board, the agency’s monitoring system for forced return is meaningless.

    “The internal system of Frontex produces close to nil reports on serious incidents, in other words, the internal system of Frontex, says there is never a human rights incident,” he told EUobserver, earlier this month.

    He said Frontex’s pool of 71 monitors is overstretched and that in some cases, only one is available for a flight that might have 150 people being returned.

    “One monitor doesn’t suffice,” he said, noting Frontex has been able to delegate any blame onto member states, by positioning itself merely as a coordinator.

    But as Frontex expands - with the ability to lease planes, pilots and staff - its direct involvement with the returns also increases and so does its accountability, says Jaeger.

    “The [return] figures are supposedly going up, the capacity is supposedly going up, the procedures are being shortened, and deportations are going to happen by deployed guest officers and or by Frontex officers and so the independence of the monitors is crucial,” he pointed out.

    For its part, the European Commission says Frontex’s pool of monitors is set to expand.
    Nafplion Group

    Jaeger, along with other national authorities from a handful of member states, which already contribute to Frontex’s pool of monitors, are now putting together a new group to keep the forced-returns organised by Frontex better in check.

    Known as the Nafplion Group, and set up as a pilot project last October by the Greek ombudsman, it describes itself as a “remedy to the absence of an external, independent governance of the pool of forced-return monitors” in Frontex forced-return flights.

    The plan is to get it up and running before the end of the year, despite having no guarantee they will ever be selected by Frontex to help monitor a forced-return flight.

    “This is how de facto the Nafplion Group can be avoided,” said Jaeger, noting that they plan to go public should they not be picked.

    Asked to comment, the European Commission says it is not in discussions with any institutions on the establishment of a new, parallel monitoring system.

    https://euobserver.com/migration/146090
    #renvois #expulsions #Frontex #Allemagne #réfugiés #réfugiés_afghans #asile #migrations #violence #responsabilité #retours_forcés #renvois #expulsions #déboutés #Kaboul #directive_retour #Nafplion_Group #monitoring #monitorage

    • Germany: Visit 2018 (return flight)

      CPT/Inf (2019) 14 | Section: 12/18 | Date: 03/12/2018

      A. The removal operation: preparation, execution and handover / 5. Use of force and means of restraint

      50.The use of force and means of restraint in the context of pick-up and transport of irregular migrants by the different Länder police authorities is regulated in the respective Länder police legislation.[1] In the context of the transfer to the airport, most of the returnees were not subjected to any means of restraint. However, a number of returnees were restrained (handcuffed, hand- and foot-cuffed, or even body-cuffed) during their transfer and upon arrival at Terminal F. The use of means of restraint was based on an individual risk assessment.

      51.During the different stages in the preparation of the removal operation by air from a German airport as well as on board a stationary aircraft on German territory, the use of force and means of restraint falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Police. In-flight, the aircraft commander[2] is – with the assistance of the Federal Police[3] – entitled to apply the necessary preventive and coercive measures to ensure flight security. In particular, means of restraint can be applied if there is a risk that the returnee might attack law enforcement officers or a third party, or if he/she resists.[4]

      The internal instruction of the Federal Police contains detailed provisions on the use of force and means of restraint. In particular, coercive measures are only applied based both on an individual risk assessment and on the returnee’s conduct. Further, the principle of proportionality must be observed. During removal operations, the following means of restraint may be applied: steel, plastic or Velcro hand- and foot-cuffs as well as body-cuffs and head- (i.e. a helmet) and bite-protective devices; the last three means of restraint may only be applied by specially trained police officers and precise instructions have to be followed. Every application of use of force or means of restraint is documented. Further, according to another internal instruction and the operational instructions for this return operation, other weapons (i.e. firearms, tear gas, batons) are prohibited.

      This approach is in line with the means of restraint agreed upon with the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), as specified in the implementation plan and its Annex I (operational overview). The implementation plan also underlines that the “use of force is always a last resort and must be the minimum level required to achieve the legitimate objective”.

      Moreover, the internal instruction explicitly mentions by way of clear guidelines the risks related to the use of force and/or means of restraint capable of causing positional asphyxia, including a detailed list of possible related symptoms, and prohibits the use of means likely to obstruct the airways as well as “techniques directed against the person’s neck or mouth”. Further, the forced administration of medication (i.e. sedatives or tranquilisers) as a means of chemical restraint to facilitate removal is strictly forbidden. Such an approach fully reflects the Committee’s position on this issue.

      52.According to information provided by letter of 18 October 2018, the German authorities, in the context of return operations, applied means of restraint 1,098 times for a total of 21,904 foreign nationals returned in 2017, and 673 times for a total of 14,465 persons returned in the period between January and August 2018.

      53.In the course of the return flight on 14 August 2018, coercive measures were applied by the Federal Police to two returnees who attempted to forcefully resist their return.

      One returnee, who had previously attempted to commit suicide and to resist his transfer by the Länder police authorities (see paragraph 28), became agitated during the full-body search in the airport terminal, when Federal Police officers attempted to remove his body-cuff in order to replace it with a more appropriate model (i.e. with Velcro straps rather than metal handcuffs). Further, the wounds on his left forearm had re-opened, requiring the medical doctor to dress them. The returnee was temporarily segregated from other returnees and embarked separately, during which resort to physical force was required to take him inside the aircraft.

      Once seated in the rear of the aircraft (surrounded by five escort officers seated on either side of him, in front and behind), he continued resisting, including by banging his head against the seat, and two of the escorts had to stand up to contain him manually during take-off. Apart from two further minor episodes of agitation, he calmed down as the flight progressed. However, at the moment of handover, he resisted being removed from the aircraft. Consequently, he was immobilised and carried out of the aircraft by a team of up to seven escort officers. Once on the tarmac, he was placed in a separate police vehicle, his body-cuff was removed, and he was handed over to three Afghan police officers, one of whom filmed his handover.

      54.The second returnee complied with the embarkation procedure until the moment when he was seated in the aircraft, at which point he became agitated, started shouting and hitting out in all directions, and attempted to stand up. The two escorts seated on either side of him attempted to keep him seated by holding his arms; they were supported by a back-up team of four escorts, three of whom took up positions behind his seat. One of these escort officers put his arm around the returnee’s neck from behind and used his other hand to pull the returnee’s nose upwards thus enabling his colleague to insert a bite protection into the returnee’s mouth.

      The reaction of the returnee was to increase his resistance, and a second escort officer from the back-up team intervened pulling the returnee’s head down onto an adjacent seat and placing his knee on the returnee’s head in order to exert pressure and gain compliance while the returnee’s hands were tied behind his back with a Velcro strap. Another escort officer applied pressure with his thumb to the returnee’s temple. A second Velcro strap was applied below the returnee’s knees to tie his legs. A helmet was placed on the returnee’s head, additional Velcro straps were applied to his arms and legs, and force was used in order to contain him manually. At this stage, three escorts were holding the returnee from behind his seat and an escort officer was seated either side of him. A sixth escort officer knelt on the returnee’s knees and upper legs, using his weight to keep the returnee seated. After some 15 minutes, this sixth escort officer gripped the returnee’s genitals with his left hand and repeatedly squeezed them for prolonged periods to gain the returnee’s compliance to calm down. When the aircraft took off some ten minutes later, two escorts were still standing upright behind the returnee’s seat to ensure that he remained seated. Shortly thereafter, the returnee calmed down when told that, if he remained compliant, most means of restraint would be removed. He remained cuffed, with his hands tied behind his back, for about one hour. As he remained calm, he was untied.

      55.In the course of this intervention, the delegation observed that, when the first escort officer from the back-up team put his arm around the returnee’s neck, the returnee started struggling to breath and became even more agitated, given that the pressure applied around his throat obstructed his respiratory tract momentarily. The CPT considers that any use of force must avoid inducing a sensation of asphyxia on the person concerned. As is reflected in the relevant internal instructions of the Federal Police, no control technique which impedes a person’s capacity to breath is authorised for use by escort officers.

      Moreover, the delegation observed that, each time the sixth escort officer applied pressure to squeeze the returnee’s genitals, he physically reacted by becoming more agitated. The CPT acknowledges that it will often be a difficult task to enforce a removal order in respect of a foreign national who is determined to stay on a State’s territory. Escorts may on occasion have to use force and apply means of restraint in order to effectively carry out the removal; however, the force used should be no more than is absolutely necessary. To ill-treat a person by squeezing the genitals, a technique which is clearly aimed at inflicting severe pain to gain compliance, is both excessive and inappropriate; this is all the more so given that the person was being restrained by six escorts.

      The CPT recommends that the German authorities take immediate action to end the application of these two techniques by Federal Police escort officers.

      56.The wearing of identification tags by staff involved in removal operations is also an important safeguard against possible abuse. The delegation noted that escort police officers from the Bavarian State Police and from the Federal Police did not wear any identification tag. The CPT recommends that all police escorts from the Federal Police as well as from all Länder police authorities wear a visible identification tag to make them easily identifiable (either by their name or an identification number).

      https://hudoc.cpt.coe.int/eng#{%22sort%22:[%22CPTDocumentDate%20Descending,CPTDocumentID%20Ascending,CPTSectionNumber%20Ascending%22],%22tabview%22:[%22document%22],%22CPTSectionID%22:[%22p-deu-20180813-en-12%22]}
      #rapport

  • Et hop... retour à l’expéditeur! (sic)

    Athènes veut renvoyer en #Turquie 10 000 migrants d’ici fin 2020

    Au lendemain d’un incendie meurtrier dans un camp de migrants situé sur l’île de Lesbos, le gouvernement grec a annoncé plusieurs mesures pour faire face à la crise migratoire.

    Le gouvernement grec a annoncé, lundi 30 septembre, sa volonté de renvoyer en Turquie quelque 10 000 migrants d’ici la fin 2020, après un conseil des ministres convoqué en urgence au lendemain d’un incendie meurtrier et d’émeutes dans un camp de l’île de Lesbos. « De 1 806 retours en quatre ans et demi sous le précédent gouvernement Syriza » d’Alexis Tsipras, le cabinet du premier ministre conservateur, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, veut passer « à 10 000 retours jusqu’à fin 2020 », selon un communiqué publié après le conseil des ministres.

    Avec la multiplication des arrivées d’exilés sur ses îles de la mer Egée, la Grèce vit sa « pire période » migratoire depuis l’accord UE-Turquie de 2016, avec 70 000 migrants et réfugiés sur son territoire, a déclaré lundi à Lesbos le ministre adjoint à la protection civile, Lefteris Oikonomou.

    Le camp de migrants de Moria, sur l’île de Lesbos, s’est réveillé sonné lundi par un incendie qui a tué au moins une réfugiée. Selon les médias grecs, une couverture brûlée retrouvée à côté de la femme morte contiendrait des résidus de peau qui pourraient appartenir à l’enfant de la défunte, un nouveau-né. L’incendie, qui selon des migrants serait parti d’un petit commerce ambulant, a été suivi d’une soirée d’émeutes.
    Les services de l’asile sont débordés

    Parmi les autres mesures annoncées lundi par le gouvernement figurent le renforcement des patrouilles en mer Egée, la poursuite des transferts de migrants des îles vers le continent, la construction de centres fermés pour les illégaux ou ceux dont l’asile a été refusé, ou encore la refonte du système de l’asile.

    Le pacte entre Bruxelles et Ankara, entré en vigueur le 20 mars 2016, prévoit le renvoi en Turquie des migrants illégaux arrivant sur les îles grecques proches de la Turquie (généralement Lesbos, Chios, Kos, Leros et Samos) et des réfugiés syriens pour lesquels la Turquie est considérée comme « un pays sûr ». Il a fait drastiquement baisser le nombre d’arrivées, après la vague qui avait vu passer un million de personnes, en majorité des Syriens, par la Grèce vers le reste de l’UE en 2015 et début 2016.

    Cependant, la plupart des personnes arrivées sur les îles grecques depuis mars 2016 ont demandé l’asile en Grèce pour échapper au renvoi. Les services de l’asile sont débordés et les autorités grecques avaient jusqu’à présent laissé les personnes sur les îles, à l’exception des plus vulnérables, en attendant la réponse définitive à leur demande d’asile. Le gouvernement de gauche d’Alexis Tsipras estimait que les termes du pacte ne permettaient pas de renvoyer en Turquie une personne déboutée de l’asile si elle ne se trouvait pas physiquement sur l’île où elle est arrivée.

    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/09/30/athenes-veut-renvoyer-en-turquie-10-000-migrants-d-ici-fin-2020_6013674_3210

    #paquets_postaux #migrerrance #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Grèce #renvois #expulsions

    ping @kaparia @karine4 @isskein

  • Paris et Rome adoptent « une position commune » sur la répartition des migrants en Europe

    Les pays de l’UE devront participer au « #mécanisme_automatique » de répartition, voulu par MM. Macron et Conte, sous peine de pénalités financières.

    Après des mois de brouille franco-italienne, le président français, Emmanuel Macron, et le chef du gouvernement italien, Giuseppe Conte, se sont déclarés d’accord, mercredi 18 septembre, pour mettre en place un « mécanisme automatique » de répartition des migrants.

    Après deux ans de dissensions sur cet épineux dossier, ils défendront désormais au sein de l’Union européenne (UE) « une position commune pour que tous les pays participent d’une façon ou d’une autre » à l’accueil « ou bien soient pénalisés financièrement », a expliqué M. Macron.
    Lors d’une conférence de presse commune, ils ont aussi réclamé une gestion « plus efficace » du renvoi dans leur pays d’origine des migrants qui n’ont pas droit à l’asile. Le dirigeant italien a souligné que l’Italie ne « laisserait pas les trafiquants décider des entrées sur le territoire », mais aussi jugé qu’il fallait « gérer ce phénomène », quand l’ancien ministre de l’intérieur Matteo Salvini, patron de la Ligue, refusait tout débarquement de migrants.
    La France solidaire

    Regrettant de son côté « l’injustice » vécue par les Italiens, Emmanuel Macron a répété que l’UE n’avait pas été suffisamment solidaire envers l’Italie. « La France est prête à évoluer sur ce point dans le cadre de la remise à plat des accords de Dublin », qui confient actuellement aux pays d’arrivée la charge du traitement des demandes d’asile, a-t-il dit. « Je ne mésestime pas ce que le peuple italien a vécu », a expliqué M. Macron, mais « la réponse au sujet migratoire n’est pas dans le repli mais dans une solution de coopération européenne efficace. »

    Plusieurs ministres de l’intérieur de l’UE (dont les ministres français, allemand et italien) doivent se réunir lundi à Malte pour discuter de ce dossier.

    Les deux dirigeants n’ont toutefois pas évoqué devant la presse certaines des demandes de l’Italie venant en complément de la future répartition automatique des migrants en Europe. Parmi ces points qui restent à éclaircir figurent la répartition non seulement des demandeurs d’asile mais aussi des migrants économiques ainsi que la rotation des ports de débarquement, qui devrait intégrer des ports français. Fermés aux ONG secourant les migrants, les ports italiens se sont entrouverts ces derniers jours en laissant notamment débarquer sur l’île de Lampedusa 82 rescapés.
    Un sommet bilatéral programmé

    La visite du président français, la première d’un dirigeant européen depuis l’arrivée au pouvoir d’une nouvelle coalition en Italie, visait d’abord à rétablir de bonnes relations entre les deux pays, après une année de tensions avec les leaders de la précédente coalition populiste au pouvoir, notamment sur la question migratoire.

    Le chef de l’Etat français n’a passé qu’une soirée dans la capitale italienne, enchaînant un court entretien avec son homologue, Sergio Mattarella, et un dîner de travail avec le premier ministre, Giuseppe Conte, récemment reconduit à la tête d’un nouvel exécutif où le Mouvement cinq étoiles (M5S) est cette fois associé au Parti démocrate (centre gauche) et non à la Ligue (extrême droite).

    Entre l’Italie et la France existe « une amitié indestructible », a assuré le président français dont le déplacement à Rome a permis de programmer, pour 2020 en Italie, un sommet bilatéral, rendez-vous annuel lancé en 1983 mais qui n’avait pas été mis à l’agenda l’an passé pour cause de tensions entre les deux pays.

    https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/09/19/paris-et-rome-vont-defendre-une-position-commune-sur-la-repartition-des-migr
    #répartition #asile #migrations #réfugiés #France #Italie #solidarité #UE #EU #Europe #Dublin #règlement_dublin #coopération #ports

    L’accent est mis aussi sur les #renvois... évidemment :

    ils ont aussi réclamé une gestion « plus efficace » du renvoi dans leur pays d’origine des migrants qui n’ont pas droit à l’asile.

    #machine_à_expulsion

    Et évidemment... zéro prise en compte des compétences, envies, liens, attachements que les migrants/réfugiés pourraient exprimer et qui pourraient être prises en compte dans le choix du pays de leur installation...
    #paquets_postaux

    ping @isskein @karine4

    • Société.L’Italie obtient un accord pour la “redistribution” des migrants

      Lundi 23 septembre, à Malte, les ministres de l’Intérieur de plusieurs pays européens ont trouvé un accord pour mettre en place un mécanisme de répartition des migrants qui arrivent dans les ports méditerranéens. Un succès politique pour le nouveau gouvernement italien.

      https://www.courrierinternational.com/revue-de-presse/societe-litalie-obtient-un-accord-pour-la-redistribution-des-

    • Société.L’Italie obtient un accord pour la “redistribution” des migrants

      Lundi 23 septembre, à Malte, les ministres de l’Intérieur de plusieurs pays européens ont trouvé un accord pour mettre en place un mécanisme de répartition des migrants qui arrivent dans les ports méditerranéens. Un succès politique pour le nouveau gouvernement italien.

      https://www.courrierinternational.com/revue-de-presse/societe-litalie-obtient-un-accord-pour-la-redistribution-des-

    • Déplacement à Rome après la mise en place du nouveau gouvernement italien

      Deux semaines seulement après la mise en place du nouveau gouvernement italien, le Président Emmanuel Macron est le premier Chef d’État à se rendre à Rome pour un dîner de travail avec Giuseppe Conte, Président du Conseil des ministres italien. Cette rencontre était précédée d’un entretien avec Sergio Mattarella, Président de la République italienne.
      La visite en Italie du Président de la République était importante, tant sur le fond, dans le contexte d’un agenda européen chargé après les élections européennes, que sur le plan symbolique.

      (Re)voir la déclaration conjointe à la presse du Président de la République et du Président du Conseil des ministres italien, à l’issue de leur rencontre :

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUXMEP3Kifg

      Déclaration conjointe à la presse du Président de la République et du Président du Conseil des ministres italien

      Merci beaucoup Monsieur le Président du Conseil, cher Giuseppe.

      Je n’ai que très peu de choses à rajouter et rien à retrancher de ce qui vient d’être dit à l’instant par le Président du Conseil. Je suis très heureux d’être ici parmi vous, très heureux d’être aujourd’hui à Rome quelques jours après la formation de votre nouveau gouvernement.

      Je viens de m’entretenir à l’instant avec le Président de la République, Sergio MATTARELLA, après les entretiens que nous avons eu au printemps dernier, lors des commémorations des 500 ans de la mort de Léonard DE VINCI en France, et je suis heureux de vous retrouver ici, cher Giuseppe, à Rome dans ces responsabilités.

      Ma présence aujourd’hui, c’est d’abord la volonté marquée de travailler ensemble pour la relation bilatérale et pour le projet européen, vous l’avez parfaitement rappelé. C’est aussi un message fort et clair envoyé au peuple italien d’amitié de la part du peuple français. Votre Président l’a dit il y a quelques mois, cette amitié est indestructible. Parfois nous ne sommes pas d’accord, il se peut qu’on se dispute, il se peut qu’on ne se comprenne pas mais toujours on se retrouve. Et je crois que nous en sommes là et que la volonté du peuple français est véritablement de travailler avec le peuple italien et de réussir pleinement. Vous l’avez dit Monsieur le Président à l’instant, notre souhait est de renforcer, et nous venons de l’évoquer ensemble, la coopération bilatérale et européenne et je veux revenir simplement sur quelques sujets.

      Le premier évidemment c’est le sujet des migrations. Sur ce sujet je ne mésestime pas ce que depuis 2015 le peuple italien vit, ce que l’Italie a subi, et là aussi avec beaucoup parfois de malentendus, d’incompréhensions, d’injustices qui ont été vues, perçues, et qui ont suscité de la colère. Je crois très profondément, comme vous l’avez dit, que la réponse au sujet migratoire n’est pas dans le repli, la provocation nationaliste mais la construction de solutions et de coopérations européennes réelles et efficaces.

      D’abord, nous vivons une situation, aujourd’hui, qui n’est plus celle de 2015 parce qu’il y a eu un très gros travail qui a été mené pour prévenir avec les États d’origine, pour mieux travailler avec beaucoup de partenaires africains, la situation que nous avons pu connaître alors. Mais ce que nous voulons faire ensemble, c’est poursuivre ce travail. Nos ministres de l’Intérieur se retrouveront dans quelques jours pour travailler sur la base de notre échange. Ils élargiront leur discussion à d’autres collègues européens, je pense en particulier à leur collègue maltais et à l’ensemble des pays de la rive Sud, et ils se retrouveront précisément à Malte, et ils poursuivront ainsi le travail que nous avons pu lancer à Paris au mois de juillet dernier, incluant aussi plusieurs organisations internationales.

      Notre approche doit répondre à trois exigences auxquelles je crois pouvoir dire que nous sommes l’un et l’autre attachés. La première, c’est une exigence d’humanité. On ne peut résoudre, ce conflit, en le faisant aux dépens des vies humaines ou en acceptant des personnes bloquées en mer ou des scènes de noyade que nous avons trop souvent vécues. La deuxième, c’est la solidarité, et c’est ce qui a manqué bien trop souvent en Europe. Je l’ai dit, l’Union européenne n’a pas fait suffisamment preuve de solidarité avec les pays de première arrivée, notamment l’Italie, et la France est prête à évoluer sur ce point dans le cadre de la remise à plat des accords de Dublin. Je souhaite que nous puissions ensemble travailler à une solution nouvelle, plus forte et plus solidaire. Et puis le troisième principe, c’est celui de l’efficacité. Les désaccords politiques ont conduit à une approche qui est, au fond, très inefficace, inefficace pour prévenir les arrivées, inefficace aussi pour gérer ce qu’on appelle les mouvements secondaires, parce qu’avec notre organisation actuelle, nous avons au fond trop de non-coopération entre les États membres, et du coup une situation où beaucoup de femmes et d’hommes qui ont pris tous les risques pour quitter leur pays se retrouvent sur la rive de l’Europe, errent de pays en pays, où les responsabilités sont renvoyées des uns aux autres et où nous sommes collectivement inefficaces à bien protéger ceux qui ont le droit à l’asile et à pouvoir renvoyer au plus vite ceux qui n’y ont pas droit.

      S’agissant des sauvetages en mer et des débarquements, vous l’avez évoqué, Monsieur le Président du Conseil, je suis convaincu que nous pouvons nous mettre d’accord sur un mécanisme européen automatique de répartition de l’accueil des migrants coordonné par la Commission européenne, qui permette de garantir à l’Italie ou à Malte, avant une arrivée, que ses partenaires puissent prendre en charge rapidement toutes les personnes débarquées, et avoir une organisation beaucoup plus solidaire et efficace, comme je viens de le dire, plus largement.

      Pour être justes et efficaces, il nous faut donc partout pouvoir défendre le droit d’asile, qui fait partie, bien souvent, de nos Constitutions, c’est le cas de la France, qui fait partie de nos textes les plus fondamentaux, je pense justement au texte de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme.Et donc protéger le droit d’asile, c’est aussi nous assurer que celles et ceux qui n’y ont pas droit sont reconduits le plus rapidement possible vers leur pays d’origine. C’est notre volonté commune d’avoir, au niveau européen, une plus grande harmonisation du droit d’asile, plus de coopération et une politique plus efficace de réadmission vers les pays d’origine lorsque les cas ne relèvent pas de l’asile. Au total, je crois que nous avons aujourd’hui une fenêtre d’opportunité pour parachever, relancer sur certains points, plus fondamentalement, le travail de remise à plat sur le plan des migrations et de l’asile en Europe aujourd’hui.

      La discussion que nous avons eue ces derniers jours et que nous venons d’avoir avec le Président du Conseil, comme la discussion que nous avons eue avec plusieurs de nos partenaires, en tout cas, me rend déterminé et volontariste sur ce sujet à vos côtés. Je crois, là aussi, que nous pourrons défendre une position commune avec la nouvelle Commission européenne pour que tous les pays participent, sous une forme ou une autre, à la solidarité européenne en la matière, ou bien soient pénalisés financièrement.

      Le deuxième sujet extrêmement important que nous avons discuté et qui est au cœur non seulement de l’agenda bilatéral mais de l’agenda européen, c’est celui de la croissance, de la création d’emplois, du contexte macroéconomique. Le Président du Conseil l’a évoqué. Nous voyons tous les chiffres en Europe, et si aujourd’hui, la croissance se tient à peu près, elle est en deçà de ce que nous avons pu connaître parce qu’il y a les incertitudes géopolitiques, parce qu’il y a la conflictualité commerciale mondiale, parce qu’il y a un ralentissement en Chine qui pèse sur plusieurs économies de la zone euro, parce qu’il y a aussi sans doute une coordination de nos politiques économiques qui n’est plus adaptée.

      Je veux, en la matière, ce soir, et le faire ici a un sens tout particulier, rendre hommage au travail de Mario DRAGHI, et tout particulièrement à ses dernières décisions. Une fois encore avec beaucoup de courage et de clairvoyance, le Président de la Banque centrale européenne a pris les décisions qui convenaient, mais il a aussi fait des déclarations qui convenaient, même si certains ne veulent pas entendre. Je le dis avec force, il a, à mes yeux, raison. La politique monétaire, depuis 2012, a fait le maximum de ce qu’elle pouvait faire pour préserver la situation européenne, éviter la déflation et nous éviter le pire. Il appartient aujourd’hui aux chefs d’État et de gouvernement de prendre leurs responsabilités en ce qui concerne leur budget propre comme en ce qui concerne les décisions que nous aurons à prendre au niveau européen, pour avoir une véritable politique de relance et de demande intérieure. Certains États membres ont des marges de manœuvre, et je salue d’ailleurs les annonces récentes à cet égard des Pays-Bas, qui ont décidé d’un plan d’investissements d’avenir dans lequel, je dois dire, je me retrouve, 50 milliards d’investissements sur les années qui viennent.

      J’attends avec impatience les décisions des autres États membres, et je pense que les décisions budgétaires que nous aurons collectivement à prendre doivent tenir compte de ce contexte macroéconomique et être au rendez-vous de l’investissement, de la relance. Nous en avons besoin parce que nous avons des défis éducatifs en matière de recherche, en matière stratégique, qui sont fondamentaux. Et je crois que nous pouvons garder le sérieux qui relève de nos traités, nous pouvons garder la politique de réformes qui relève de chaque pays, mais que nous devons conduire, et nous pouvons garder la lucidité sur le contexte macroéconomique qui est le nôtre, et refuser, en quelque sorte, que notre continent rentre dans la stagnation et plutôt s’arme pour préparer son avenir.

      Nous avons évoqué, avec le Président du Conseil, plusieurs autres sujets, évidemment la politique culturelle et les coopérations culturelles entre nos pays. Nous avons des échéances à venir extrêmement importantes : l’exposition Léonard DE VINCI, les expositions RAPHAËL qui vont être l’objet d’échanges, de partenariats entre nos deux pays et qui sont au cœur, je crois, de ce regard réciproque, de cette fierté que nous portons ensemble.

      Nous avons évoqué et nous allons travailler ce soir sur les sujets climatiques. Là aussi, nous croyons l’un et l’autre dans un agenda ambitieux sur le plan européen d’investissement, d’une banque climatique qui doit être au cœur du projet de la prochaine Commission, d’un prix du CO2 qui doit aussi prendre en compte ce défi et d’une stratégie neutralité carbone à l’horizon 2050, pour laquelle nous espérons finir de convaincre les derniers partenaires réticents. C’est cette même stratégie que nous allons défendre ensemble à New York lors du sommet climat, puis au moment où nous aurons à prendre nos engagements pour le Fonds vert dans les prochaines semaines.

      Enfin, le Président du Conseil l’a évoqué, sur plusieurs sujets internationaux, là aussi, nous avons conjugués nos efforts et nos vues. Et je crois que le sujet de la crise libyenne, qui nous a beaucoup occupé ces dernières années, fait l’objet aujourd’hui d’une vraie convergence franco-italienne, vraie convergence parce que nous avons su travailler ensemble pour passer des messages à nos partenaires. Je veux saluer la rencontre que vous avez eue avec le Président AL-SARAJ cet après-midi, et avec une conviction pleinement partagée : l’issue ne peut être trouvée que par le compromis politique et les discussions. C’est ce que nous avons d’ailleurs porté ensemble lors du G7 de Biarritz en défendant l’idée d’une conférence internationale pour la Libye incluant toutes les parties prenantes et une conférence inter-libyenne permettant cette réconciliation de toutes les parties au sein de la Libye. Vous avez rappelé ce point à l’instant. Et à ce titre, l’initiative portée par nos deux ministres des Affaires étrangères dans quelques jours à New York, rassemblant l’ensemble de leurs homologues concernés, est, à mes yeux, la mise en œuvre très concrète de cette volonté et sera, comme vous l’avez dit, une étape importante.

      Voilà sur quelques-uns des sujets importants de coopération économique, culturelle, industrielle, sur les sujets de défense dont nous allons continuer à parler dans quelques instants, sur les sujets européens, la volonté qui est la nôtre d’œuvrer ensemble. Dans quelques semaines, nous nous retrouverons autour de la table du Conseil pour parler de ces sujets et de quelques autres, et je me réjouis, Monsieur le Président du Conseil, de la perspective que vous avez ouverte d’un prochain sommet entre nos deux pays au début de l’année prochaine, qui se tiendra donc en Italie, qui nous permettra de poursuivre ce travail commun et de poursuivre aussi les travaux que nous avions lancé pour un traité du Quirinal, et donc pour parachever aussi toutes les coopérations communes entre nos deux pays. Je vous remercie.

      https://www.elysee.fr/emmanuel-macron/2019/09/18/deplacement-a-rome-apres-la-mise-en-place-du-nouveau-gouvernement-italien

    • The “#temporary_solidarity_mechanism” on relocation of people rescued at sea - what does it say?

      Germany, France, Italy and Malta have drafted a declaration (http://www.statewatch.org/news/2019/sep/eu-temporary-voluntary-relocation-mechanism-declaration.pdf) establishing a “predictable and efficient temporary solidarity mechanism” aimed at ensuring the “dignified disembarkation” of people rescued at sea in the Mediterranean. If those rescued are eligible for international protection they will be relocated to a participating EU member state within four weeks, while ineligible persons will be subject to “effective and quick return.”

      See: Joint declaration of intent on a controlled emergency procedure - voluntary commitments by member states for a predictable temporary solidarity mechanism (23 September 2019: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2019/sep/eu-temporary-voluntary-relocation-mechanism-declaration.pdf)

      The mechanism set out in the declaration is designed to address “the need to protect human life and provide assistance to any person in distress,” whilst preventing the emergence of any new irregular maritime routes into the EU. All signatories will be obliged to call on other EU and Schengen Member States to participate. Offers - or refusals - to do so are expected (https://www.dw.com/en/five-eu-interior-ministers-want-quotas-for-shipwrecked-refugees/a-50539788) to come at the Justice and Home Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 8 October.

      The mechanism

      Signatories to the declaration will have to ensure that persons rescued on the high seas are disembarked “in a place of safety”. Member states may also “offer an alternative place of safety on a voluntary basis”. Where rescue is carried out by a state-owned vessel, disembarkation will take place in the territory of the flag State.

      Following disembarkation, participating states should provide “swift relocation, which should not take longer than 4 weeks”, a process which will be coordinated by the European Commission - as has been the case with recent voluntary relocations (https://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-migrants-ocean-viking-4779483-Aug2019) following rescue at sea.

      The declaration requires participating states to declare pledges for relocation prior to disembarkation and “as a minimum, security and medical screening of all migrants and other relevant measures.” This should be based on “standard operating procedures, building on and improving existing practices by streamlining procedures and the full use of EURODAC,” the EU database of asylum-seekers’ fingerprints, with “support of EU Agencies, e.g. on EURODAC registration and initial interviewing.”

      It is unknown to which standard operating procedures the text refers (Statewatch has previously published those applicable in the Italian ’hotspots’ (http://statewatch.org/news/2016/may/it-hotspots-standard-operating-procedures-en.pdf)), nor what precisely “streamlining procedures” may entail for individuals seeking international protection.

      EU agencies Europol, Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) are present in the Greek hotspots, where detainees are not provided (https://flygtning.dk/system/siden-blev-ikke-fundet?aspxerrorpath=/media/5251031/rights-at-risk_drc-policy-brief2019.pdf) with either interpreters or adequate information on removal procedures; and those in Italy, where the EU’s own Fundamental Rights Agency has identified (https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2019-opinion-hotspots-update-03-2019_en.pdf) a number of serious problems.

      States may cease participation in the mechanism in cases of “disproportionate migratory pressure,” to be calculated using two rather vague criteria: “limitations in reception capacities or a high number of applications for international protection.” There is no further detail on how these will be determined.

      The mechanism will be valid for no less than six months and may be renewed, although it could be terminated “in the case of misuse by third parties”, a term with no further explanation. Furthermore, if within six months the number of relocated people rises “substantially”, consultations between participating member states will begin - during which “the entire mechanism might be suspended.”

      At the same time, the text calls for “advance on the reform of the Common European Asylum System,” which should provide a binding and permanent mechanism - if the member states can ever agree on such rules.

      The announcement on the signing of the declaration by the four member states was welcomed by Amnesty International. Eva Geddie, Director of the European Institutions Office, said (https://www.amnesty.eu/news/malta-asylum-seeker-disembarkation-deal-shows-a-more-humane-approach-is-poss): “We hope this mechanism will put an end to the obscene spectacle of people left stranded on boats for weeks waiting to know where, or even if, they can disembark.” The President of the European Parliament also welcomed the news (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20190923IPR61761/sassoli-migration-agreement-respects-fundamental-principles-of-ep-pr). The devil, however, may be in the detail.

      Return as a priority

      Return “immediately after disembarkation,” where applicable, is one of the commitments set out in paragraph 4. This seems to imply that some form of asylum assessment will take place at sea, an idea that has previously been dismissed (https://www.ecre.org/italys-proposed-idea-of-hotspots-at-sea-is-unlawful-says-asgi) as illegal and unworkable.

      Return is emphasised as a priority again in paragraph 7, which recalls the operational support role of both Frontex and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) in “the effective and quick return of those not eligible to international protection in the EU”.

      The use of “appropriate leverages, to ensure full cooperation of countries of origin,” is encouraged. Using aid and trade policy as ’incentives’ for non-EU states to readmit their own nationals has for some years now been high on the policy agenda.

      Doublethink ahoy

      The declaration also sets out certain requirements for “all vessels engaged in rescue operations”, including “not to send light signals or any other form of communication to facilitate the departure and embarkation of vessels carrying migrants from African shores” and:

      “not to obstruct the Search and Rescue operations by official Coast Guard vessels, including the Libyan Coast Guard, and to provide for specific measures to safeguard the security of migrants and operators.”

      Whether ’rescue’ by the Libyan Coast Guard is compatible with “the security of migrants” is doubtful - return to Libya means a return to inhumane and degrading conditions and there is clear evidence (https://www.glanlaw.org/single-post/2018/05/08/Legal-action-against-Italy-over-its-coordination-of-Libyan-Coast-Guard-pull) of the Libyan Coast Guard knowingly endangering the lives of migrants in distress at sea.

      EU governments are well aware of these issues. A recent document (http://www.statewatch.org/news/2019/sep/eu-libya.htm) sent to national delegations by the Finnish Presidency of the Council highlighted that:

      Another major issue is that of migrants and refugees rescued or intercepted at sea being transferred to detention centres and the lack of traceability, transparency and accountability… The Libyan government has not taken steps to improve the situation in the centres. The government’s reluctance to address the problems raises the question of its own involvement."

      Beefing up the Libyan Coast Guard and aerial surveillance

      The increasing role of the Libyan Coast Guard - and the maritime agencies of other states such as Morocco - is being deliberately enhanced by the EU. Finance and training is being provided whilst national governments are placing increasing pressure on private rescue operations (http://www.statewatch.org/news/2019/sep/es-mo-sar.htm).

      Any member state that signs up to the declaration will be making a commitment to continue “enhancing the capacities of coast guards of southern Mediterranean third countries,” at the same time as encouraging “full respect of human rights in those countries.”

      One key means for assisting with the activities of non-EU coast guard agencies is “EU-led aerial surveillance”:

      “in order to ensure that migrant boats are detected early with a view to fight migrant smuggling networks, human trafficking and related criminal activity and minimizing the risk of loss of life at sea.”

      The EU’s Operation Sophia now has no boats and is largely relying on aerial surveillance to carry out its work. A recent internal Operation Sophia document seen by Statewatch says that:

      “Aerial assets will be used to enhance maritime situational awareness and the information collected will only be shared with the responsible regional Maritime Rescue Coordination Centres (MRCC).”

      That is likely to be the Libyan MRCC. According to a March 2019 letter (http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-344-Commission-and-Italy-tie-themselves-up-in-knots-over-libya.pdf) from the European Commission to Frontex’s Executive Director, the Italian MRCC also acts as a “communication relay” for its Libyan counterpart.

      Member states are urged to contribute assets to these surveillance operations. It is noteworthy that the declaration contains no call for states to provide vessels or other equipment for search and rescue operations.

      http://www.statewatch.org/news/2019/sep/eu-relocation-deal.htm

  • Ratification de l’#accord_de_coopération entre l’#Union_européenne et l’#Afghanistan

    Alors que les députés viennent de mettre un point final au processus de ratification de l’accord de coopération entre l’Union européenne et l’Afghanistan, Amnesty International France et la Cimade déclarent :

    « En votant cet accord, les députés ouvrent la voie à des renvois plus importants vers l’Afghanistan alors même que la situation dans le pays est catastrophique et dangereuse. À quelques jours d’un débat sur les questions de migrations et d’asile à l’Assemblée nationale, la ratification de cet accord envoie un signal dangereux en faveur de la poursuite et de l’intensification d’expulsions de personnes vers des pays qui ne peuvent garantir la protection de leurs droits les plus fondamentaux. »

    Une vidéo sur le site d’Amnesty International France rassemble également des témoignages de ressortissants afghans renvoyés de force dans leur pays à partir de l’Europe. L’action commune « Halte aux expulsions vers l’Afghanistan » (https://www.amnesty.fr/refugies-et-migrants/petitions/halte-aux-expulsions-vers-lafghanistan), qui demande un moratoire sur les expulsions d’Afghans, a déjà rassemblé plus de 87 000 signatures.

    https://www.lacimade.org/presse/ratification-de-laccord-de-cooperation-entre-lunion-europeenne-et-lafghani
    #accord #UE #EU #renvois #expulsion #asile #migrations #réfugiés #expulsions

  • Malawi to evacuate citizens from South Africa

    Malawi says it will repatriate its nationals from South Africa, following an upsurge in xenophobic violence.

    At least five foreigners, including a 14-year-old boy, have been killed in attacks in South Africa’s coastal city of Durban since last week.

    Some foreign-owned shops in the main city Johannesburg have shut amid fears that the violence could spread.

    Zimbabwe has also condemned the attacks, blamed on locals who accuse foreigners of taking their jobs.

    Tens of thousands of foreigners, mostly from other African states and Asia, have moved to South Africa since white-minority rule ended in 1994.

    At least 62 people died in xenophobic attacks that swept South Africa in 2008.

    Malawi is the only country which has so far decided to repatriate its citizens.

    Information Minister Kondwani Nankhumwa said the first group would return at the weekend.

    About 420 Malawians are reportedly living in refugee camps in Durban after fleeing the violence, he said.

    The BBC’s Raphael Tenthani reports from Blantyre that he received a call from a Malawian in Durban who said saw he some Malawians being killed - including a close friend who was burned alive.

    Mr Nankhumwa called on the African Union (AU) and the Southern African Development Community (Sadc) to intervene to help protect foreigners.

    “This is unfortunate coming at a time we are working on regional integration,” he said at a press conference.

    “We urge the government of South Africa to protect foreigners,” he added.

    At the scene: Milton Nkosi, BBC News

    Standing in the middle of a football field that has been turned into a refugee camp overnight in Durban’s Chatsworth township, one cannot help but feel ashamed of being South African.

    There are white and green tents dotted around housing destitute African migrant families who fled the violence meted out to them by their South African hosts.

    Two weeks ago locals began attacking and looting properties owned by fellow Africans, calling them “kwerekwere”, a derogatory word for African migrants.

    I did not even have to ask Memory Mahlatini, a Zimbabwean who works as a nanny, what happened to her because her story was written all over her face.

    Her eyes alone made me look down in shame as she explained how a group of South Africans came to her rented home last Monday evening just as they were preparing to sleep and demanded that they go back to where they came from.

    Fear and shame in South Africa

    In total, the violence has left about 5,000 foreigners homeless in Durban, the main city in South Africa’s KwaZulu-Natal province, local media reports.

    On Wednesday, the violence spread to the province’s second city, Pietermaritzburg, where foreign-owned shops were looted.

    Verulam, a town about 30km (18 miles) north of Durban, has been hit by similar violence.

    The government has ordered police to step up patrols to prevent the violence from escalating.

    The governing African National Congress (ANC) said in a statement that South Africans should “hang our heads in shame in the face of these misguided and misplaced assaults”.

    Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini has been accused of fuelling xenophobia after he was widely quoted as saying at a meeting last month that foreigners should “please go back to their countries”.

    He denied being xenophobic and claimed he had been mistranslated.

    South Africa’s official unemployment rate stands at 24%, but some analysts believe that it is much higher.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-32316731
    #réfugiés #asile #migrations #Malawi #Afrique_du_Sud #réfugiés_malawiens #renvois #rapatriement #expulsion

  • Nigerian migrants struggle to reintegrate after Libya ordeal

    Emerging from her ordeal, Gloria considers herself “privileged”. Last year, the 26-year-old left Nigeria with four other women, dreaming of a better life in Europe.

    On a tortuous journey, three of the five friends died before reaching Libya, where the two survivors were stranded for almost a year. Now only Gloria is back home in Nigeria.

    She dreamed of being a fashion designer but now sews synthetic tracksuits in a shabby workshop in Benin City, southern Nigeria, for 15,000 naira a month ($41.50, 38 euros).

    “After transport, the money is almost finished”, she says.

    Still, she adds quickly, she “thanks God for having a job”.

    Her employment is part of a training programme, set up by southern Edo State, the departure point for most Nigerian migrants.

    Gloria is one of nearly 14,000 young Nigerians to have returned from Libya since 2017 under a United Nations voluntary repatriation programme.

    She and the other returnees quoted in this story asked not to be identified by their real names.

    She is “not asking for too much”, just a roof over her head and to be able to eat, Gloria tells AFP.

    But she blames herself for daring to dream that life could be better elsewhere and believing the smugglers’ promises that they would reach Europe within two weeks.

    – Broke and broken -

    In Libya, prospects of crossing the Mediterranean vanished, after a tightening of European Union immigration policies.

    Many spend months, even years stranded in Libya, sold as slaves by their smugglers.

    But once back home in Nigeria, life is even more difficult than before: saddled with debt, struggling to find work, broken by their treatment at the hands of the traffickers and by their failed dreams.

    Human Rights Watch highlighted the “continuing anguish” that returnees face.

    Many suffer long-term mental and physical health problems as well as social stigma on returning to Nigeria, the report released last month said.

    Government-run centres tasked with looking after them are poorly funded and “unable to meet survivors’ multiple needs for long-term comprehensive assistance”, it added.

    Edo State has set up a support programme which is rare in Nigeria.

    The state hosts some 4,800 of the nearly 14,000 returnees — most aged 17 to 35 and with no diploma or formal qualifications.

    Under the scheme, they can travel for free to Benin City, Edo’s capital, stay two nights in a hotel, receive an hour of psychological support and an about 1,000-euro allowance.

    It barely moves the needle for those starting again but is enough to stoke envy in a country where state aid is scarce and 83 million people live in extreme poverty.

    – Stigma -

    Showing potential students around, Ukinebo Dare, of the Edo Innovates vocational training programme, says many youngsters grumble that returnees get “preferential treatment”.

    In modern classrooms in Benin City, a few hundred students learn to “code”, do photography, start a small business and learn marketing in courses open to all.

    “Classes are both for the youth and returnees, (be)cause we don’t want the stigma to affect them,” Dare said.

    “It’s a priority for us to give youth, who are potential migrants, opportunities in jobs they can be interested in.”

    According to Nigeria’s National Bureau of Statistics, 55 percent of the under-35s were unemployed at the end of last year.

    Tike had a low paying job before leaving Nigeria in February 2017 but since returning from Libya says his life is “more, more, more harder than before”.

    Although he returned “physically” in December 2017 he says his “mindset was fully corrupted”.

    “I got paranoid. I couldn’t think straight. I couldn’t sleep, always looking out if there is any danger,” he said, at the tiny flat he shares with his girlfriend, also back from Libya, and their four-month-old daughter.

    – Crime -

    A few months after returning, and with no psychological support, Tike decided to train to be a butcher.

    But, more than a year since he registered for help with reintegration programmes, including one run by the International Organization for Migration, he has not found a job and has no money to start his own business.

    “We, the youth, we have no job. What we have is cultism (occult gangs),” Tike says.

    “People see it as a way of getting money, an excuse for getting into crime.”

    Since last year, when Nigeria was still in its longest economic recession in decades, crime has increased in the state of Edo, according to official data.

    “Returnees are seen as people who are coming to cause problems in the community,” laments Lilian Garuba, of the Special Force against Illegal Migration.

    “They see them as failure, and not for what they are: victims.”

    – Debt spiral -

    Peter, 24, was arrested a few days after his return.

    His mother had borrowed money from a neighbourhood lender to raise the 1,000 euros needed to pay his smuggler.

    “As soon as he heard I was back, he came to see her. She couldn’t pay (the debt), so I was arrested by the police,” he told AFP, still shaking.

    Financially crippled, his mother had to borrow more money from another lender to pay off her debts.

    Peter’s last trip was already his second attempt.

    “When I first came back from Libya, I thought I was going to try another country. I tried, but in Morocco it was even worse and thank God I was able to return to Nigeria,” he said, three weeks after getting back.

    “Now I have nothing, nothing,” he said, his voice breaking.

    “All I think about is ’kill yourself’, but what would I gain from it? I can’t do that to my mother.”

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-7471729/Nigerian-migrants-struggle-reintegrate-Libya-ordeal.html
    #réintégration #Nigeria #asile #Libye #retour_volontaire #retour_au_pays #renvois #expulsions #migrations #réfugiés #Assisted_Return_and_Reintegration_Programmes
    ping @isskein @_kg_

    • Au Nigeria, la difficile réintégration des migrants rapatriés au lendemain du cauchemar libyen

      Après avoir été la proie des passeurs dans l’espoir d’une traversée pour l’Europe, 14 000 Nigérians sont revenus au pays, où ils sont souvent stigmatisés et rejetés.

      Gloria se considère comme une « privilégiée ». Elle est partie avec quatre autres filles vers l’Europe, mais, après avoir vécu l’enfer pendant près d’un an bloquée en Libye, elle est la seule à avoir été rapatriée au Nigeria. Trois de ses amies sont mortes pendant le voyage.

      La jeune femme de 26 ans a même trouvé un petit boulot de retour à Benin City, grâce à un programme de formation mis en place par l’Etat d’Edo, une région du sud du Nigeria d’où partent encore la majorité des candidats nigérians à l’exil.

      Gloria rêvait de devenir styliste. A la place, elle coud des survêtements synthétiques à la chaîne dans un atelier miteux pour 15 000 nairas par mois (40 euros), mais « remercie Dieu d’avoir un travail ».

      « Après avoir payé le transport pour rentrer à la maison, il ne reste presque rien, assure Gloria, dans un joli tee-shirt jaune. Mais je ne me plains pas. Je ne veux pas en demander trop. J’ai juste besoin d’un toit et de quoi manger », confie-t-elle.
      « Ne pas en demander trop »

      Comme beaucoup parmi les 14 000 jeunes Nigérians rentrés de Libye depuis 2017, Gloria « ne “veut” pas en demander trop ». Elle s’en veut encore d’avoir un jour osé rêver que la vie pouvait être meilleure ailleurs, et d’avoir cru naïvement des passeurs promettant de rejoindre l’Europe en moins de deux semaines.

      La plupart des Nigérians rapatriés via le programme de retour volontaire des Nations unies ont entre 17 et 35 ans et sont sans diplôme. Pendant des mois, et pour certains des années, ils sont restés bloqués en Libye, vendus, maltraités, extorqués par leurs passeurs, et incapables de traverser la Méditerranée avec le durcissement des politiques d’immigration de l’Union européenne.

      De retour dans leur pays d’origine, ils se retrouvent souvent confrontés à une vie encore plus difficile que lorsqu’ils sont partis : criblés de dettes, sans emploi, brisés par les tortures de leurs trafiquants et par leurs rêves échoués.

      Un rapport de Human Rights Watch publié le 27 août dénonce l’état terrible des « survivants de la traite » à leur retour. Beaucoup souffrent notamment de « troubles psychologiques graves », de « problèmes de santé et sont stigmatisés ». Les quelques centres ou associations qui existent pour s’occuper d’eux disposent de très peu d’aide financière et « sont incapables de répondre aux besoins des survivants sur le long terme ».

      L’Etat d’Edo, qui a dû accueillir à lui seul 4 800 des 14 000 rapatriés nigérians depuis 2017, a mis en place un rare programme de soutien pour ces populations extrêmement vulnérables : un transport gratuit à leur descente de l’avion de l’aéroport de Lagos jusqu’à Benin City, deux nuits d’hôtel, une heure de soutien psychologique et une allocation d’une centaine d’euros environ. C’est une goutte d’eau pour affronter une nouvelle vie, mais assez pour alimenter les jalousies dans un pays où les aides d’Etat sont quasiment inexistantes et où 83 millions de personnes vivent sous le seuil de l’extrême pauvreté (1,90 dollar par jour et par personne).
      « Retrouver la vie »

      La société les montre du doigt et les surnomme avec dédain les « retournés » ou les « déportés ». « Les gens disent que les “retournés” ont des traitements préférentiels », explique Ukinebo Dare, responsable du programme Edo Innovates de formation professionnelle ouvert à tous à Benin City. Il en fait la visite guidée : des salles de classe ultra modernes où des étudiants apprennent à « coder », à faire de la photographie, à monter une petite entreprise ou le B.A. ba du marketing.

      « Nous veillons à les mélanger avec d’autres jeunes. Nous ne voulons pas qu’ils soient stigmatisés, explique la jeune femme. C’est une priorité d’offrir des formations pour tous les jeunes, car ce sont autant de potentiels migrants. »

      Selon le Bureau national des statistiques, 55 % des moins de 35 ans n’avaient pas d’emploi au Nigeria fin 2018. Des chiffres particulièrement inquiétants dans ce pays qui a l’une des croissances démographiques les plus élevées au monde.

      Tike, lui, avait un petit boulot avant de tenter de gagner l’Europe en février 2017. « Quand je pense au passé, j’ai envie de pleurer », lâche-t-il dans son minuscule appartement où il vit avec sa petite amie, elle aussi de retour de Libye, et leur fille de 4 mois. Tike est rentré « physiquement » en décembre 2017. Son esprit, lui, était encore « là-haut », paralysé dans la « paranoïa » et les « traumas », confie-t-il.

      Mais quelques mois plus tard, sans aucun soutien psychologique, il a « retrouvé la vie », comme il dit, et a décidé de suivre une formation en boucherie. Cela fait plus d’un an qu’il a monté des dossiers auprès de diverses organisations d’aide à la réintégration, dont l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM), mais il n’a pas trouvé d’emploi et n’a aucun argent pour démarrer sa propre société. « Beaucoup de jeunes se tournent vers les “cultes”, les gangs locaux, reconnaît Tike. Ils sont facilement recrutés par les mafias qui leur promettent un peu d’argent. »
      Spirale de pauvreté

      Depuis l’année 2018, une période très difficile économiquement pour le pays, la criminalité a augmenté dans l’Etat d’Edo, selon les données officielles. « Les “retournés” sont tenus pour responsables, regrette Lilian Garuba, de la Force spéciale contre la migration illégale, une antenne contre le trafic des êtres humains mise en place par l’Etat d’Edo. La société les perçoit comme des problèmes et non pour ce qu’ils sont : des victimes. »

      Peter, 24 ans, a été arrêté quelques jours après son retour. Sa mère avait emprunté de l’argent à un créancier du quartier pour réunir le millier d’euros nécessaire afin de payer les passeurs. « Dès qu’il a entendu dire que j’étais revenu, il a menacé ma famille. La police est venue m’arrêter », raconte-t-il à l’AFP, encore tremblant.

      Sa mère a dû réemprunter de l’argent à un autre créancier pour éponger ses dettes. Une spirale de pauvreté dont Peter ne sait comment s’extraire, sauf peut-être en rêvant, encore et toujours de l’Europe. Il en est déjà à deux tentatives infructueuses.
      « Quand je suis rentré la première fois de Libye, je me suis dit que j’allais essayer en passant par un autre pays. Mais au Maroc, c’était encore pire et, grâce à Dieu j’ai pu rentrer au Nigeria. » C’était il y a quelques semaines. « Depuis je n’ai plus rien, rien, lâche-t-il la gorge nouée. Une voix à l’intérieur de moi me dit “Tue-toi, finis-en !” Mais bon… Ça servirait à quoi ? Je ne peux pas faire ça à ma mère. »

      https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2019/09/20/au-nigeria-la-reintegration-difficile-des-migrants-rapatries-au-lendemain-du

      #pauvreté #OIM #IOM

  • Le Niger, #nouvelle frontière de l’Europe et #laboratoire de l’asile

    Les politiques migratoires européennes, toujours plus restrictives, se tournent vers le Sahel, et notamment vers le Niger – espace de transit entre le nord et le sud du Sahara. Devenu « frontière » de l’Europe, environné par des pays en conflit, le Niger accueille un nombre important de réfugiés sur son sol et renvoie ceux qui n’ont pas le droit à cette protection. Il ne le fait pas seul. La présence de l’Union européenne et des organisations internationales est visible dans le pays ; des opérations militaires y sont menées par des armées étrangères, notamment pour lutter contre la pression terroriste à ses frontières... au risque de brouiller les cartes entre enjeux sécuritaires et enjeux humanitaires.

    On confond souvent son nom avec celui de son voisin anglophone, le Nigéria, et peu de gens savent le placer sur une carte. Pourtant, le Niger est un des grands pays du Sahel, cette bande désertique qui court de l’Atlantique à la mer Rouge, et l’un des rares pays stables d’Afrique de l’Ouest qui offrent encore une possibilité de transit vers la Libye et la Méditerranée. Environné par des pays en conflit ou touchés par le terrorisme de Boko Haram et d’autres groupes, le Niger accueille les populations qui fuient le Mali et la région du lac Tchad et celles évacuées de Libye.

    « Dans ce contexte d’instabilité régionale et de contrôle accru des déplacements, la distinction entre l’approche sécuritaire et l’approche humanitaire s’est brouillée », explique la chercheuse Florence Boyer, fellow de l’Institut Convergences Migrations, actuellement accueillie au Niger à l’Université Abdou Moumouni de Niamey. Géographe et anthropologue (affiliée à l’Urmis au sein de l’IRD, l’Institut de recherche pour le Développement), elle connaît bien le Niger, où elle se rend régulièrement depuis vingt ans pour étudier les migrations internes et externes des Nigériens vers l’Algérie ou la Libye voisines, au nord, et les pays du Golfe de Guinée, au sud et à l’ouest. Sa recherche porte actuellement sur le rôle que le Niger a accepté d’endosser dans la gestion des migrations depuis 2014, à la demande de plusieurs membres de l’Union européenne (UE) pris dans la crise de l’accueil des migrants.
    De la libre circulation au contrôle des frontières

    « Jusqu’à 2015, le Niger est resté cet espace traversé par des milliers d’Africains de l’Ouest et de Nigériens remontant vers la Libye sans qu’il y ait aucune entrave à la circulation ou presque », raconte la chercheuse. La plupart venaient y travailler. Peu tentaient la traversée vers l’Europe, mais dès le début des années 2000, l’UE, Italie en tête, cherche à freiner ce mouvement en négociant avec Kadhafi, déplaçant ainsi la frontière de l’Europe de l’autre côté de la Méditerranée. La chute du dictateur libyen, dans le contexte des révolutions arabes de 2011, bouleverse la donne. Déchirée par une guerre civile, la Libye peine à retenir les migrants qui cherchent une issue vers l’Europe. Par sa position géographique et sa relative stabilité, le Niger s’impose progressivement comme un partenaire de la politique migratoire de l’UE.

    « Le Niger est la nouvelle frontière de l’Italie. »

    Marco Prencipe, ambassadeur d’Italie à Niamey

    Le rôle croissant du Niger dans la gestion des flux migratoires de l’Afrique vers l’Europe a modifié les parcours des migrants, notamment pour ceux qui passent par Agadez, dernière ville du nord avant la traversée du Sahara. Membre du Groupe d’études et de recherches Migrations internationales, Espaces, Sociétés (Germes) à Niamey, Florence Boyer observe ces mouvements et constate la présence grandissante dans la capitale nigérienne du Haut-Commissariat des Nations-Unies pour les réfugiés (HCR) et de l’Organisation internationale des migrations (OIM) chargée, entre autres missions, d’assister les retours de migrants dans leur pays.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlIwqYKrw7c

    « L’île de Lampedusa se trouve aussi loin du Nord de l’Italie que de la frontière nigérienne, note Marco Prencipe, l’ambassadeur d’Italie à Niamey, le Niger est la nouvelle frontière de l’Italie. » Une affirmation reprise par plusieurs fonctionnaires de la délégation de l’UE au Niger rencontrés par Florence Boyer et Pascaline Chappart. La chercheuse, sur le terrain à Niamey, effectue une étude comparée sur des mécanismes d’externalisation de la frontière au Niger et au Mexique. « Depuis plusieurs années, la politique extérieure des migrations de l’UE vise à délocaliser les contrôles et à les placer de plus en plus au sud du territoire européen, explique la postdoctorante à l’IRD, le mécanisme est complexe : les enjeux pour l’Europe sont à la fois communautaires et nationaux, chaque État membre ayant sa propre politique ».

    En novembre 2015, lors du sommet euro-africain de La Valette sur la migration, les autorités européennes lancent le Fonds fiduciaire d’urgence pour l’Afrique « en faveur de la stabilité et de la lutte contre les causes profondes de la migration irrégulière et du phénomène des personnes déplacées en Afrique ». Doté à ce jour de 4,2 milliards d’euros, le FFUA finance plusieurs types de projets, associant le développement à la sécurité, la gestion des migrations à la protection humanitaire.

    Le président nigérien considère que son pays, un des plus pauvres de la planète, occupe une position privilégiée pour contrôler les migrations dans la région. Le Niger est désormais le premier bénéficiaire du Fonds fiduciaire, devant des pays de départ comme la Somalie, le Nigéria et surtout l’Érythrée d’où vient le plus grand nombre de demandeurs d’asile en Europe.

    « Le Niger s’y retrouve dans ce mélange des genres entre lutte contre le terrorisme et lutte contre l’immigration “irrégulière”. »

    Florence Boyer, géographe et anthropologue

    Pour l’anthropologue Julien Brachet, « le Niger est peu à peu devenu un pays cobaye des politiques anti-migrations de l’Union européenne, (...) les moyens financiers et matériels pour lutter contre l’immigration irrégulière étant décuplés ». Ainsi, la mission européenne EUCAP Sahel Niger a ouvert une antenne permanente à Agadez en 2016 dans le but d’« assister les autorités nigériennes locales et nationales, ainsi que les forces de sécurité, dans le développement de politiques, de techniques et de procédures permettant d’améliorer le contrôle et la lutte contre les migrations irrégulières ».

    « Tout cela ne serait pas possible sans l’aval du Niger, qui est aussi à la table des négociations, rappelle Florence Boyer. Il ne faut pas oublier qu’il doit faire face à la pression de Boko Haram et d’autres groupes terroristes à ses frontières. Il a donc intérêt à se doter d’instruments et de personnels mieux formés. Le Niger s’y retrouve dans ce mélange des genres entre la lutte contre le terrorisme et la lutte contre l’immigration "irrégulière". »

    Peu avant le sommet de La Valette en 2015, le Niger promulgue la loi n°2015-36 sur « le trafic illicite de migrants ». Elle pénalise l’hébergement et le transport des migrants ayant l’intention de franchir illégalement la frontière. Ceux que l’on qualifiait jusque-là de « chauffeurs » ou de « transporteurs » au volant de « voitures taliban » (des 4x4 pick-up transportant entre 20 et 30 personnes) deviennent des « passeurs ». Une centaine d’arrestations et de saisies de véhicules mettent fin à ce qui était de longue date une source légale de revenus au nord du Niger. « Le but reste de bloquer la route qui mène vers la Libye, explique Pascaline Chappart. L’appui qu’apportent l’UE et certains pays européens en coopérant avec la police, les douanes et la justice nigérienne, particulièrement en les formant et les équipant, a pour but de rendre l’État présent sur l’ensemble de son territoire. »

    Des voix s’élèvent contre ces contrôles installés aux frontières du Niger sous la pression de l’Europe. Pour Hamidou Nabara de l’ONG nigérienne JMED (Jeunesse-Enfance-Migration-Développement), qui lutte contre la pauvreté pour retenir les jeunes désireux de quitter le pays, ces dispositifs violent le principe de la liberté de circulation adopté par les pays d’Afrique de l’Ouest dans le cadre de la Cedeao. « La situation des migrants s’est détériorée, dénonce-t-il, car si la migration s’est tarie, elle continue sous des voies différentes et plus dangereuses ». La traversée du Sahara est plus périlleuse que jamais, confirme Florence Boyer : « Le nombre de routes s’est multiplié loin des contrôles, mais aussi des points d’eau et des secours. À ce jour, nous ne disposons pas d’estimations solides sur le nombre de morts dans le désert, contrairement à ce qui se passe en Méditerranée ».

    Partenaire de la politique migratoire de l’Union européenne, le Niger a également développé une politique de l’asile. Il accepte de recevoir des populations en fuite, expulsées ou évacuées des pays voisins : les expulsés d’Algérie recueillis à la frontière, les rapatriés nigériens dont l’État prend en charge le retour de Libye, les réfugiés en lien avec les conflits de la zone, notamment au Mali et dans la région du lac Tchad, et enfin les personnes évacuées de Libye par le HCR. Le Niger octroie le statut de réfugié à ceux installés sur son sol qui y ont droit. Certains, particulièrement vulnérables selon le HCR, pourront être réinstallés en Europe ou en Amérique du Nord dans des pays volontaires.
    Une plateforme pour la « réinstallation »
    en Europe et en Amérique

    Cette procédure de réinstallation à partir du Niger n’a rien d’exceptionnel. Les Syriens réfugiés au Liban, par exemple, bénéficient aussi de l’action du HCR qui les sélectionne pour déposer une demande d’asile dans un pays dit « sûr ». La particularité du Niger est de servir de plateforme pour la réinstallation de personnes évacuées de Libye. « Le Niger est devenu une sorte de laboratoire de l’asile, raconte Florence Boyer, notamment par la mise en place de l’Emergency Transit Mechanism (ETM). »

    L’ETM, proposé par le HCR, est lancé en août 2017 à Paris par l’Allemagne, l’Espagne, la France et l’Italie — côté UE — et le Niger, le Tchad et la Libye — côté africain. Ils publient une déclaration conjointe sur les « missions de protection en vue de la réinstallation de réfugiés en Europe ». Ce dispositif se présente comme le pendant humanitaire de la politique de lutte contre « les réseaux d’immigration économique irrégulière » et les « retours volontaires » des migrants irréguliers dans leur pays effectués par l’OIM. Le processus s’accélère en novembre de la même année, suite à un reportage de CNN sur des cas d’esclavagisme de migrants en Libye. Fin 2017, 3 800 places sont promises par les pays occidentaux qui participent, à des degrés divers, à ce programme d’urgence. Le HCR annonce 6 606 places aujourd’hui, proposées par 14 pays européens et américains1.

    Trois catégories de personnes peuvent bénéficier de la réinstallation grâce à ce programme : évacués d’urgence depuis la Libye, demandeurs d’asile au sein d’un flux dit « mixte » mêlant migrants et réfugiés et personnes fuyant les conflits du Mali ou du Nigéria. Seule une minorité aura la possibilité d’être réinstallée depuis le Niger vers un pays occidental. Le profiling (selon le vocabulaire du HCR) de ceux qui pourront bénéficier de cette protection s’effectue dès les camps de détention libyens. Il consiste à repérer les plus vulnérables qui pourront prétendre au statut de réfugié et à la réinstallation.

    Une fois évacuées de Libye, ces personnes bénéficient d’une procédure accélérée pour l’obtention du statut de réfugié au Niger. Elles ne posent pas de problème au HCR, qui juge leur récit limpide. La Commission nationale d’éligibilité au statut des réfugiés (CNE), qui est l’administration de l’asile au Niger, accepte de valider la sélection de l’organisation onusienne. Les réfugiés sont pris en charge dans le camp du HCR à Hamdallaye, construit récemment à une vingtaine de kilomètres de la capitale nigérienne, le temps que le HCR prépare la demande de réinstallation dans un pays occidental, multipliant les entretiens avec les réfugiés concernés. Certains pays, comme le Canada ou la Suède, ne mandatent pas leurs services sur place, déléguant au HCR la sélection. D’autres, comme la France, envoient leurs agents pour un nouvel entretien (voir ce reportage sur la visite de l’Ofpra à Niamey fin 2018).

    Parmi les évacués de Libye, moins des deux tiers sont éligibles à une réinstallation dans un pays dit « sûr ».

    Depuis deux ans, près de 4 000 personnes ont été évacuées de Libye dans le but d’être réinstallées, selon le HCR (5 300 autres ont été prises en charge par l’OIM et « retournées » dans leur pays). Un millier ont été évacuées directement vers l’Europe et le Canada et près de 3 000 vers le Niger. C’est peu par rapport aux 50 800 réfugiés et demandeurs d’asile enregistrés auprès de l’organisation onusienne en Libye au 12 août 2019. Et très peu sur l’ensemble des 663 400 migrants qui s’y trouvent selon l’OIM. La guerre civile qui déchire le pays rend la situation encore plus urgente.

    Parmi les personnes évacuées de Libye vers le Niger, moins des deux tiers sont éligibles à une réinstallation dans un pays volontaire, selon le HCR. À ce jour, moins de la moitié ont été effectivement réinstallés, notamment en France (voir notre article sur l’accueil de réfugiés dans les communes rurales françaises).

    Malgré la publicité faite autour du programme de réinstallation, le HCR déplore la lenteur du processus pour répondre à cette situation d’urgence. « Le problème est que les pays de réinstallation n’offrent pas de places assez vite, regrette Fatou Ndiaye, en charge du programme ETM au Niger, alors que notre pays hôte a négocié un maximum de 1 500 évacués sur son sol au même moment. » Le programme coordonné du Niger ne fait pas exception : le HCR rappelait en février 2019 que, sur les 19,9 millions de réfugiés relevant de sa compétence à travers le monde, moins d’1 % sont réinstallés dans un pays sûr.

    Le dispositif ETM, que le HCR du Niger qualifie de « couloir de l’espoir », concerne seulement ceux qui se trouvent dans un camp accessible par l’organisation en Libye (l’un d’eux a été bombardé en juillet dernier) et uniquement sept nationalités considérées par les autorités libyennes (qui n’ont pas signé la convention de Genève) comme pouvant relever du droit d’asile (Éthiopiens Oromo, Érythréens, Iraquiens, Somaliens, Syriens, Palestiniens et Soudanais du Darfour).

    « Si les portes étaient ouvertes dès les pays d’origine, les gens ne paieraient pas des sommes astronomiques pour traverser des routes dangereuses. »

    Pascaline Chappart, socio-anthropologue

    En décembre 2018, des Soudanais manifestaient devant les bureaux d’ETM à Niamey pour dénoncer « un traitement discriminatoire (...) par rapport aux Éthiopiens et Somaliens » favorisés, selon eux, par le programme. La représentante du HCR au Niger a répondu à une radio locale que « la plupart de ces Soudanais [venaient] du Tchad où ils ont déjà été reconnus comme réfugiés et que, techniquement, c’est le Tchad qui les protège et fait la réinstallation ». C’est effectivement la règle en matière de droit humanitaire mais, remarque Florence Boyer, « comment demander à des réfugiés qui ont quitté les camps tchadiens, pour beaucoup en raison de l’insécurité, d’y retourner sans avoir aucune garantie ? ».

    La position de la France

    La question du respect des règles en matière de droit d’asile se pose pour les personnes qui bénéficient du programme d’urgence. En France, par exemple, pas de recours possible auprès de l’Ofpra en cas de refus du statut de réfugié. Pour Pascaline Chappart, qui achève deux ans d’enquêtes au Niger et au Mexique, il y a là une part d’hypocrisie : « Si les portes étaient ouvertes dès les pays d’origine, les gens ne paieraient pas des sommes astronomiques pour traverser des routes dangereuses par la mer ou le désert ». « Il est quasiment impossible dans le pays de départ de se présenter aux consulats des pays “sûrs” pour une demande d’asile », renchérit Florence Boyer. Elle donne l’exemple de Centre-Africains qui ont échappé aux combats dans leur pays, puis à la traite et aux violences au Nigéria, en Algérie puis en Libye, avant de redescendre au Niger : « Ils auraient dû avoir la possibilité de déposer une demande d’asile dès Bangui ! Le cadre législatif les y autorise. »

    En ce matin brûlant d’avril, dans le camp du HCR à Hamdallaye, Mebratu2, un jeune Érythréen de 26 ans, affiche un large sourire. À l’ombre de la tente qu’il partage et a décorée avec d’autres jeunes de son pays, il annonce qu’il s’envolera le 9 mai pour Paris. Comme tant d’autres, il a fui le service militaire à vie imposé par la dictature du président Issayas Afeworki. Mebratu était convaincu que l’Europe lui offrirait la liberté, mais il a dû croupir deux ans dans les prisons libyennes. S’il ne connaît pas sa destination finale en France, il sait d’où il vient : « Je ne pensais pas que je serais vivant aujourd’hui. En Libye, on pouvait mourir pour une plaisanterie. Merci la France. »

    Mebratu a pris un vol pour Paris en mai dernier, financé par l’Union européenne et opéré par l’#OIM. En France, la Délégation interministérielle à l’hébergement et à l’accès au logement (Dihal) confie la prise en charge de ces réinstallés à 24 opérateurs, associations nationales ou locales, pendant un an. Plusieurs départements et localités françaises ont accepté d’accueillir ces réfugiés particulièrement vulnérables après des années d’errance et de violences.

    Pour le deuxième article de notre numéro spécial de rentrée, nous nous rendons en Dordogne dans des communes rurales qui accueillent ces « réinstallés » arrivés via le Niger.

    http://icmigrations.fr/2019/08/30/defacto-10
    #externalisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #Europe #UE #EU #sécuritaire #humanitaire #approche_sécuritaire #approche_humanitaire #libre_circulation #fermeture_des_frontières #printemps_arabe #Kadhafi #Libye #Agadez #parcours_migratoires #routes_migratoires #HCR #OIM #IOM #retour_au_pays #renvois #expulsions #Fonds_fiduciaire #Fonds_fiduciaire_d'urgence_pour_l'Afrique #FFUA #développement #sécurité #EUCAP_Sahel_Niger #La_Valette #passeurs #politique_d'asile #réinstallation #hub #Emergency_Transit_Mechanism (#ETM) #retours_volontaires #profiling #tri #sélection #vulnérabilité #évacuation #procédure_accélérée #Hamdallaye #camps_de_réfugiés #ofpra #couloir_de_l’espoir

    co-écrit par @pascaline

    ping @karine4 @_kg_ @isskein

    Ajouté à la métaliste sur l’externalisation des frontières :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/731749#message765325

  • #Frontex : A harder border, sooner

    European leaders have already agreed to a massive boost for the border protection agency, Frontex. The incoming head of the European Commission, #Ursula_von_der_Leyen, wants to bring forward the expansion.

    Europe needs more people guarding its borders and sooner rather than later. Soon after she was elected in July, the European Commission’s next president, Ursula von der Leyen, declared that the reform of Europe’s border and coast guard agency should be brought forward three years, to 2024. The former German defense minister repeated the call during a visit this week to Bulgaria which shares a border with Turkey and counts Frontex as an ally.

    Expansion plans

    The European Commission announced in September 2018, two years after Frontex came into being as a functioning border and coast guard agency, that the organization would be expanded. Then president, Jean-Claude Juncker, proposed that 8,400 more border guards be recruited, in addition to the existing 1,500. “External borders must be protected more effectively,” Juncker said.

    In May this year, the European Commissioner for Migration, Dimitiris Avramopoulos, confirmed that 10,000 armed guards would be deployed by 2027 to patrol the EU’s land and sea borders and significantly strengthen the existing force.

    The EU guards would intercept new arrivals, stop unauthorized travel and accelerate the return of people whose asylum claim had failed, according to the IPS news agency. The guards would also be able to operate outside Europe, with the consent of the third country governments.

    “The agency will better and more actively support member states in the area of return in order to improve the European Union’s response to persisting migratory challenges,” Avramopoulos said.

    What does Frontex do?

    Frontex was set up in 2004 to support the EU control its external land, air and sea borders. In 2016 it was overhauled and in 2018 received a budget of 320 million euros. The agency coordinates the deployment of border guards, boats and helicopters where they are needed to tackle “migratory pressure.”

    Frontex assesses how ready each EU member state is to face challenges at its external borders. It coordinates a pool of border guards, provided by member states, to be deployed quickly at the external borders.

    The agency’s other main functions are to help with forced returns of migrants and organize voluntary departures from Europe. It also collects and shares information related to migrant smuggling, trafficking and terrorism.

    Misguided approach

    While the Frontex approach of strengthening border controls has been welcomed by many of Europe’s leaders, some say this law-and-order solution does not work. Instead, civil society, human rights groups and other critics say hardening borders simply forces migrants to switch to new and often more dangerous routes.

    As Frontex itself said earlier this year, there is no longer a “burning crisis” of migration in Europe (https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/18486/improved-chances-of-asylum-seekers-in-germany-entering-job-market?ref=), as the number of migrants and refugees reaching the continent has dropped dramatically. Yet the risks of dying in the attempt to reach Europe, especially in the Mediterranean, have risen for the past four consecutive years. Part of Frontex’ mandate is to save lives at sea, but critics (https://www.ecfr.eu/article/commentary_back_to_frontex_europes_misguided_migration_policy) say its raison d’etre is the protection of borders, not the protection of lives.

    Abuse claims

    In August, media reports claimed that Frontex border guards had tolerated violence against migrants and were themselves responsible for inhumane treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. Frontex denied that any of its officers had violated human rights (https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/18676/frontex-denies-involvement-in-human-rights-violations). A spokesperson for the European Commission, Mina Andreeva, said the allegations would be followed up.

    https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/19415/frontex-a-harder-border-sooner
    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #UE #EU #fermeture_des_frontières #renvois #expulsions #machine_à_expulser #déboutés #externalisation #externalisation_des_frontières #frontières_extérieures #retours_volontaires

    ping @karine4 @isskein @reka

  • La #France projette d’expulser deux ressortissants afghans vers Kaboul

    InfoMigrants a appris l’expulsion programmée de deux migrants afghans de la France vers l’Afghanistan en septembre. Il pourrait s’agir d’une première pour 2019. Paris « entend augmenter » les renvois de ressortissants afghans cette année.

    Deux migrants afghans actuellement en centre de rétention administrative (CRA) au Mesnil-Amelot (région parisienne) et à Rennes (Bretagne) sont sous le coup d’un arrêté d’expulsion vers l’Afghanistan a appris InfoMigrants auprès de sources gouvernementales afghanes. Leur éloignement doit avoir lieu les 7 et 18 septembre, a confirmé la Cimade présente dans ces deux CRA.

    Si ces deux expulsions vers Kaboul ont bien lieu, il s’agirait des premiers renvois forcés vers l’Afghanistan - dont on ait connaissance - pour l’année 2019. Jusqu’ici les seuls chiffres rendus publics dans un rapport sénatorial faisaient état de « moins de 20 expulsions vers l’Afghanistan en 2018 ».

    La France « entend augmenter » les expulsions en 2019

    Ces nouvelles expulsions pourraient marquer un tournant dans la politique française de renvois forcés vers Kaboul. D’autant qu’elles coïncident avec l’examen par l’Assemblée nationale le 18 septembre d’un projet de loi visant à ratifier un accord entre l’Union européenne et l’Afghanistan.

    L’article 28 de cet accord comporte un volet sur la coopération en matière d’immigration en vue « d’empêcher les flux irréguliers », relève Lola Schulmann, responsable de la question des migrants et des réfugiés à Amnesty International. L’ONG craint que ce dispositif ne facilite les renvois forcés de ressortissants afghans.

    Des craintes justifiées, puisque lors de la présentation de l’accord au Sénat, le rapporteur du projet de loi a expliqué que la France « entend[ait] augmenter » ces renvois forcés en 2019.

    Une situation sécuritaire dégradée en Afghanistan

    « La situation en Afghanistan est toujours aussi catastrophique pour les civils et empêche de considérer le pays comme sûr. Dans un tel contexte, les renvois forcés d’Afghans sont illégaux et violent le principe de non refoulement, lequel interdit tout renvoi d’une personne qui l’exposerait à des violations graves de ses droits », avait pourtant alerté Amnesty, aux côtés de la Cimade en juin.

    Il en va de même pour ces deux nouveaux cas. Les conditions sécuritaires déjà désastreuses continuent de se dégrader en Afghanistan. « L’Afghanistan est l’un des pays les plus touchés au monde par le terrorisme. Environ 2 000 incidents de sécurité sont comptabilisés chaque mois dans le pays », indique le ministère des Affaires étrangères français sur son site.

    Près de 1 692 civils ont été tués dans des attentats l’an dernier, recense l’ONU qui comptabilise les victimes. Ainsi 2018 marque l’année la plus meurtrière pour les civils afghans depuis 2009.

    Face à cette situation, la Cimade et Amnesty internationale réclament un moratoire de la France sur les renvois forcés de ressortissants afghans vers Kaboul. En attendant, ces associations continuent d’alerter les autorités françaises sur les cas individuels qui lui sont signalés. Elles ont saisi le ministère de l’Intérieur pour les deux Afghans menacés d’expulsion en septembre.

    Contacté par InfoMigrants, le ministère de l’Intérieur n’a, pour l’heure, pas répondu à nos sollicitations.

    https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/19304/la-france-projette-d-expulser-deux-ressortissants-afghans-vers-kaboul?
    #Afghanistan #renvois #expulsions #asile #migrations #réfugiés #réfugiés_afghans

    ping @isskein @karine4

  • Réfugiés : du #Niger à la #Dordogne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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

  • La #CNPT publie son #rapport sur l’accompagnement des #rapatriements sous contrainte par la voie aérienne

    Dans son rapport publié aujourd’hui, la Commission nationale de prévention de la torture (CNPT) présente les #recommandations relatives aux 33 transferts par la #police et aux 47 #rapatriements_sous_contrainte par la voie aérienne qu’elle a accompagnés entre avril 2018 et mars 2019. La Commission juge satisafaisant l’évolution en matière d’entravement préventif, mais estime inadéquates certaines pratiques policières qui persistent. Finalement, la Commission dresse un bilan général de la #détention_administrative de mineurs et présente ses principales conclusions.

    Pratiques policières jugées inadéquates

    Alors même que la Commission accueille favorablement les améliorations s’agissant notamment du recours à l’entravement préventif lors du transport et de l’organisation au sol, elle continue à observer des pratiques policières qu’elle juge problématiques, en particulier le port de la cagoule et l’utilisation de la chaise roulante. Dans son rapport, elle rappelle aux autorités de renoncer par principe à toute forme de contrainte, et de limiter une application aux cas qui présentent un danger imminent pour leur propre sécurité ou celle d’autrui. Par ailleurs, elle juge particulièrement préoccupant les entravements observés en présence d’enfants.

    Détention administrative de mineurs

    La Commission a procédé à un receuil au niveau de tous les cantons suisses relatif à la situation des mineurs migrants ayant fait l’objet d’une #mesure_de_contrainte en application du droit des étrangers entre 2017 et 2018 et présente une analyse de la pratique cantonale à la lumière des normes internationales et nationales pertinentes. La Commission relève positivement que sept cantons renoncent à toute forme de détention ou de placement de mineurs étrangers et salue par ailleurs que trois cantons (Argovie, Valais et Zurich) aient pris des mesures visant à renoncer à toute forme de détention administrative de mineurs à la suite du rapport publié en juin 2018 par la Commission de gestion du Conseil national (CdG-N). En revanche, elle juge problématique au regard du respect des droits de l’enfant que des mineurs aient été détenus durant la période examinée, dans certains cas pour des durées de séjour particulièrement longues dans des établissements qu’elle juge inadéquats pour accueillir des mineurs. Elle recommande aux autorités de renoncer à la détention administrative de mineurs accompagnés ou non-accompagnés, et de privilégier des mesures alternatives respectueuses de l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant et de l’unité familiale.

    https://www.nkvf.admin.ch/nkvf/fr/home/publikationen/newsarchiv/2019/2019-07-04.html
    #renvois #vol_spécial #expulsions #Suisse #migrations #réfugiés #déboutés #mineurs #rétention #rétention_de_mineurs

    –-----

    Quelques extraits sélectionné par un ami/ancien collègue :

    ping @i_s_

  • 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...

  • Métaliste
    Les « #left-to-die in the Sahara desert »...

    (évidente référence à un rapport de Charles Heller et Lorenzo Pezzani sur le Left-to-die boat : https://forensic-architecture.org/investigation/the-left-to-die-boat)

    Essai de #métaliste sur les expulsions de migrants depuis les pays du #Maghreb (#Tunisie et #Algérie pour le moment) vers leur frontières méridionales, soit en plein #désert...

    #asile #migrations #réfugiés #abandon #expulsions #renvois #déportation

    ping @isskein @_kg_ @visionscarto @pascaline @karine4

  • Tunisia - 36 persone deportate al confine con la Libia

    La denuncia degli attivisti presenti a Zarzis. Nel pomeriggio manifestazione al porto per la libertà di movimento

    Un comunicato stampa di Europe Zarzis Afrique, Bergamo migrante antirazzista, Campagna Lasciatecientrare, Caravana Abriendo Fronteras, Carovane Migranti, Dossier Libia, Movimiento Migrante Mesoamericano, Progetto 20k, Progetto Melting Pot Europa e dei partecipanti alle giornate internazionali a Zarzis.

    –---------
    Aggiornamento 5 agosto ore 6.45, confine con la Libia.
    Da ieri pomeriggio stiamo cercando i migranti deportati e abbandonati dalla polizia nei pressi del confine con la Libia. Fonti attendibili locali ci confermano che i migranti sono detenuti in quella zona militare, sono privi di acqua e cibo. Ma la polizia di frontiera non ci fornisce né informazioni né ci permette di muoverci alla loro ricerca, intimandoci di andarcene. Noi da qui non ce ne andremo fino a quando non avremo trovato le persone e verificato il loro stato psico-fisico.
    Facciamo appello di fare pressione in tutti i modi possibili sul governo della Tunisia: le 36 persone sono in grave pericolo e hanno bisogno d’aiuto!

    –--------

    4 agosto - Ci troviamo a Zarzis, Tunisia del sud, e abbiamo da poco concluso con una manifestazione al porto per la libertà di movimento le giornate di iniziative e incontri promosso da «Europe Zarzis Afrique».

    In questo preciso momento, quattro attivisti italiani si trovano alla frontiera con la Libia per verificare una grave violazione dei diritti umani. Le associazioni per i diritti umani tunisine denunciano che un gruppo di 36 migranti ivoriani (21 uomini, 11 donne di cui una una incinta e quattro bambini molto piccoli) sono stati deportati dalla città di #Sousse al confine con la Libia e là abbandonati senza cibo ed acqua. L’area in cui si trovano è una zona militare ad alto rischio.

    Le associazioni tunisine hanno anche diramato un video che riprende l’abbandono dei migranti nel deserto e un comunicato di condanna.

    https://www.meltingpot.org/Tunisia-36-persone-deportate-al-confine-con-la-Libia.html
    #Libye #Tunisie #renvois #déportation #expulsion #réfugiés #asile #migrations #zone_militaire #expulsions #expulsion_collective #réfugiés_ivoiriens #abandon

    vidéo :
    https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=809496766111780

    ping @_kg_ @isskein

    • Tunisie : le SOS de migrants ivoiriens expulsés vers le #désert libyen

      Des dizaines de migrants ivoiriens arrêtés et conduits en plein désert libyen lancent un appel au secours sur les réseaux sociaux. Plusieurs associations tunisiennes ont dénoncé « une grave violation des droits des migrants ».

      « Aidez-nous ! S’il vous plaît, aidez-nous ! », c’est par ce cri détresse qu’un migrant ivoirien a conclu son appel au secours relayé le 4 août 2019 par le Forum Tunisien pour les Droits Economiques et Sociaux (FTDES) sur son compte Facebook. Des dizaines de migrants ivoiriens ont été arrêtés par les autorités tunisiennes et conduits en plein désert libyen, annonce l’association.
      Une violation du droit des migrants

      Dans un communiqué signé par plusieurs associations de défense des droits de l’homme, le FTDES a en effet révélé ce qu’il qualifie de « grave violation des droits des migrants » par les autorités tunisiennes.

      Des hommes en uniforme ont arrêté samedi 3 août à 10 heures du matin, dans une maison de Sfax, 36 migrants ivoiriens dont onze femmes, l’une d’entre elles enceinte et 3 nourrissons, sous prétexte qu’ils s’apprêtaient à une migration clandestine.

      Faux, se défendent-ils dans un témoignage vidéo racontant leur arrestation, diffusé par l’association tunisienne. Ils ne faisaient que préparer les festivités de la fête nationale ivoirienne (qui a lieu le 7 août NDLR) affirme la personne qui filme.

      Ils ont été conduits à Médenine dans le sud, puis derrière la frontière libyenne, où ils ont été lâchés dans des conditions climatiques torrides. « Ils savent que la Libye est un pays dangereux, ils nous jettent en Libye », peut-on entendre sur la bande son.

      « La situation ne fait qu’empirer. Avec le soleil, les enfants sont à bout de souffle, ils n’arrivent plus à tenir, ils sont tous faibles. Et nous aussi ! », témoigne un autre migrant sur un enregistrement audio diffusé également par le site Facebook du Forum.

      « L’armée tunisienne, en face de nous, menace de nous abattre si on s’aventure vers la frontière. Donc on ne sait plus quoi faire. Nous sommes en danger, nous sommes sur le territoire libyen. Supposez que des Libyens tombent sur nous ici, on ne connaît pas la suite », ajoute-t-il terrorisé.
      Les batteries des téléphones portables déchargées

      Outre le FTDES, l’Association Tunisienne pour la défense des droits de l’homme, Tunisie terre d’Asile, Des avocats sans frontières et le Comité pour le respect des libertés et des droits de l’Homme sont également signataires d’un appel aux autorités tunisiennes.

      Elles demandent le retour rapide des migrants sur le sol tunisien afin qu’ils soient pris en charge par des organisations humanitaires.

      Mettant en garde contre les violations commises à l’encontre des migrants en Tunisie, elles réclament une modernisation du règlement juridique de l’immigration dans le pays, ainsi que sa mise en conformité avec la Constitution qui garantit les droits et les libertés et avec le droit international.

      Aux dernières nouvelles communiquées par le FTDES, les migrants ivoiriens se trouvaient toujours le 5 août en territoire libyen à proximité de la frontière tunisienne et les batteries de leurs #téléphones_portables étaient pour la plupart totalement déchargées.

      https://www.francetvinfo.fr/monde/europe/migrants/tunisie-le-sos-de-migrants-ivoiriens-expulses-vers-le-desert-libyen_356
      #désert_libyen #smartphone

  • The hard facts behind deportation regimes

    Many countries have created deportation strategies that bring danger, despair and death. Why do we tolerate this? The answer is ungrounded fear of foreigners, of economic consequences and of crime. Many politicians raise our fears by painting irrational images and dehumanizing migrants and refugees. At the same time it is proven over and over that the deportation system doesn’t work. Walls, fences and even the fear of deportation don’t influence people’s mobility. War and desperate economic circumstances do. Funded by the European Research Council, anthropologist Barak Kalir studied the huge deportation systems, how they work, and the impact they have. He calls for an honest public debate about deportation in western liberal states.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=110&v=hGf_dQWgXkk



    #vidéo #rétention #détention_administrative #peur #asile #migrations #réfugiés #film_d'animation #ressources_pédagogiques #renvois #expulsions #coût #pouvoir #murs #complexe_militaro-industriel #médias #journalisme #inhumanité #frontières #Equateur #alternatives #efficacité #statistiques #budget #coût #Europe #EU #UE #USA #Etats-Unis

    ping @karine4 @isskein

    • The Draconian Governance of Illegalized Migrants in Western States

      This article proposes the term #Departheid to capture the systemic oppression and spatial management of illegalized migrants in Western liberal states. As a concept, Departheid aims to move beyond the instrumentality of illegalizing migration in order to comprehend the tenacity with which oppressive measures are implemented even in the face of accumulating evidence for their futility in managing migration flows and the harm they cause to millions of people. The article highlights continuities between present oppressive migration regimes and past colonial configurations for controlling the mobility of what Hannah Arendt has called “subject races.” By drawing on similarities with Apartheid as a governing ideology based on racialization, segregation, and deportation, I argue that Departheid, too, is animated by a sense of moral superiority that is rooted in a fantasy of White supremacy.

      https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/conflict-and-society/aop/arcs050102.xml

  • Expulser au #Soudan, une vocation française

    Alors que l’Union européenne a suspendu ses programmes de contrôle migratoire au Soudan, la France continue de vouloir y expulser. Aujourd’hui à la manœuvre, la préfecture d’Indre-et-Loire. Appel à soutien.

    C’est fin juillet que la Deutsche Welle obtient confirmation que l’Union européenne a suspendu ses programmes de #contrôle_migratoire au Soudan, le soutien aux #gardes-frontières et à la police, coordonné par l’#Allemagne, dès mars, et le centre de renseignement (#ROCK : #Regional_Operation_Center in Khartoum) mené par la France, en juin, après la répression sanglante du 3 juin et des jours suivants.

    https://www.dw.com/en/eu-suspends-migration-control-projects-in-sudan-amid-repression-fears/a-49701408?maca=en-Twitter-sharing

    Si l’Union européenne a suspendu sa coopération avec le Soudan en matière migratoire, ce n’est pas le cas de la France, qui continue sa politique d’expulsion vers ce pays et donc la coopération avec les autorités soudanaises que cela suppose. Un ressortissant soudanais enfermé au centre de rétention de Rennes devait être expulsé le 22 juillet sur décision de la préfecture d’Indre-et-Loire. Il a refusé d’embarquer. Ramené au centre de rétention, il peut être expulsé à tout moment.

    https://larotative.info/la-prefete-d-indre-et-loire-tente-3377.html

    Voir aussi sur le fil twitter de la Cimade :

    https://twitter.com/lacimade

    Un appel à soutien a été lancé :

    « POUR SOUTENIR R. ENVOYEZ UN MAIL A LA PRÉFETE

    Recopiez ce courriel et adressez-le à :

    prefecture@indre-et-loire.gouv.fr

    Madame la Préfète d’Indre et Loire,

    Je vous écris pour vous demander d’interrompre les procédures d’éloignement d’un homme vers le Soudan actuellement au centre de rétention de Rennes. Il a déjà refusé d’embarquer dans l’avion.

    Vous vous apprêtez à renvoyer R. vers le Soudan où sa vie est gravement menacée.

    Le Soudan ne peut aujourd’hui être regardé comme un pays sûr vu l’instabilité politique actuelle et la violente répression qui a fait de nombreux morts ces derniers mois.

    En vertu du principe de non-refoulement, garanti par l’article 33 de la Convention de 1951 relative au statut des réfugiés, par l’article 3 de la Convention contre la torture et par l’article 19.2 de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne, la France ne peut procéder au renvoi d’une personne vers un pays où sa vie sera en danger.

    Compte tenu de ces risques importants, je vous demande donc d’annuler l’ordre de quitter le territoire français de R. et de le libérer.

    Je vous prie d’agréer, Madame la Préfète, l’expression de mes salutations distinguées.

    Vous pouvez envoyer cette communication par mail à cette adresse :

    prefecture@indre-et-loire.gouv.fr »

    https://blogs.mediapart.fr/philippe-wannesson/blog/240719/expulser-au-soudan-une-vocation-francaise
    #renvois #expulsions #France #réfugiés_soudanais #asile #migrations #réfugiés #suspension #UE #EU #Europe #externalisation

  • For Syrians in #Istanbul, fears rise as deportations begin

    Turkey is deporting Syrians from Istanbul to Syria, including to the volatile northwest province of #Idlib, according to people who have been the target of a campaign launched last week against migrants who lack residency papers.

    The crackdown comes at a time of rising rhetoric and political pressure on the country’s 3.6 million registered Syrian refugees to return home. Estimates place hundreds of thousands of unregistered Syrians in Turkey, many living in urban areas such as Istanbul.

    Refugee rights advocates say deportations to Syria violate customary international law, which prohibits forcing people to return to a country where they are still likely to face persecution or risk to their lives.

    Arrests reportedly began as early as 13 July, with police officers conducting spot-checks in public spaces, factories, and metro stations around Istanbul and raiding apartments by 16 July. As word spread quickly in Istanbul’s Syrian community, many people shut themselves up at home rather than risk being caught outside.

    It is not clear how many people have been deported so far, with reported numbers ranging from hundreds to a thousand.

    “Deportation of Syrians to their country, which is still in the midst of armed conflict, is a clear violation of both Turkish and international law.”

    Turkey’s Ministry of Interior has said the arrests are aimed at people living without legal status in the country’s most populous city. Istanbul authorities said in a Monday statement that only “irregular migrants entering our country illegally [will be] arrested and deported.” It added that Syrians registered outside Istanbul would be obliged to return to the provinces where they were first issued residency.

    Mayser Hadid, a Syrian lawyer who runs a law practice catering to Syrians in Istanbul, said that the “deportation of Syrians to their country, which is still in the midst of armed conflict, is a clear violation of both Turkish and international law,” including the “return of Syrians without temporary protection cards.”

    Istanbul authorities maintain that the recent detentions and deportations are within the law.

    Starting in 2014, Syrian refugees in Turkey have been registered under “temporary protection” status, which grants the equivalency of legal residency and lets holders apply for a work permit. Those with temporary protection need special permission to work or travel outside of the area where they first applied for protection.

    But last year, several cities across the country – including Istanbul – stopped registering newly-arrived Syrians.

    In the Monday statement, Istanbul authorities said that Syrians registered outside of the city must return to their original city of registration by 20 August. They did not specify the penalty for those who do not.

    Barely 24 hours after the beginning of raids last week, Muhammad, a 21-year-old from Eastern Ghouta in Syria, was arrested at home along with his Syrian flatmates in the Istanbul suburb of Esenler.

    Muhammad, who spoke by phone on the condition of anonymity for security reasons – as did all Syrian deportees and their relatives interviewed for this article – said that Turkish police officers had forced their way into the building. “They beat me,” he said. “I wasn’t even allowed to take anything with me.”

    Muhammad said that as a relatively recent arrival, he couldn’t register for temporary protection and had opted to live and work in Istanbul without papers.

    After his arrest, Muhammad said, he was handcuffed and bundled into a police van, and transferred to a detention facility on the eastern outskirts of the city.

    There, he said, he was forced to sign a document written in Turkish that he couldn’t understand and on Friday was deported to Syria’s Idlib province, via the Bab al-Hawa border crossing.
    Deportation to Idlib

    Government supporters say that Syrians have been deported only to the rebel-held areas of northern Aleppo, where the Turkish army maintains a presence alongside groups that it backs.

    A representative from Istanbul’s provincial government office did not respond to a request for comment, but Youssef Kataboglu, a pro-government commentator who is regarded as close to the government, said that “Turkey only deports Syrians to safe areas according to the law.”

    He denied that Syrians had been returned to Idlib, where a Syrian government offensive that began in late April kicked off an upsurge in fighting, killing more than 400 civilians and forcing more than 330,000 people to flee their homes. The UN said on Monday alone, 59 civilians were killed, including 39 when a market was hit by airstrikes.

    Kataboglu said that deportation to Idlib would “be impossible.”

    Mazen Alloush, a representative of the border authorities on the Syrian side of the Bab al-Hawa crossing that links Turkey with Idlib, said that more than 3,800 Syrians had entered the country via Bab al-Hawa in the past fortnight, a number he said was not a significant change from how many people usually cross the border each month.

    The crossing is controlled by rebel authorities affiliated to Tahrir a-Sham, the hardline Islamist faction that controls most of Idlib.

    “A large number of them were Syrians trying to enter Turkish territory illegally,” who were caught and forced back across, Alloush said, but also “those who committed offences in Turkey or requested to return voluntarily.”

    “We later found out that he’d been deported to Idlib.”

    He added that “if the Turkish authorities are deporting [Syrians] through informal crossings or crossings other than Bab al-Hawa, I don’t have information about it.”

    Other Syrians caught up in the crackdown, including those who did have the proper papers to live and work in Istanbul, confirmed that they had been sent to Idlib or elsewhere.

    On July 19, Umm Khaled’s son left the family’s home without taking the documents that confirm his temporary protection status, she said. He was stopped in the street by police officers.

    “They [the police] took him,” Umm Khaled, a refugee in her 50s originally from the southern Damascus suburbs, said by phone. “We later found out that he’d been deported to Idlib.”

    Rami, a 23-year-old originally from eastern Syria’s Deir Ezzor province, said he was deported from Istanbul last week. He was carrying his temporary protection status card at the time of his arrest, he added.

    "I was in the street in Esenler when the police stopped me and asked for my identity card,” he recalled in a phone conversation from inside Syria. “They checked it, and then asked me to get on a bus.”

    Several young Syrian men already on board the bus were also carrying protection documents with them, Rami said.

    “The police tied our hands together with plastic cords,” he added, describing how the men were then driven to a nearby police station and forced to give fingerprints and sign return documents.

    Rami said he was later sent to northern Aleppo province.
    Rising anti-Syrian sentiment

    The country has deported Syrians before, and Human Rights Watch and other organisations have reported that Turkish security forces regularly intercept and return Syrian refugees attempting to enter the country. As conflict rages in and around Idlib, an increasing number of people are still trying to get into Turkey.

    Turkey said late last year that more than 300,000 Syrians have returned to their home country voluntarily.

    A failed coup attempt against President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in July 2016 led to an emergency decree that human rights groups say was used to arrest individuals whom the government perceived as opponents. Parts of that decree were later passed into law, making it easier for authorities to deport foreigners on the grounds that they are either linked to terrorist groups or pose a threat to public order.

    The newest wave of deportations after months of growing anti-Syrian sentiment in political debate and on the streets has raised more questions about how this law might be used, as well as the future of Syrian refugees in Turkey.

    In two rounds of mayoral elections that ended last month with a defeat for Erdoğan’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), the winning candidate, Ekrem İmamoğlu of the Republican People’s Party (CHP), repeatedly used anti-Syrian rhetoric in his campaign, capitalising on discontent towards the faltering economy and the increasingly contentious presence of millions of Syrian refugees.

    Shortly after the elections, several incidents of mob violence against Syrian-owned businesses took place. Widespread anti-Syrian sentiment has also been evident across social media; after the mayoral election trending hashtags on Twitter reportedly included “Syrians get out”.

    As the deportations continue, the families of those sent back are wondering what they can do.

    “By God, what did he do [wrong]?” asked Umm Khaled, speaking of her son, now in war-torn Idlib.

    “His mother, father, and all his sisters are living here legally in Turkey,” she said. “What are we supposed to do now?”

    https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/news/2019/07/23/syrians-istanbul-fears-rise-deportations-begin
    #Turquie #asile #migrations #réfugiés_syriens #réfugiés #Syrie #renvois #expulsions #peur

    • Des milliers de migrants arrêtés à Istanbul en deux semaines

      Mardi, le ministre de l’intérieur a indiqué que l’objectif de son gouvernement était d’expulser 80 000 migrants en situation irrégulière en Turquie, contre 56 000 l’an dernier.

      C’est un vaste #coup_de_filet mené sur fond de fort sentiment antimigrants. Les autorités turques ont annoncé, mercredi 24 juillet, avoir arrêté plus de 6 000 migrants en deux semaines, dont des Syriens, vivant de manière « irrégulière » à Istanbul.

      « Nous menons une opération depuis le 12 juillet (…). Nous avons attrapé 6 122 personnes à Istanbul, dont 2 600 Afghans. Une partie de ces personnes sont des Syriens », a déclaré le ministre de l’intérieur, Suleyman Soylu, dans une interview donnée à la chaîne turque NTV. Mardi, ce dernier a indiqué que l’objectif de son gouvernement était d’expulser 80 000 migrants en situation irrégulière en Turquie, contre 56 000 l’an dernier.

      M. Soylu a démenti que des Syriens étaient expulsés vers leur pays, déchiré par une guerre civile meurtrière depuis 2011, après que des ONG ont affirmé avoir recensé des cas de personnes renvoyées en Syrie. « Ces personnes, nous ne pouvons pas les expulser. (…) Lorsque nous attrapons des Syriens qui ne sont pas enregistrés, nous les envoyons dans des camps de réfugiés », a-t-il affirmé, mentionnant un camp dans la province turque de Hatay, frontalière de la Syrie. Il a toutefois assuré que certains Syriens choisissaient de rentrer de leur propre gré en Syrie.

      La Turquie accueille sur son sol plus de 3,5 millions de Syriens ayant fui la guerre, dont 547 000 sont enregistrés à Istanbul. Les autorités affirment n’avoir aucun problème avec les personnes dûment enregistrées auprès des autorités à Istanbul, mais disent lutter contre les migrants vivant dans cette ville alors qu’ils sont enregistrés dans d’autres provinces, voire dans aucune province.

      Le gouvernorat d’Istanbul a lancé lundi un ultimatum, qui expire le 20 août, enjoignant les Syriens y vivant illégalement à quitter la ville. Un groupement d’ONG syriennes a toutefois indiqué, lundi, que « plus de 600 Syriens », pour la plupart titulaires de « cartes de protection temporaires » délivrées par d’autres provinces turques, avaient été arrêtés la semaine dernière à Istanbul et renvoyés en Syrie.

      La Coalition nationale de l’opposition syrienne, basée à Istanbul, a déclaré mardi qu’elle était entrée en contact avec les autorités turques pour discuter des dernières mesures prises contre les Syriens, appelant à stopper les « expulsions ». Son président, Anas al-Abda, a appelé le gouvernement turc à accorder un délai de trois mois aux Syriens concernés pour régulariser leur situation auprès des autorités.

      Ce tour de vis contre les migrants survient après la défaite du parti du président Recep Tayyip Erdogan lors des élections municipales à Istanbul, en juin, lors desquelles l’accueil des Syriens s’était imposé comme un sujet majeur de préoccupation les électeurs.

      Pendant la campagne, le discours hostile aux Syriens s’était déchaîné sur les réseaux sociaux, avec le mot-dièse #LesSyriensDehors. D’après une étude publiée début juillet par l’université Kadir Has, située à Istanbul, la part des Turcs mécontents de la présence des Syriens est passée de 54,5 % en 2017 à 67,7 % en 2019.

      https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/07/24/des-milliers-de-migrants-arretes-a-istanbul-en-deux-semaines_5492944_3210.ht
      #arrestation #arrestations

    • Turkey Forcibly Returning Syrians to Danger. Authorities Detain, Coerce Syrians to Sign “Voluntary Return” Forms

      Turkish authorities are detaining and coercing Syrians into signing forms saying they want to return to Syria and then forcibly returning them there, Human Rights Watch said today. On July 24, 2019, Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu denied that Turkey had “deported” Syrians but said that Syrians “who voluntarily want to go back to Syria” can benefit from procedures allowing them to return to “safe areas.”

      Almost 10 days after the first reports of increased police spot-checks of Syrians’ registration documents in Istanbul and forced returns of Syrians from the city, the office of the provincial governor released a July 22 statement saying that Syrians registered in one of the country’s other provinces must return there by August 20, and that the Interior Ministry would send unregistered Syrians to provinces other than Istanbul for registration. The statement comes amid rising xenophobic sentiment across the political spectrum against Syrian and other refugees in Turkey.

      “Turkey claims it helps Syrians voluntarily return to their country, but threatening to lock them up until they agree to return, forcing them to sign forms, and dumping them in a war zone is neither voluntary nor legal,” said Gerry Simpson, associate Emergencies director. “Turkey should be commended for hosting record numbers of Syrian refugees, but unlawful deportations are not the way forward.”

      Turkey shelters a little over 3.6 million Syrian Refugees countrywide who have been given temporary protection, half a million of them in Istanbul. This is more refugees than any other country in the world and almost four times as many as the whole European Union (EU).

      The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) says that “the vast majority of Syrian asylum-seekers continue to … need international refugee protection” and that it “calls on states not to forcibly return Syrian nationals and former habitual residents of Syria.”

      Human Rights Watch spoke by phone with four Syrians who are in Syria after being detained and forcibly returned there.

      One of the men, who was from Ghouta, in the Damascus countryside, was detained on July 17 in Istanbul, where he had been living unregistered for over three years. He said police coerced him and other Syrian detainees into signing a form, transferred them to another detention center, and then put them on one of about 20 buses headed to Syria. They are now in northern Syria.

      Another man, from Aleppo, who had been living in Gaziantep in southeast Turkey since 2013, said he was detained there after he and his brother went to the police to complain about an attack on a shop that they ran in the city. He said the police transferred them from the Gaziantep Karşıyaka police station to the foreigners’ deportation center at Oğuzeli, holding them there for six days and forcing them to sign a deportation form without telling them what it was. On July 9, the authorities forcibly returned the men to Azaz in Syria via the Öncüpınar/Bab al Salama border gate near the Turkish town of Kilis, Human Rights Watch also spoke by phone with two men who said the Turkish coast guard and police intercepted them at checkpoints near the coast as they tried to reach Greece, detained them, and coerced them into signing and fingerprinting voluntary repatriation forms. The authorities then deported them to Idlib and northern Aleppo governorate.

      One of the men, a Syrian from Atmeh in Idlib governorate who registered in the Turkish city of Gaziantep in 2017, said the Turkish coast guard intercepted him on July 9. He said [“Guvenlik”] “security” held him with other Syrians for six days in a detention facility in the town of Aydın, in western Turkey. He said the guards verbally abused him and other detainees, punched him in the chest, and coerced him into signing voluntary repatriation papers. Verbally abusive members of Turkey’s rural gendarmerie police forces [jandarma] deported him on July 15 to Syria with about 35 other Syrians through the Öncüpınar/Bab al-Salameh border crossing.

      He said that there were others in the Aydin detention center who had been there for up to four months because they had refused to sign these forms.

      The second man said he fled Maarat al-Numan in 2014 and registered in the Turkish city of Iskenderun. On July 4, police stopped him at a checkpoint as he tried to reach the coast to take a boat to Greece and took him to the Aydin detention facility, where he said the guards beat some of the other detainees and shouted and cursed at them.

      He said the detention authorities confiscated his belongings, including his Turkish registration card, and told him to sign forms. When he refused, the official said they were not deportation forms but just “routine procedure.” When he refused again, he was told he would be detained indefinitely until he agreed to sign and provided his fingerprints. He said that the guards beat another man who had also refused, so he felt he had no choice but to sign. He was then put on a bus for 27 hours with dozens of other Syrians and deported through the Öncüpınar/Bab al-Salameh border crossing.

      In addition, journalists have spoken with a number of registered and unregistered Syrians who told them by phone from Syria that Turkish authorities detained them in the third week of July, coerced them into signing and providing a fingerprint on return documents. The authorities then deported them with dozens, and in some cases as many as 100, other Syrians to Idlib and northern Aleppo governorate through the Cilvegözü/Bab al-Hawa border crossing.

      More than 400,000 people have died because of the Syrian conflict since 2011, according to the World Bank. While the nature of the fighting in Syria has changed, with the Syrian government retaking areas previously held by anti-government groups and the battle against the Islamic State (ISIS) winding down, profound civilian suffering and loss of life persists.

      In Idlib governorate, the Syrian-Russian military alliance continues to indiscriminately bomb civilians and to use prohibited weapons, resulting in the death of at least 400 people since April, including 90 children, according to Save the Children. In other areas under the control of the Syrian government and anti-government groups, arbitrary arrests, mistreatment, and harassment are still the status quo.

      The forcible returns from Turkey indicate that the government is ready to double down on other policies that deny many Syrian asylum seekers protection. Over the past four years, Turkey has sealed off its border with Syria, while Turkish border guards have carried out mass summary pushbacks and killed and injured Syrians as they try to cross. In late 2017 and early 2018, Istanbul and nine provinces on the border with Syria suspended registration of newly arriving asylum seekers. Turkey’s travel permit system for registered Syrians prohibits unregistered Syrians from traveling from border provinces they enter to register elsewhere in the country.

      Turkey is bound by the international customary law of nonrefoulement, which prohibits the return of anyone to a place where they would face a real risk of persecution, torture or other ill-treatment, or a threat to life. This includes asylum seekers, who are entitled to have their claims fairly adjudicated and not be summarily returned to places where they fear harm. Turkey may not coerce people into returning to places where they face harm by threatening to detain them.

      Turkey should protect the basic rights of all Syrians, regardless of registration status, and register those denied registration since late 2017, in line with the Istanbul governor’s July 22 statement.

      On July 19, the European Commission announced the adoption of 1.41 billion euros in additional assistance to support refugees and local communities in Turkey, including for their protection. The European Commission, EU member states with embassies in Turkey, and the UNHCR should support Turkey in any way needed to register and protect Syrians, and should publicly call on Turkey to end its mass deportations of Syrians at the border and from cities further inland.

      “As Turkey continues to shelter more than half of registered Syrian refugees globally, the EU should be resettling Syrians from Turkey to the EU but also ensuring that its financial support protects all Syrians seeking refuge in Turkey,” Simpson said.

      https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/07/26/turkey-forcibly-returning-syrians-danger
      #retour_volontaire

    • Turquie : à Istanbul, les réfugiés vivent dans la peur du racisme et de la police

      Depuis quelques semaines, le hashtag #StopDeportationsToSyria (#SuriyeyeSınırdışınaSon) circule sur les réseaux sociaux. Il s’accompagne de témoignages de Syriens qui racontent s’être fait arrêter par la police turque à Istanbul et renvoyer en Syrie. Les autorités turques ont décidé de faire la chasse aux réfugiés alors que les agressions se multiplient.

      Le 21 juillet, alors qu’il fait ses courses, le jeune Amjad Tablieh se fait arrêter par la police turque à Istanbul. Il n’a pas sa carte de protection temporaire – kimlik – sur lui et la police turque refuse d’attendre que sa famille la lui apporte : « J’ai été mis dans un bus avec d’autres syriens. On nous a emmenés au poste de police de Tuzla et les policiers on dit que nous serions envoyés à Hatay [province turque à la frontière syrienne] ». La destination finale sera finalement la Syrie.

      Étudiant et disposant d’un kimlik à Istanbul, Amjad ajoute que comme les autres syriens arrêtés ce jour-là, il a été obligé de signer un document reconnaissant qu’il rentrait volontairement en Syrie. Il tient à ajouter qu’il a « vu des personnes se faire frapper pour avoir refusé de signer ce document ». Étudiant en architecture, Hama est arrivé à Istanbul il y a quatre mois pour s’inscrire à l’université. Il a été arrêté et déporté car son kimlik a été délivré à Gaziantep, près de la frontière avec la Syrie. Amr Dabool, également enregistré dans la ville de Gaziantep, a quant à lui été expulsé en Syrie alors qu’il tentait de se rendre en Grèce.
      Pas de statut de réfugié pour les Syriens en Turquie

      Alors que des récits similaires se multiplient sur les réseaux sociaux, le 22 juillet, les autorités d’Istanbul ont annoncé que les Syriens disposant de la protection temporaire mais n’étant pas enregistrés à Istanbul avaient jusqu’au 20 août pour retourner dans les provinces où ils sont enregistrés, faute de quoi ils seront renvoyés de force dans des villes choisies par le ministère de l’Intérieur. Invité quelques jours plus tard à la télévision turque, le ministre de l’intérieur Süleyman Soylu a nié toute expulsion, précisant que certains Syriens choisissaient « de rentrer de leur propre gré en Syrie ».

      Sur les 3,5 millions de Syriens réfugiés en Turquie, ils sont plus de 500 000 à vivre à Istanbul. La grande majorité d’entre eux ont été enregistrés dans les provinces limitrophes avec la Syrie (Gaziantep ou Urfa) où ils sont d’abord passés avant d’arriver à Istanbul pour travailler, étudier ou rejoindre leur famille. Depuis quelques jours, les contrôles se renforcent pour les renvoyer là où ils sont enregistrés.

      Pour Diane al Mehdi, anthropologue et membre du Syrian Refugees Protection Network, ces refoulements existent depuis longtemps, mais ils sont aujourd’hui plus massifs. Le 24 juillet, le ministre de l’intérieur a ainsi affirmé qu’une opération visant les réfugiés et des migrants non enregistrés à Istanbul avait menée à l’arrestation, depuis le 12 juillet, de 1000 Syriens. Chaque jour, environ 200 personnes ont été expulsées vers le nord de la Syrie via le poste frontière de Bab al-Hawa, précise la chercheuse. « Ces chiffres concernent principalement des Syriens vivant à Istanbul », explique-t-elle.

      Le statut d’« invité » dont disposent les Syriens en Turquie est peu clair et extrêmement précarisant, poursuit Diane al Mehdi. « Il n’y a pas d’antécédents légaux pour un tel statut, cela participe à ce flou et permet au gouvernement de faire un peu ce qu’il veut. » Créé en 2013, ce statut s’inscrivait à l’époque dans une logique de faveur et de charité envers les Syriens, le gouvernement ne pensant alors pas que la guerre en Syrie durerait. « À l’époque, les frontières étaient complètement ouvertes, les Syriens avaient le droit d’être enregistrés en Turquie et surtout ce statut comprenait le principe de non-refoulement. Ces trois principes ont depuis longtemps été bafouées par le gouvernement turc. »

      Aujourd’hui, les 3,5 millions de Syriens réfugiés en Turquie ne disposent pas du statut de réfugié en tant que tel. Bien que signataire de la Convention de Genève, Ankara n’octroie le statut de réfugié qu’aux ressortissants des 47 pays membres du Conseil de l’Europe. La Syrie n’en faisant pas partie, les Syriens ont en Turquie un statut moins protecteur encore que la protection subsidiaire : il est temporaire et révocable.
      #LesSyriensDehors : « Ici, c’est la Turquie, c’est Istanbul »

      Si le Président Erdoğan a longtemps prôné une politique d’accueil des Syriens, le vent semble aujourd’hui avoir tourné. En février 2018, il déclarait déjà : « Nous ne sommes pas en mesure de continuer d’accueillir 3,5 millions de réfugiés pour toujours ». Et alors qu’à Istanbul la possibilité d’obtenir le kimlik a toujours été compliquée, depuis le 6 juillet 2019, Istanbul n’en délivre officiellement plus aucun selon Diane al Mehdi.

      Même si le kimlik n’offre pas aux Syriens la possibilité de travailler, depuis quelques années, les commerces aux devantures en arabe sont de plus en plus nombreux dans rues d’Istanbul et beaucoup de Syriens ont trouvé du travail dans l’économie informelle, fournissant une main-d’œuvre bon marché. Or, dans un contexte économique difficile, avec une inflation et un chômage en hausse, les travailleurs syriens entrent en concurrence avec les ressortissants turcs et cela accroît les tensions sociales.

      Au printemps dernier, alors que la campagne pour les élections municipales battait son plein, des propos hostiles accompagnés des hashtags #SuriyelilerDefoluyor (« Les Syriens dehors ») ou #UlkemdeSuriyeliIstemiyorum (« Je ne veux pas de Syriens dans mon pays ») se sont multipliés sur les réseaux sociaux. Le candidat d’opposition et aujourd’hui maire d’Istanbul Ekrem Imamoglu, étonné du nombre d’enseignes en arabe dans certains quartiers, avait lancé : « Ici, c’est la Turquie, c’est Istanbul ».

      Après la banalisation des propos anti-syriens, ce sont les actes de violence qui se sont multipliés dans les rues d’Istanbul. Fin juin, dans le quartier de Küçükçekmece, une foule d’hommes a attaqué des magasins tenus par des Syriens. Quelques jours plus tard, les autorités d’Istanbul sommaient plus de 700 commerçants syriens de turciser leurs enseignes en arabe. Publié dans la foulée, un sondage de l’université Kadir Has à Istanbul a confirmé que la part des Turcs mécontents de la présence des Syriens est passée de 54,5 % en 2017 à 67,7 % en 2019.
      Climat de peur

      Même s’ils ont un kimlik, ceux qui ne disposent pas d’un permis de travail - difficile à obtenir - risquent une amende d’environs 550 euros et leur expulsion vers la Syrie s’ils sont pris en flagrant délit. Or, la police a renforcé les contrôles d’identités dans les stations de métro, les gares routières, les quartiers à forte concentration de Syriens mais aussi sur les lieux de travail. Cette nouvelle vague d’arrestations et d’expulsions suscite un climat de peur permanente chez les Syriens d’Istanbul. Aucune des personne contactée n’a souhaité témoigner, même sous couvert d’anonymat.

      « Pas protégés par les lois internationales, les Syriens titulaires du kimlik deviennent otages de la politique turque », dénonce Syrian Refugees Protection Network. Et l’[accord signé entre l’Union européenne et Ankara au printemps 2016 pour fermer la route des Balkans n’a fait que détériorer leur situation en Turquie. Pour Diane al-Mehdi, il aurait fallu accorder un statut qui permette aux Syriens d’avoir un avenir. « Tant qu’ils n’auront pas un statut fixe qui leur permettra de travailler, d’aller à l’école, à l’université, ils partiront en Europe. » Selon elle, donner de l’argent - dont on ne sait pas clairement comment il bénéficie aux Syriens - à la Turquie pour que le pays garde les Syriens n’était pas la solution. « Évidemment, l’Europe aurait aussi dû accepter d’accueillir plus de Syriens. »

      https://www.courrierdesbalkans.fr/Turquie-a-Istanbul-les-refugies-vivent-dans-la-peur-du-racisme-et

    • En Turquie, les réfugiés syriens sont devenus #indésirables

      Après avoir accueilli les réfugiés syriens à bras ouverts, la Turquie change de ton. Une façon pour le gouvernement Erdogan de réagir aux crispations qu’engendrent leur présence dans un contexte économique morose.

      Les autorités avaient donné jusqu’à mardi soir aux migrants sans statut légal pour régulariser leur situation, sous peine d’être expulsés. Mais selon plusieurs ONG, ces expulsions ont déjà commencé et plus d’un millier de réfugiés ont déjà été arrêtés. Quelque 600 personnes auraient même déjà été reconduites en Syrie.

      « Les policiers font des descentes dans les quartiers, dans les commerces, dans les maisons. Ils font des contrôles d’identité dans les transports en commun et quand ils attrapent des Syriens, ils les emmènent au bureau de l’immigration puis les expulsent », décrit Eyup Ozer, membre du collectif « We want to live together initiative ».

      Le gouvernement turc dément pour sa part ces renvois forcés. Mais cette vague d’arrestations intervient dans un climat hostile envers les 3,6 millions de réfugiés syriens installés en Turquie.

      Solidarité islamique

      Bien accueillis au début de la guerre, au nom de la solidarité islamique défendue par le président turc Recep Tayyip Erdogan dans l’idée de combattre Bachar al-Assad, ces réfugiés syriens sont aujourd’hui devenus un enjeu politique.

      Retenus à leur arrivée dans des camps, parfois dans des conditions difficiles, nombre d’entre eux ont quitté leur point de chute pour tenter leur chance dans le reste du pays et en particulier dans les villes. A Istanbul, le poumon économique de la Turquie, la présence de ces nouveaux-venus est bien visible. La plupart ont ouvert des commerces et des restaurants, et leurs devantures, en arabe, agacent, voire suscitent des jalousies.

      « L’économie turque va mal, c’est pour cette raison qu’on ressent davantage les effets de la crise syrienne », explique Lami Bertan Tokuzlu, professeur de droit à l’Université Bilgi d’Istanbul. « Les Turcs n’approuvent plus les dépenses du gouvernement en faveur des Syriens », relève ce spécialiste des migrations.
      Ressentiment croissant

      Après l’euphorie économique des années 2010, la Turquie est confrontée depuis plus d’un an à la dévaluation de sa monnaie et à un taux de chômage en hausse, à 10,9% en 2018.

      Dans ce contexte peu favorable et alors que les inégalités se creusent, la contestation s’est cristallisée autour de la question des migrants. Celle-ci expliquerait, selon certains experts, la déroute du candidat de Recep Tayyip Erdogan à la mairie d’Istanbul.

      Conscient de ce ressentiment dans la population et des conséquences potentielles pour sa popularité, le président a commencé à adapter son discours dès 2018. L’ultimatum lancé à ceux qui ont quitté une province turque où ils étaient enregistrés pour s’installer à Istanbul illustre une tension croissante.

      https://www.rts.ch/info/monde/10649380-en-turquie-les-refugies-syriens-sont-devenus-indesirables.html

    • Europe’s Complicity in Turkey’s Syrian-Refugee Crackdown

      Ankara is moving against Syrians in the country—and the European Union bears responsibility.

      Under the cover of night, Turkish police officers pushed Ahmed onto a large bus parked in central Istanbul. In the darkness, the Syrian man from Damascus could discern dozens of other handcuffed refugees being crammed into the vehicle. Many of them would not see the Turkish city again.

      Ahmed, who asked that his last name not be used to protect his safety, was arrested after police discovered that he was registered with the authorities not in Istanbul, but in a different district. Turkish law obliges Syrian refugees with a temporary protection status to remain in their locale of initial registration or obtain separate permission to travel, and the officers reassured him he would simply be transferred back to the right district.

      Instead, as dawn broke, the bus arrived at a detention facility in the Istanbul suburb of Pendik, where Ahmed said he was jostled into a crowded cell with 10 others and no beds, and received only one meal a day, which was always rotten. “The guards told us we Syrians are just as rotten inside,” he told me. “They kept shouting that Turkey will no longer accept us, and that we will all go back to Syria.”

      Ahmed would spend more than six weeks in the hidden world of Turkey’s so-called removal centers. His account, as well as those of more than half a dozen other Syrians I spoke to, point to the systemic abuse, the forced deportations, and, in some cases, the death of refugees caught in a recent crackdown here.
      More Stories

      Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte addresses the upper house of parliament.
      Italy’s Transition From One Weak Government to Another
      Rachel Donadio
      A cyclist heads past the houses of Parliament in central London.
      Boris Johnson Is Suspending Parliament. What’s Next for Brexit?
      Yasmeen Serhan Helen Lewis Tom McTague
      Robert Habeck and Annalena Baerbock, the German Greens leaders, at a news conference in Berlin
      Germany’s Future Is Being Decided on the Left, Not the Far Right
      Noah Barkin
      A Cathay Pacific plane hovers beside the flag of Hong Kong.
      Angering China Can Now Get You Fired
      Michael Schuman

      Yet Turkey is not the only actor implicated. In a deeper sense, the backlash also exposes the long-term consequences of the European Union’s outsourcing of its refugee problem. In March 2016, the EU entered into a controversial deal with Turkey that halted much of the refugee influx to Europe in return for an aid package worth €6 billion ($6.7 billion) and various political sweeteners for Ankara. Preoccupied with its own border security, EU decision makers at the time were quick to reassure their critics that Turkey constituted a “safe third country” that respected refugee rights and was committed to the principle of non-refoulement.

      As Europe closed its doors, Turkey was left with a staggering 3.6 million registered Syrian refugees—the largest number hosted by any country in the world and nearly four times as many as all EU-member states combined. While Turkish society initially responded with impressive resilience, its long-lauded hospitality is rapidly wearing thin, prompting President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s government to take measures that violate the very premise of the EU-Turkey deal.

      Last month, Turkish police launched operations targeting undocumented migrants and refugees in Istanbul. Syrian refugees holding temporary protection status registered in other Turkish districts now have until October 30 to leave Istanbul, whereas those without any papers are to be transferred to temporary refugee camps in order to be registered.

      Both international and Turkish advocates of refugee rights say, however, that the operation sparked a wave of random arrests and even forced deportations. The Istanbul Bar Association, too, reported its Legal Aid Bureau dealt with 3.5 times as many deportation cases as in June, just before the operation was launched. UNHCR, the UN’s refugee agency, and the European Commission have not said whether they believe Turkey is deporting Syrians. But one senior EU official, who asked for anonymity to discuss the issue, estimated that about 2,200 people were sent to the Syrian province of Idlib, though he said it was unclear whether they were forcibly deported or chose to return. The official added that, were Turkey forcibly deporting Syrians, this would be in explicit violation of the principle of non-refoulement, on which the EU-Turkey deal is conditioned.

      The Turkish interior ministry’s migration department did not respond to questions about the allegations. In a recent interview on Turkish television, Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu said that “it is not possible for us to deport any unregistered Syrian” and insisted that returns to Syria were entirely voluntary.

      Ahmed and several other Syrian refugees I spoke to, however, experienced firsthand what voluntary can look like in practice.

      After being transferred from the facility in Pendik to a removal center in Binkılıç, northwest of Istanbul, Ahmed said he was pressured into signing a set of forms upon arrival. The female official in charge refused to explain the papers’ contents, he said. As Ahmed was about to sign and fingerprint the last document, he noticed she was deliberately using her fingers to cover the Arabic translation of the words voluntary return. When he retracted his finger, she called in the guards, who took Ahmed to a nearby bathroom with another Syrian who had refused to sign. There, he said, the two were intimidated for several hours, and he was shown images of a man who had been badly beaten and tied to a chair with plastic tape. According to Ahmed, an official told him, “If you don’t sign, you’ll end up like that.”

      The other Syrian present at the time, Hussein, offered a similar account. In a phone interview from Dubai, where he escaped to after negotiating deportation to Malaysia instead of Syria, Hussein, who asked to be identified by only his first name to protect relatives still in Turkey, detailed the abuse in the same terms as Ahmed, and added that he was personally beaten by one of the guards. When the ordeal was over, both men said, the other Syrians who had arrived with them were being taken to a bus, apparently to be deported.

      Ahmed was detained in Binkılıç for a month before being taken to another removal center in nearby Kırklareli, where he said he was made to sleep outside in a courtyard together with more than 100 other detainees. The guards kept the toilets locked throughout the day, he said, so inmates had to either wait for a single 30-minute toilet break at night or relieve themselves where they were sleeping. When Ahmed fell seriously ill, he told me, he was repeatedly denied access to a doctor.

      After nine days in Kırklareli, the nightmare suddenly ended. Ahmed was called in by the facility’s management, asked who he was, and released when it became clear he did in fact hold temporary protection status, albeit for a district other than Istanbul. The Atlantic has seen a photo of Ahmed’s identity card, as well as his release note from the removal center.

      The EU has funded many of the removal centers in which refugees like Ahmed are held. As stated in budgets from 2010 and 2015, the EU financed at least 12 such facilities as part of its pre-accession funding to Turkey. And according to a 2016 report by an EU parliamentary delegation, the removal center in Kırklareli in which Ahmed was held received 85 percent of its funding from the EU. The Binkılıç facility, where Syrians were forced to sign return papers, also received furniture and other equipment funded by Britain and, according to Ahmed, featured signs displaying the EU and Turkish flags.

      It is hard to determine the extent to which the $6.7 billion allocated to Ankara under the 2016 EU-Turkey deal has funded similar projects. While the bulk of it went to education, health care, and direct cash support for refugees, a 2018 annual report also refers to funding for “a removal center for 750 people”—language conspicuously replaced with the more neutral “facility for 750 people” in this year’s report.

      According to Kati Piri, the European Parliament’s former Turkey rapporteur, even lawmakers like her struggle to scrutinize the precise implementation of EU-brokered deals on migration, which include agreements not just with Turkey, but also with Libya, Niger, and Sudan.

      “In this way, the EU becomes co-responsible for human-rights violations,” Piri said in a telephone interview. “Violations against refugees may have decreased on European soil, but that’s because we outsourced them. It’s a sign of Europe’s moral deficit, which deprives us from our credibility in holding Turkey to account.” According to the original agreement, the EU pledged to resettle 72,000 Syrian refugees from Turkey. Three years later, it has taken in less than a third of that number.

      Many within Turkish society feel their country has simply done enough. With an economy only recently out of recession and many Turks struggling to make a living, hostility toward Syrians is on the rise. A recent poll found that those who expressed unhappiness with Syrian refugees rose to 67.7 percent this year, from 54.5 percent in 2017.

      Just as in Europe, opposition parties in Turkey are now cashing in on anti-refugee sentiment. In municipal elections this year, politicians belonging to the secularist CHP ran an explicitly anti-Syrian campaign, and have cut municipal aid for refugees or even banned Syrians’ access to beaches since being elected. In Istanbul, on the very evening the CHP candidate Ekrem İmamoğlu was elected mayor, a jubilantly racist hashtag began trending on Twitter: “Syrians are fucking off” (#SuriyelilerDefoluyor).

      In a statement to The Atlantic, a Turkish foreign-ministry spokesperson said, “Turkey has done its part” when it came to the deal with the EU. “The funds received amount to a fraction of what has been spent by Turkey,” the text noted, adding that Ankara expects “more robust support from the EU” both financially and in the form of increased resettlements of Syrian refugees from Turkey to Europe.

      Though international organizations say that more evidence of Turkey’s actions is needed, Nour al-Deen al-Showaishi argues the proof is all around him. “The bombs are falling not far from here,” he told me in a telephone interview from a village on the outskirts of Idlib, the Syrian region where he said he was sent. Showaishi said he was deported from Turkey in mid-July after being arrested in the Istanbul neighborhood of Esenyurt while having coffee with friends. Fida al-Deen, who was with him at the time, confirmed to me that Showaishi was arrested and called him from Syria two days later.

      Having arrived in Turkey in early 2018, when the governorate of Istanbul had stopped giving out identity cards to Syrians, Showaishi did not have any papers to show the police. Taken to a nearby police station, officers assured him that he would receive an identity card if he signed a couple of forms. When he asked for more detail about the forms, however, they changed tactics and forced him to comply.

      Showaishi was then sent to a removal center in Tuzla and, he said, deported to Syria the same day. He sent me videos to show he was in Idlib, the last major enclave of armed resistance against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. According to the United Nations, the region contains 3 million people, half of them internally displaced, and faces a humanitarian disaster now that Russia and the Assad regime are stepping up an offensive to retake the territory.

      The only way out leads back into Turkey, and, determined to prevent yet another influx of refugees, Ankara has buttressed its border.

      Still, Hisham al-Steyf al-Mohammed saw no other option. The 21-year-old was deported from Turkey in mid-July despite possessing valid papers from the governorate of Istanbul, a photo of which I have seen. Desperate to return to his wife and two young children, he paid a smuggler to guide him back to Turkey, according to Mohammed Khedr Hammoud, another refugee who joined the perilous journey.

      Shortly before sunset on August 4, Hammoud said, a group of 13 refugees set off from the village of Dirriyah, a mile from the border, pausing in the mountains for the opportune moment to cross into Turkey. While they waited, Mohammed knelt down to pray, but moments later, a cloud of sand jumped up next to him. Realizing it was a bullet, the smuggler called for the group to get moving, but Mohammed lay still. “I crawled up to him and put my ear on his heart,” Hammoud told me, “but it wasn’t beating.” For more than an hour, he said, the group was targeted by bullets from Turkish territory, and only at midnight was it able to carry Mohammed’s body away.

      I obtained a photo of Mohammed’s death certificate issued by the Al-Rahma hospital in the Darkoush village in Idlib. The document, dated August 5, notes, “A bullet went through the patient’s right ear, and came out at the level of the left neck.”

      The Turkish interior ministry sent me a statement that largely reiterated an article published in Foreign Policy last week, in which an Erdoğan spokesman said Mohammed was a terror suspect who voluntarily requested his return to Syria. He offered no details on the case, though.

      Mohammed’s father, Mustafa, dismissed the spokesman’s argument, telling me in an interview in Istanbul, “If he really did something wrong, then why didn’t they send him to court?” Since Mohammed had been the household’s main breadwinner, Mustafa said he now struggled to feed his family, including Mohammed’s 3-month-old baby.

      Yet he is not the only one struck by Mohammed’s death. In an interview in his friend’s apartment in Istanbul, where he has returned but is in hiding from the authorities, Ahmed had just finished detailing his week’s long detention in Turkey’s removal centers when his phone started to buzz—photos of Mohammed’s corpse were being shared on Facebook.

      “I know him!” Ahmed screamed, clasping his friend’s arm. Mohammed, he said, had been with him in the removal center in Binkılıç. “He was so hopeful to be released, because he had a valid ID for Istanbul. But when he told me that he had been made to sign some forms, I knew it was already too late.”

      “If I signed that piece of paper,” Ahmed said, “I could have been dead next to him.”

      It is this thought that pushes Ahmed, and many young Syrians like him, to continue on to Europe. He and his friend showed me videos a smuggler had sent them of successful boat journeys, and told me they planned to leave soon.

      “As long as we are in Turkey, the Europeans can pretend that they don’t see us,” Ahmed concluded. “But once I go there, once I stand in front of them, I am sure that they will care about me.”

      https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/08/europe-turkey-syria-refugee-crackdown/597013
      #responsabilité

  • Italy receives more asylum seekers from Germany than from Libya

    Italy has a migration problem, just not the one it thinks it does.

    To illustrate the challenges facing the country, Interior Minister Matteo Salvini continues to point south, at people coming by boat across the Mediterranean.

    But in reality, in part because of the government’s hard-line approach, the number of people arriving by sea has plummeted, from over 180,000 at its peak in 2016 to a little over 3,000 so far this year.

    Instead, the greatest influx of people seeking asylum is now coming from the north — from other European countries, who are sending migrants back to Italy in accordance with the EU’s so-called Dublin regulation.

    The regulation states that a migrant’s country of arrival is responsible for fingerprinting and registering them, handling their asylum claims, hosting them if they are granted some form of protection and sending them back to their countries of origin if they are not.

    Salvini is right to call for binding commitments instead of ad hoc promises, but refusing to cooperate in the search for them might not be the wisest approach.

    If migrants travel onward — to Germany, for example — the new country has the right to send them back to where they first arrived in the European Union. In 2018, Italy accepted more than 6,300 Dublin transfers — the highest figure ever. That’s almost twice as many people as arrived by boat so far this year.

    Last year, Germany alone sent 2,292 asylum seekers back to Italy, a number that can be expected to rise this year. By comparison, less than 1,200 migrants have arrived by boat from Libya in the first seven months of 2019; the total for the year is expected to be about 1,900.

    And yet, despite the growing number of asylum seekers arriving from other EU countries, Italy is receiving far fewer than it would if the Dublin rules were working as planned.

    Over the past few years, as migration roiled Italian politics, Rome accepted only a fraction of the people it was requested to take back. Since 2013, Italy has received more than 220,000 transfer requests from European countries and accepted just 25,000. In 2018 alone, France and Germany asked Italy to take back more than 50,000 people.

    Rome has fought the Dublin system for years, arguing it’s “unfair” and pushing for the rules to be revised — without much success. Successive Italian governments have called for new mechanisms that would distribute migrants across European countries more equitably, lifting the burden for registering and managing migrants off border countries. The most recent attempt, in 2015, fell apart almost as soon as it launched, when some EU countries refused to take part and others took in only a small share of what they promised.

    The truth is that, under Dublin, Italy is doing just fine.

    The system is highly dysfunctional. Once migrants move to another EU country from their original point of arrival — often Italy, Greece, Spain, or Malta — it is very hard to send them back.

    Between 2013 and 2018, just 15 percent of those found in a different country from the one responsible for processing their asylum request were in fact returned.

    Why don’t these transfers happen? Officials will usually blame the migrants themselves, who sometimes disappear before a transfer can be carried out. In reality, political reasons play a large part. The country responsible for taking charge of a migrant can put up a myriad of tiny technical obstacles to block the transfer. And if the transfer does not happen within six months’ time, responsibility shifts to the country where the migrant is currently located.

    This is why EU countries where migrants actually want to live — like Germany, Sweden, Austria and the Benelux countries — end up receiving the most migrants, processing their asylum requests and dealing with failed asylum seekers, in spite of the Dublin rules.

    A cynic might suspect that this is also why successive Italian governments, and now Salvini, have shown so little interest in actually reforming the system despite continuously requesting “solidarity” from other EU countries.

    At a meeting in Paris earlier this week, several EU interior ministers agreed to form a “coalition of the willing” to redistribute migrants that disembark in Italy and Malta.

    Italy didn’t attend, arguing that such promises would be as empty as they proved to be in 2015 when governments failed to come to an agreement on reforming Dublin. It also objected to the fact that the deal would require Italy and Malta to allow all migrants rescued in the Central Mediterranean to be disembarked and registered in their countries.

    Salvini is right to call for binding commitments instead of ad hoc promises, but refusing to cooperate in the search for them might not be the wisest approach.

    The solution a handful of EU ministers came up with on Monday is a step in the right direction — and it’s along the lines of what Italy has been calling for.

    If Rome continues to play a blocking role in the reform of the Dublin system, its neighbors might decide they’re better off focusing their efforts on making sure the regulation is properly applied.

    https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-migration-refugees-receives-more-asylum-seekers-from-germany-than-fro
    #renvois #renvois_Dublin #Dublin #règlement_dublin #asile #migrations #réfugiés #fact-checking #afflux #préjugés #Méditerranée #Libye #invasion #Allemagne #statistiques #chiffres #arrivées #mer #terre #France
    (et la #Suisse, par contre, perd la palme de championne des renvois Dublin vers l’Italie :
    https://asile.ch/2014/11/16/jean-francois-mabut-la-suisse-championne-du-refoulement)

    ping @isskein
    @karine4 : tu as vu les statistisques pour les renvois France-Italie ?

  • America’s Forgotten History of Illegal Deportations

    In the late 1920s and early 1930s, the country carried out a wave of unconstitutional raids that affected as many as 1.8 million people. Is it on the verge of doing so again?

    It was a time of economic struggle, racial resentment and increasing xenophobia. Installed in the White House was a president who had never before held elected office. A moderately successful businessman, he promised American jobs for Americans—and made good on that promise by slashing immigration by nearly 90 percent.

    He wore his hair parted down the middle, rather than elaborately piled on top, and his name was Herbert Hoover, not Donald Trump. But in the late 1920s and early 1930s, under the president’s watch, a wave of illegal and unconstitutional raids and deportations would alter the lives of as many as 1.8 million men, women and children—a threat that would seem to loom just as large in 2017 as it did back in 1929.

    What became colloquially known as the “Mexican repatriation” efforts of 1929 to 1936 are a shameful and profoundly illustrative chapter in American history, yet they remain largely unknown—despite their broad and devastating impact. So much so that today, a different president is edging towards similar solutions, with none of the hesitation or concern that basic consciousness would seem to require.

    Indeed, in the last several weeks, President Trump ordered the Department of Homeland Security to greatly increase not only the scope of potential deportees, but the speed at which they are being sent out of the country—a bid at “stabilization” borne of many of the same nationalist anxieties that plagued his predecessor nearly a century ago.
    More Stories

    M. J. Hegar, a candidate for Senate in Texas, shakes hand with a voter.
    The Job of Campaigning Is Extremely Family-Unfriendly
    Joe Pinsker
    A photo of a large armored tank
    Antiques Road Show: The Real State of the U.S. Military
    Thomas G. Mahnken Roger Zakheim
    Radio Atlantic: The Veteran Candidate
    Edward-Isaac Dovere
    The Atlantic Politics & Policy Daily: Roby Waived
    Elaine Godfrey

    In his address to a joint session of Congress last week, the president painted a dark portrait of America’s immigrant population: “As we speak tonight,” he intoned, “we are removing gang members, drug dealers and criminals that threaten our communities and prey on our very innocent citizens.” It was the same foreboding message that Trump has espoused since he announced his candidacy, and yet there remains very little evidence to support it.

    Several weeks ago, Trump’s White House circulated a draft executive order aimed at “protecting U.S. jobs,” one that would shut America’s doors to immigrants most likely to require public assistance (including reduced school lunches) as well as tightly control who is able to enter the American workforce. It was very nearly Hoover’s rallying cry—American jobs for Americans—heard once again.

    In his speech on Tuesday, the president repeated this plan:

    Protecting our workers also means reforming our system of legal immigration. The current, outdated system depresses wages for our poorest workers and puts great pressure on taxpayers. Nations around the world, like Canada, Australia and many others, have a merit-based immigration system. It’s a basic principle that those seeking to enter a country ought to be able to support themselves financially. Yet in America we do not enforce this rule, straining the very public resources that our poorest citizens rely upon.

    Back in Hoover’s era, as America hung on the precipice of economic calamity—the Great Depression—the president was under enormous pressure to offer a solution for increasing unemployment, and to devise an emergency plan for the strained social safety net. Though he understood the pressing need to aid a crashing economy, Hoover resisted federal intervention, instead preferring a patchwork of piecemeal solutions, including the targeting of outsiders.

    According to former California State Senator Joseph Dunn, who in 2004 began an investigation into the Hoover-era deportations, “the Republicans decided the way they were going to create jobs was by getting rid of anyone with a Mexican-sounding name.”

    “Getting rid of” America’s Mexican population was a random, brutal effort. “For participating cities and counties, they would go through public employee rolls and look for Mexican-sounding names and then go and arrest and deport those people,” said Dunn. “And then there was a job opening!”

    “We weren’t rounding up people who were Canadian,” he added. “It was an absolutely racially-motivated program to create jobs by getting rid of people.”

    Why, specifically, men and women of Mexican heritage? Professor Francisco Balderrama, whose book, A Decade of Betrayal: Mexican Repatriation in the 1930s is the most definitive chronicle of the period (and, not coincidentally, one of the only ones), explained: “Mexican immigration was very recent. It goes back to that saying: Last hired, first fired. The attitude of many industrialists and agriculturalists was reflected in larger cities: A Mexican is a Mexican.” And that included even those citizens of Mexicans descent who were born in the U.S. “That is sort of key in understanding the psychic of the nation,” said Balderrama.

    The so-called repatriation effort was, in large part, a misnomer, given the fact that as many as sixty percent of those sent to “home” Mexico were U.S. citizens: American-born children of Mexican-descent who had never before traveled south of the border. (Dunn noted, “I don’t know how you can repatriate someone to a country they’ve not been born or raised in.”)

    “Individuals who left at 5, 6 and 7 years old found themselves in Mexico dealing with process of socialization, of learning the language, but they maintained an American identity,” said Balderrama. “And still had the dream to come back to ‘my country.’”

    The raids, as detailed in Balderrama’s chronicle, were vicious. With national concerns over the supposed burden that outsiders were putting on social welfare agencies, authorities targeted those Mexicans utilizing public resources. “In Los Angeles,” explained Balderrama, “they had orderlies who gathered people [in the hospitals] and put them in stretchers on trucks and left them at the border.”

    The efforts were equally chaotic. “The first raid in Los Angeles was in 1931—they surrounded La Placita Park near downtown L.A.,” Dunn recalled. “It was a heavily Latino area. They, literally, on a Sunday afternoon, rounded everyone up in park that day, took them to train station and put them on a train that they had leased. These people were taken to Central Mexico to minimize their chances of crossing the border and coming back to the U.S.”

    Dunn continued, “It was not like there was a master committee mapping out blocks. It was more fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants. As in, Here’s a park where Mexicans go, okay let’s go there.”

    Mexicans in the United States—and Americans of Mexican descent—had little understanding of what was happening, and what their rights were. Elena Herrada, one of the founders of the oral history project, “Los Repatriados: Exiles from the Promised Land,” is the grandchild of Mexican-Americans who were targeted in the raids. Her grandparents, she recalled, lived in a “mostly Mexican neighborhood” in Detroit, known as Court Town.

    “It was the welfare officials who were doing it. A worker came to the door,” Herrada said. “My father remembered his father being asked by the worker, Where are you from?”

    “My dad was really puzzled,” she said. “Because his father didn’t want to say ‘Mexico’. My father was confused because he had always been a proud Mexican.”

    The family, Herrada recounted, was “de-patriated” to Mexico.

    “My grandfather didn’t have work at the time, and they were forcing them to leave. There was no gun put to his to head, but [they said he] wouldn’t be eligible to receive assistance—and he would starve.”

    “Many people didn’t believe they had a choice,” Herrada explained, “so they didn’t resist. My family didn’t believe they had a choice.”

    Herrada’s father and uncle would spend two years in Mexico before his parents were able to bring him back to the United States—after her grandfather, a veteran of the U.S. Army, returned to the country and once again found work.

    If American deportees made it back to America, according to Dunn, it was often because a friend or family member back in the States managed to obtain a copy of their birth certificate, proof of citizenship. And if they weren’t U.S. citizens, by the onset of World War II and the departure of much of the able-bodied workforce to the front, Mexican labor was back in demand: bodies were needed for low-paying agricultural work, and the xenophobia subsided under the auspices of the Bracero Program (a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Mexico, the program brought Mexican workers to the states for short-term labor).

    But some never made it back to America. “We are who we are because of what people did in that moment,” said Herrada.

    Each state handled the raids differently—sometimes federal agents were involved, sometimes it was social workers and local law enforcement who targeted people for removal. Hoover’s precise role in directing the deportation efforts is unclear, but, according to Professor Kevin Johnson, Dean of the UC Davis School of Law, and a specialist in public interest law and Chicano studies, “There was a lot of correspondence between the different levels of government, and there was logistical support.” This support included reimbursing states for the chartering of busses and trains to transport people to Mexico.

    Deportations took place across the country: Los Angeles had the largest concentration of Mexicans and Mexican-born Americans, but communities in Detroit were also targeted in large number. “America’s most industrial city was in many ways the promise of the age in terms of economic prosperity,” according to Balderrama, and because of this, its Mexicans and citizens of Mexicans-descent were not exempt from deportation. “The archival evidence points to a full map, across the nation,” said Balderrama. There were deportations in states as far flung as Alaska, Alabama and Mississippi.

    And yet, confirming the precise number of people who were deported during this era is difficult, said Balderrama. “Both governments”—Mexico and the United States—“weren’t very interested in keeping records about what happened. It was a problem and they wanted to get rid of it. That’s why the numbers are very difficult.”

    Dunn, however, spent nearly three years doing archival research, enlisting his state senate staff to comb through federal, state and local records in a bid to reconcile California’s tortured legacy. He feels confident in his citation of 1.8 million people deported. “That number came out of several documents we got from the federal government,” he told me.

    Beyond the travesty inflicted upon hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens, the Mexican deportations of the 1920s and 1930s are also shocking—and at this moment, particularly enlightening—for the illegalities visited upon non-citizens. Trump is unlikely to willfully deport American citizens, but he appears perilously close to replicating many of the mistakes Hoover did as it concerned the undocumented. And given the number of mixed-status families in the U.S.—as of 2015, 16.6 million Americans lived in residences with at least one undocumented immigrant—these deportations will affect citizens and non-citizens alike.

    Johnson said that in hindsight, it is clear Hoover’s deportations were a violation of “several constitutional rights,” including the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause and the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.

    “Now it’s very clear that some of those provisions apply to immigrants in the U.S. The Supreme Court has made very clear that as long as you’re in the U.S., you have a right to due process and hearing. That doesn’t mean you can’t be removed,” said Johnson. “But you have the ability to retain counsel.”

    Johnson said that many immigrants—especially those who have been here for any extended amount of time, may have “deep community ties—to citizens, churches, employers.” The longer someone is in the U.S., he explained, “the more of those ties you have, and the deeper your rights are.”

    He pointed out that this legal reality, “is an issue right now because the White House is making efforts to expedite and expand deportations. But it means no hearing, no judicial review; it could be ready as a summary deportation.”

    Further, the expedited deportations can now occur beyond one hundred miles of the U.S.-Mexico border, and can target people who have been here for as many as two years. “Imagine what can happen in two years,” said Johnson. “All kinds of relief you might be eligible for, but you might not even have a hearing. The reason you have hearings is to try and avoid mistakes: If you don’t … you are probably going to have some mistakes tolerated and accepted.”

    Perhaps more than anything, the humanitarian cost of the Hoover-era deportations are the specter that looms largest over Trump’s immigration policy of today. Given the burden mass deportations would have placed on the federal bureaucracy, Hoover’s administration outsourced the raids, targeting and deportation to local and state officials—persons not particularly well versed in constitutional law, nor the sensitivities surrounding deportation.

    Trump appears ready to do the same: while the administration has directed the hiring of 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials to oversee the dramatic increase in deportations, the administration has also revived the controversial 287(g) program, which recruits local law enforcement and sheriff’s deputies to assist in deportations.

    “It’s frightening and terrifying,” said Johnson. “We have a recent history—one not limited to the 1930s—of law enforcement engaging in excess in the name of law enforcement.”

    “I may be suspicious of ICE officials and how they apply the law,” he added, “but I do think they are trained to enforce the laws. And it’s the job of state and local police to enforce criminal laws—they don’t have the training, expertise or sensitivity to enforce accurate immigration decisions.”

    And yet it’s unclear if federal agents are the ones who intend on showing any particular restraint, given the new guidelines. According to the New York Times, ICE agents have already been targeting church shelters, airports and other areas where immigrants are known to convene.

    Two officials in Washington said that the shift [in policy]— and the new enthusiasm that has come with it — seems to have encouraged pro-Trump political comments and banter that struck the officials as brazen or gung-ho, like remarks about their jobs becoming “fun.” Those who take less of a hard line on unauthorized immigrants feel silenced, the officials said.

    Brazen behavior by those tasked with deportations, Johnson said, “is opening the door to the kinds of excesses that happened ... across the nation during the Depression—when state and local law enforcement made mistakes and rounded up brown people as their way of general relief reduction. I understand why immigrant communities are very frightened about what could happen.”

    In the meantime, only a limited number of Americans seem to even be aware of the gross mistakes their country made in the name of security. While still a state senator, Dunn successfully sponsored the Apology Act, an official mea culpa from the state of California to its Mexican residents—it passed in 2006. He also led efforts to have a memorial erected in La Placita park, the site of the first raids on L.A.’s Mexican community, where it now stands in memoriam.

    And yet, when Dunn took his apology proposal to members of the U.S. Congress, no one was interested. “They would say, ‘Immigration is really volatile right now. We’re gonna look like we’re only fighting for Latinos.’ We couldn’t convince anyone to pick it up.”

    As for all the records and material unearthed during his research? Dunn said, “Those documents are still sitting in my garage. Nobody really wanted them.”

    Those whose families were affected by the deportations—in some cases forever changed—appear no more eager to delve into the sins of the past. “They never talked about it,” said Herrada, “there was a lot of shame associated with it … They didn’t know why they got deported. They didn’t know what they did to bring that on. The only thing they knew was that they were Mexicans—and this only happened to Mexicans.”

    She added, “My grandfather still didn’t want to say he was deported. And my father, on his deathbed, said to me, You know, I never liked that word. He was really angry that I had used it.”

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/03/americas-brutal-forgotten-history-of-illegal-deportations/517971
    #histoire #USA #Etats-Unis #renvois #expulsions #migrations #Mexican_repatriation #Mexique

    signalé par @isskein via la mailing-list de Migreurop

  • 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

  • EASO | La situation de l’asile dans l’UE en 2018
    https://asile.ch/2019/06/25/easo-la-situation-de-lasile-dans-lue-en-2018

    Le rapport annuel de l’EASO sur la situation en matière d’asile dans l’Union européenne en 2018 offre une vue d’ensemble complète des évolutions dans le domaine de la protection internationale à l’échelle européenne et au niveau des régimes d’asile nationaux. À partir d’un large éventail de sources, le rapport examine les principales tendances statistiques et […]