• IOM Organizes First Humanitarian #Charter Flight from Algeria to Niger

    This week (15/10), the International Organization for Migration (IOM) organized its first flight for voluntary return from the southern Algerian city of #Tamanrasset to Niger’s capital, #Niamey, carrying 166 Nigerien nationals, in close collaboration with the Governments of Algeria and Niger.

    This is the first movement of its kind for vulnerable Nigerien migrants through IOM voluntary return activities facilitated by the governments of Algeria and Niger and in close cooperation with Air Algérie. This flight was organized to avoid a long tiring journey for migrants in transit by using a shorter way to go home.

    For the first flight, 18 per cent of the returnees, including women and children were selected for their vulnerabilities, including medical needs.

    “The successful return of over 160 vulnerable Nigerien migrants through this inaugural voluntary return flight ensures, safe and humane return of migrants who are in need of assistance to get to their country of origin,” said Paolo Caputo, IOM’s Chief of Mission in Algeria. “This movement is the result of the combined efforts of both IOM missions and the Governments of Algeria and Niger.”

    IOM staff in Algeria provided medical assistance to more than 10 migrants prior to their flight and ensured that all their health needs were addressed during their travel and upon arrival in Niger.

    IOM also provides technical support to the Government of Niger in registering the returned Nigeriens upon arrival in Niger and deliver basic humanitarian assistance before they travel to their communities of origin.

    Since 2016, IOM missions in Niger and Libya have assisted over 7,500 Nigerien migrants with their return from Libya through voluntary humanitarian return operations.

    Upon arrival, the groups of Nigerien migrants returning with IOM-organized flights from both Algeria and Libya receive assistance, such as food and pocket money, to cover their immediate needs, including in-country onward transportation.

    After the migrants have returned to their communities of origin, IOM offers different reintegration support depending on their needs, skills and aspirations. This can include medical assistance, psychosocial support, education, vocational training, setting up an income generating activity, or support for housing and other basic needs.

    “This movement today represents a big step in the right direction for the dignified return of migrants in the region,” said Barbara Rijks, IOM’s Chief of Mission in Niger. “We are grateful for the financial support of the Governments of the United Kingdom and Italy who have made this possible,” she added.


    https://www.iom.int/news/iom-organizes-first-humanitarian-charter-flight-algeria-niger
    #IOM #OIM #Algérie #Niger #renvois #expulsions #retour_volontaire #retours_volontaires #migrations #asile #réfugiés #réfugiés_nigérians #Nigeria #Italie #UK #Angleterre #externalisation #frontières #charters_humanitaires

    Ajouté à cette métaliste sur les refoulements d’Algérie au Niger
    https://seenthis.net/messages/748397
    Ici il s’agit plutôt de migrants abandonnés dans le désert, alors que l’OIM parle de « dignified return », mais je me demande jusqu’à quel point c’est vraiment différent...

    signalé par @pascaline

    ping @karine4 @_kg_ @isskein

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Afghan Migration to Germany: History and Current Debates

    In light of the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan, Afghan migration to Germany accelerated in recent years. This has prompted debates and controversial calls for return.

    Historical Overview
    Afghan migration to Germany goes back to the first half of the 20th century. To a large extent, the arrival of Afghan nationals occurred in waves, which coincided with specific political regimes and periods of conflict in Afghanistan between 1978 and 2001. Prior to 1979 fewer than 2,000 Afghans lived in Germany. Most of them were either businesspeople or students. The trade city of Hamburg and its warehouses attracted numerous Afghan carpet dealers who subsequently settled with their families. Some families who were among the traders that came to Germany at an early stage still run businesses in the warehouse district of the city.[1]

    Following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the number of Afghans seeking refuge and asylum in Germany increased sharply. Between 1980 and 1982 the population grew by around 3,000 persons per year. This was followed by a short period of receding numbers, before another period of immigration set in from 1985, when adherents of communist factions began facing persecution in Afghanistan. Following a few years with lower immigration rates, numbers started rising sharply again from 1989 onwards in the wake of the civil war in Afghanistan and due to mounting restrictions for Afghans living in Iran and Pakistan. Increasing difficulties in and expulsions from these two countries forced many Afghans to search for and move on to new destinations, including Germany.[2] Throughout the 1990s immigration continued with the rise of the Taliban and the establishment of a fundamentalist regime. After reaching a peak in 1995, numbers of incoming migrants from Afghanistan declined for several years. However, they began to rise again from about 2010 onwards as a result of continuing conflict and insecurity in Afghanistan on the one hand and persistently problematic living conditions for Afghans in Iran and Pakistan on the other hand.

    A particularly sharp increase occurred in the context of the ’long summer of migration’[3] in 2015, which continued in 2016 when a record number of 253,485 Afghan nationals were registered in Germany. This number includes established residents of Afghan origin as well as persons who newly arrived in recent years. This sharp increase is also mirrored in the number of asylum claims of Afghan nationals, which reached a historical peak of 127,012 in 2016. Following the peak in 2016 the Afghan migrant population has slightly decreased. Reasons for the numerical decrease include forced and voluntary return to Afghanistan, onward migration to third countries, and expulsion according to the so-called Dublin Regulation. Naturalisations also account for the declining number of Afghan nationals in Germany, albeit to a much lesser extent (see Figures 1 and 2).

    The Afghan Migrant Population in Germany
    Over time, the socio-economic and educational backgrounds of Afghan migrants changed significantly. Many of those who formed part of early immigrant cohorts were highly educated and had often occupied high-ranking positions in Afghanistan. A significant number had worked for the government, while others were academics, doctors or teachers.[4] Despite being well-educated, professionally trained and experienced, many Afghans who came to Germany as part of an early immigrant cohort were unable to find work in an occupational field that would match their professional qualifications. Over the years, levels of education and professional backgrounds of Afghans arriving to Germany became more diverse. On average, the educational and professional qualifications of those who came in recent years are much lower compared to earlier cohorts of Afghan migrants.

    At the end of 2017, the Federal Statistical Office registered 251,640 Afghan nationals in Germany. This migrant population is very heterogeneous as far as persons’ legal status is concerned. Table 1 presents a snapshot of the different legal statuses that Afghan nationals in Germany held in 2017.

    Similar to other European countrie [5], Germany has been receiving increasing numbers of unaccompanied Afghan minors throughout the last decade.[6] In December 2017, the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) registered 10,453 persons of Afghan origin under the age of 18, including asylum seekers, holders of a temporary residence permit as well as persons with refugee status. The situation of unaccompanied minors is specific in the sense that they are under the auspices of the Children and Youth support services (Kinder- und Jugendhilfe). This implies that unaccompanied Afghan minors are entitled to specific accommodation and the support of a temporary guardian. According to the BAMF, education and professional integration are priority issues for the reception of unaccompanied minors. However, the situation of these migrants changes once they reach the age of 18 and become legally deportable.[7] For this reason, their period of residence in Germany is marked by ambiguity.

    Fairly modest at first, the number of naturalisations increased markedly from the late 1980s, which is likely to be connected to the continuous aggravation of the situation in Afghanistan.[8]

    With an average age of 23.7 years, Germany’s Afghan population is relatively young. Among Afghan residents who do not hold German citizenship there is a gender imbalance with males outweighing females by roughly 80,390 persons. Until recently, most Afghans arrived in Germany with their family. However, the individual arrival of Afghan men has been a dominant trend in recent years, which has become more pronounced from 2012 onwards with rising numbers of Afghan asylum seekers (see Figure 2).[9]

    The Politicization of Afghan Migration
    Prior to 2015, the Afghan migrant population that had not received much public attention. However, with the significant increase in numbers from 2015 onwards, it was turned into a subject of increased debate and politicization. The German military and reconstruction engagement in Afghanistan constitutes an important backdrop to the debates unfolding around the presence of Afghan migrants – most of whom are asylum seekers – in Germany. To a large extent, these debates revolved around the legitimacy of Afghan asylum claims. The claims of persons who, for example, supported German troops as interpreters were rarely questioned.[10] Conversely, the majority of newly arriving Afghans were framed as economic migrants rather than persons fleeing violence and persecution. In 2015, chancellor Angela Merkel warned Afghan nationals from coming to Germany for economic reasons and simply in search for a better life.[11] She underlined the distinction between “economic migrants” and persons facing concrete threats due to their past collaboration with German troops in Afghanistan. The increasing public awareness of the arrival of Afghan asylum seekers and growing skepticism regarding the legitimacy of their presence mark the context in which debates on deportations of Afghan nationals began to unfold.

    Deportations of Afghan Nationals: Controversial Debates and Implementation
    The Federal Government (Bundesregierung) started to consider deportations to Afghanistan in late 2015. Debates about the deportation of Afghan nationals were also held at the EU level and form an integral part of the Joint Way Forward agreement between Afghanistan and the EU. The agreement was signed in the second half of 2016 and reflects the commitment of the EU and the Afghan Government to step up cooperation on addressing and preventing irregular migration [12] and encourage return of irregular migrants such as persons whose asylum claims are rejected. In addition, the governments of Germany and Afghanistan signed a bilateral agreement on the return of Afghan nationals to their country of origin. At that stage it was estimated that around five percent of all Afghan nationals residing in Germany were facing return.[13] To back plans of forced removal, the Interior Ministry stated that there are “internal protection alternatives”, meaning areas in Afghanistan that are deemed sufficiently safe for people to be deported to and that a deterioration of security could not be confirmed for the country as such.[14] In addition, the BAMF would individually examine and conduct specific risk assessments for each asylum application and potential deportees respectively.

    Country experts and international actors such as the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) agree on the absence of internal protection alternatives in Afghanistan, stating that there are no safe areas in the country.[15] Their assessments are based on the continuously deteriorating security situation. Since 2014, annual numbers of civilian deaths and casualties continuously exceed 10,000 with a peak of 11,434 in 2016. This rise in violent incidents has been recorded in 33 of 34 provinces. In August 2017 the United Nations changed their assessment of the situation in Afghanistan from a “post-conflict country” to “a country undergoing a conflict that shows few signs of abating”[16] for the first time after the fall of the Taliban. However, violence occurs unevenly across Afghanistan. In 2017 the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), registered the highest levels of civilian casualties in Kabul province and Kabul city more specifically. After Kabul, the highest numbers of civilian casualties were recorded in Helmand, Nangarhar, Kandahar, Faryab, Uruzgan, Herat, Paktya, Kunduz, and Laghman provinces.[17]

    Notwithstanding deteriorating security conditions in Afghanistan and parliamentary, non-governmental and civil society protests, Germany’s Federal Government implemented a first group deportation of rejected asylum seekers to Afghanistan in late 2016. Grounds for justification of these measures were not only the assumed “internal protection alternatives”. In addition, home secretary Thomas de Maizière emphasised that many of the deportees were convicted criminals.[18] The problematic image of male Muslim immigrants in the aftermath of the incidents on New Year’s Eve in the city of Cologne provides fertile ground for such justifications of deportations to Afghanistan. “The assaults (sexualized physical and property offences) which young, unmarried Muslim men committed on New Year’s Eve offered a welcome basis for re-framing the ‘refugee question’ as an ethnicized and sexist problem.”[19]

    It is important to note that many persons of Afghan origin spent long periods – if not most or all of their lives – outside Afghanistan in one of the neighboring countries. This implies that many deportees are unfamiliar with life in their country of citizenship and lack local social networks. The same applies to persons who fled Afghanistan but who are unable to return to their place of origin for security reasons. The existence of social networks and potential support structures, however, is particularly important in countries marked by high levels of insecurity, poverty, corruption, high unemployment rates and insufficient (public) services and infrastructure.[20] Hence, even if persons who are deported to Afghanistan may be less exposed to a risk of physical harm in some places, the absence of social contacts and support structures still constitutes an existential threat.

    Debates on and executions of deportations to Afghanistan have been accompanied by parliamentary opposition on the one hand and street-level protests on the other hand. Non-governmental organisations such as Pro Asyl and local refugee councils have repeatedly expressed their criticism of forced returns to Afghanistan.[21] The execution of deportations has been the responsibility of the federal states (Ländersache). This leads to significant variations in the numbers of deportees. In light of a degrading security situation in Afghanistan, several governments of federal states (Landesregierungen) moreover paused deportations to Afghanistan in early 2017. Concomitantly, recognition rates of Afghan asylum seekers have continuously declined.[22]

    A severe terrorist attack on the German Embassy in Kabul on 31 May 2017 led the Federal Government to revise its assessment of the security situation in Afghanistan and to temporarily pause deportations to the country. According to chancellor Merkel, the temporary ban of deportations was contingent on the deteriorating security situation and could be lifted once a new, favourable assessment was in place. While pausing deportations of rejected asylum seekers without criminal record, the Federal Government continued to encourage voluntary return and deportations of convicted criminals of Afghan nationality as well as individuals committing identity fraud during their asylum procedure.

    The ban of deportations of rejected asylum seekers without criminal record to Afghanistan was lifted in July 2018, although the security situation in the country continues to be very volatile.[23] The decision was based on a revised assessment of the security situation through the Foreign Office and heavily criticised by the centre left opposition in parliament as well as by NGOs and churches. Notwithstanding such criticism, the attitude of the Federal Government has been rigorous. By 10 January 2019, 20 group deportation flights from Germany to Kabul were executed, carrying a total number of 475 Afghans.[24]

    Assessing the Situation in Afghanistan
    Continuing deportations of Afghan nationals are legitimated by the assumption that certain regions in Afghanistan fulfil the necessary safety requirements for deportees. But how does the Federal Government – and especially the BAMF – come to such arbitrary assessments of the security situation on the one hand and individual prospects on the other hand? While parliamentary debates about deportations to Afghanistan were ongoing, the news magazine Spiegel reported on how the BAMF conducts security assessments for Afghanistan. According to their revelations, BAMF staff hold weekly briefings on the occurrence of military combat, suicide attacks, kidnappings and targeted killings. If the proportion of civilian casualties remains below 1:800, the level of individual risk is considered low and insufficient for someone to be granted protection in Germany.[25] The guidelines of the BAMF moreover rule that young men who are in working age and good health are assumed to find sufficient protection and income opportunities in Afghanistan’s urban centres, so that they are able to secure to meet the subsistence level. Such possibilities are even assumed to exist for persons who cannot mobilise family or other social networks for their support. Someone’s place or region of origin is another aspect considered when assessing whether or not Afghan asylum seekers are entitled to remain in Germany. The BAMF examines the security and supply situation of the region where persons were born or where they last lived before leaving Afghanistan. These checks also include the question which religious and political convictions are dominant at the place in question. According to these assessment criteria, the BAMF considers the following regions as sufficiently secure: Kabul, Balkh, Herat, Bamiyan, Takhar, Samangan and Panjshir.[26]

    Voluntary Return
    In addition to executing the forced removal of rejected Afghan asylum seekers, Germany encourages the voluntary return of Afghan nationals.[27] To this end it supports the Reintegration and Emigration Programme for Asylum Seekers in Germany which covers travel expenses and offers additional financial support to returnees. Furthermore, there is the Government Assisted Repatriation Programme, which provides financial support to persons who wish to re-establish themselves in their country of origin. The International Organisation for Migration (IOM) organises and supervises return journeys that are supported by these programmes. Since 2015, several thousand Afghan nationals left Germany with the aid of these programmes. Most of these voluntary returnees were persons who had no legal residence status in Germany, for example persons whose asylum claim had been rejected or persons holding an exceptional leave to remain (Duldung).

    Outlook
    The continuing conflict in Afghanistan not only causes death, physical and psychological hurt but also leads to the destruction of homes and livelihoods and impedes access to health, education and services for large parts of the Afghan population. This persistently problematic situation affects the local population as much as it affects migrants who – voluntarily or involuntarily – return to Afghanistan. For this reason, migration out of Afghanistan is likely to continue, regardless of the restrictions which Germany and other receiving states are putting into place.

    http://www.bpb.de/gesellschaft/migration/laenderprofile/288934/afghan-migration-to-germany
    #Allemagne #Afghanistan #réfugiés_afghans #histoire #asile #migrations #réfugiés #chiffres #statistiques #renvois #expulsions #retour_volontaire #procédure_d'asile
    ping @_kg_

  • The trouble with plans to send 116,000 Burundian refugees home

    Under pressure to go home, Burundian refugees in Tanzania face two bad options: return to face social and economic hardship and possible rights violations; or remain in chronically under-resourced camps that restrict their opportunities.

    With both governments confirming plans to return 116,000 Burundians by the end of 2019, it’s crunch time for the international community if it wants to ensure returns are truly voluntary and offer returnees the level of support they will need to reintegrate properly back in Burundi.

    More than 400,000 people fled Burundi, most into neighbouring Tanzania, following violent unrest and repression that accompanied 2015 elections, which saw former rebel leader Pierre Nkurunziza returned to power for a controversial third presidential term.

    Limited repatriations began in 2017, but funding shortages mean the process has so far been little more than an offer of free transport back across the border, with a return package of food, non-food items, and cash that doesn’t even last the three months it’s expected to cover.

    https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/opinion/2019/03/05/Burundian-refugees-Tanzania-plans-send-home
    #retour_au_pays #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Tanzanie #réfugiés_burundais

    Pour les #retours_volontaires initiés en 2017, voir le doc publié par @reka:
    https://seenthis.net/messages/636524
    #retour_volontaire

    • Tanzania wants Burundian refugees sent home. But they face big challenges

      Tanzania says it has reached an agreement with Burundi to begin sending back all Burundian refugees from October. The repatriation effort will take place in collaboration with the United Nations. Moina Spooner, from The Conversation Africa, asked Amelia Kuch to give some insights into the decision.

      How many Burundian refugees are there in Tanzania and why did they migrate there?

      Tanzania has long been held up as a safe haven for refugees in the region. There’s a long history of refugees from Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Mozambique seeking refuge and safety there. Burundians have been seeking refuge in Tanzania since 1960, with major waves of displacement happening in 1972, 1988, 1993, and 2015. This was due to several civil wars and genocidal violence.

      The current displacement crisis started in 2015 when President Pierre Nkurunziza sought a third term in office and eventually won. Street protests led to violent clashes. The growing fear and uncertainty pushed over 400 000 Burundians to seek refuge in neighbouring countries. About 60% of them went to Tanzania.

      Interviews with Burundian refugees revealed that if they were not a member of the leading party they faced violent persecution. They shared personal accounts of torture and rape by the Imbonerakure, the youth wing of the ruling party, and of disappearances and executions of family members.

      There’s now a total of about 342 867 Burundian refugees and asylum seekers in Tanzania that are mostly settled in three refugee camps: Nyarugusu, Nduta and Mtendeli.

      Tanzania had previously granted some Burundian refugees citizenship. Why do you think they’re choosing repatriation now?

      Tanzania offered citizenship, through naturalisation, to 160 000 Burundian refugees. But this only benefited individuals and families who fled to Tanzania in 1972 and were settled in the three rural settlements –- Mishamo, Urambo and Katumba. It didn’t include more recent arrivals.

      As much as the announcement of forced repatriation is troubling, it is not surprising. Over the past 15 years Tanzania has been making moves away from acting as a host country.

      The 2005 election manifesto of Tanzania’s ruling party, Chama Cha Mapinduzi, included a pledge to make Tanzania “refugee-free” by 2010. Their justification was that there wasn’t enough international aid to support the camps and that the camps were having a negative impact on neighbouring host communities and Tanzania’s security situation.

      This has already led to repatriations. In 2012 residents of Mtabila refugee camp, most of whom fled to Tanzania in the 1990s, were returned to Burundi against their will and the camp was closed.

      In 2018, Tanzania pulled out of the UN’s Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework – a declaration by countries to commit to respect the human rights of refugees and migrants and to support the countries that welcome them – citing a lack of international funding. The Burundian refugee situation is the lowest funded in the world. In 2018, UNHCR and its partners received just 33% of the required US$391 million requested to support Burundian refugees.

      How should the repatriation process happen?

      First and foremost Burundian refugees need to be able to make an informed decision if they wish to repatriate or remain in Tanzania. It must be a voluntary decision. At the moment it seems like refugees won’t be given a choice and will be forced to repatriate. Tanzanian Interior Minister Kangi Lugola announced that Tanzania will return Burundian refugees at the rate of 2 000 people a week.

      Ideally, people should be allowed to travel back to Burundi to assess the situation for themselves and decide, after that initial first-hand experience, if they wish to repatriate voluntarily.

      If they decide to repatriate, they should be given access to land and the ability to re-establish their livelihoods in Burundi. The support might come in the form of a financial grant, basic household items, food items, as well as financial support so they can access shelter and rent land.

      Following repatriation, it’s essential that the safety of refugees is monitored. Repatriation is a political process and it will be necessary to ensure that returnees are protected and can access the same rights as other citizens.

      Monitoring the reintegration of returnees is a UNHCR commitment under the Tripartite Agreement from 2017 and it is critical that journalists and researchers are safe to report on the reintegration process.

      What do the prospects look like for the refugees once they’re back in Burundi?

      Through current and previous research I’ve done on Burundian refugees who repatriated and then returned to Tanzania, I’ve seen a complex matrix of challenges that they face. These include hunger, the inability to access land and shelter, and a shortage of medicine.

      There are also safety concerns. Today the Burundian government controls the political space and refuses to engage in dialogue with opposition parties. While there is less open violence, refugees still fear going back and for some, that’s with good reason.

      With the closing migratory space in Tanzania, those who won’t be able to safely stay in Burundi will have to seek other destinations of refuge.

      What are Tanzania’s international obligations in terms of protection of refugees?

      The 1951 Refugee Convention – whose core principle asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom – has been ratified by 145 states, including Tanzania.

      The Tanzanian government’s decision to repatriate Burundian refugees, despite evidence that their life and freedom might be threatened in Burundi, breaches the core principle of non-refoulement.

      This, however, must be seen in the global context. The decision of the Tanzanian government to expel refugees is not happening in a political void. Rather, it emulates the policies implemented by some Western countries, including the US, Australia, France, Hungary and Italy.

      These countries are also breaching the Convention; by obstructing refugees from coming, putting their lives in danger and even penalising those who try to assist refugees.

      Rather than an exception, the recent decision by the Tanzanian government to forcefully repatriate Burundian refugees is a reflection of a growing, global hostility towards refugees and other migrants.

      https://theconversation.com/tanzania-wants-burundian-refugees-sent-home-but-they-face-big-chall

    • Tanzania to send back all Burundian refugees from October

      Tanzanian and Burundian officials announce deal but UNHCR says Burundi conditions are not conducive to promote returns.

      Tanzania says it has reached an agreement with neighbouring Burundi to begin sending back all Burundian refugees from October, adding that the repatriation will take place in collaboration with the United Nations.

      However, the UN refugee agency (UNHCR) said in a statement on Tuesday that the conditions in Burundi, which was plunged into a political crisis four years ago, are not “conducive to promote returns” and noted that it is assisting refugees who indicate they have made a voluntary choice to return home.

      Hundreds of people were killed and more than 400,000 fled to neighbouring countries due to violence the UN says was mostly carried out by state security forces following President Pierre Nkurunziza’s decision in April 2015 to run for a third, disputed, term in office.

      Nkurunziza won re-election and, the following year, Burundi suspended all cooperation with the UN human rights office in the country after a UN-commissioned report accused the Bujumbura government and its supporters of being responsible for crimes against humanity.

      Currently, some 200,000 Burundians are in Tanzania, according to government figures.

      Speaking to the AFP news agency, Tanzanian Interior Minister Kangi Lugola said: “In agreement with the Burundian government and in collaboration with the High Commissioner for Refugees, we will start the repatriation of all Burundian refugees on October 1.”

      “Under this agreement, it will be 2,000 refugees who will be repatriated every week until there are no more Burundian refugees in Tanzania,” he said.
      ’Returns should be voluntary’

      Lugola said that Burundi is currently at peace, adding that he had “information whereby people, international organisations, are deceiving people, telling them there is no peace in Burundi”.

      He was speaking after he and Burundian Interior Minister Pascal Barandagiye on Sunday visited a camp where they annouced the return to the refugees themselves.

      In an emailed statement to Al Jazeera, Dana Hughes, the UNHCR spokesperson for East Horn and Great Lakes, said around 75,000 Burundians had returned home in the past two years. She added, however, that hundreds still flee Burundi each month and urged governments in the region to maintain open borders and access to asylum for those who need it.

      UNHCR also called upon the governments of Tanzania and Burundi “to uphold international obligations and ensure that any returns are voluntary in line with the tripartite agreement signed in March of 2018”, referring to a deal covering refugees who wish to return on a voluntary basis.

      “The UNHCR urges states to ensure that no refugee is returned to Burundi against their will, and that measures are taken to make conditions in Burundi more conducive for refugees returns, including confidence-building efforts and incentives for those who have chosen to go home,” Hughes said.

      One Burundian refugee, a man in his 40s who crossed over with his family and now lives in Tanzania’s Nduta camp, said he would not be returning home.

      “We heard that the governments agreed on forced repatriation ... There is no way we can go to Burundi, there is no security there at all,” the man, who declined to be named, told Reuters news agency on Tuesday.

      Human Rights Watch says Burundi’s government does not tolerate criticism, and security services carry out summary executions, rapes, abductions and intimidation of suspected political opponents.

      Burundi’s ruling party denies it carries out systematic human rights violations.

      https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/08/tanzania-send-burundian-refugees-october-190827180318193.html

    • Tanzania begins repatriating Burundian refugees

      Tanzania and Burundi agree to facilitate voluntary repatriation of refugees by the end of 2019.

      Tanzania on Thursday began repatriating 1000 Burundians, who had taken refuge in 2015, following political violence and instability in their country.

      “Today [Thursday] we are repatriating 1000 refugees with all their belongings. All international organizations are aware of this operation,” Director of Information Services and Government Spokesperson, Hassan Abbasi told reporters.

      In April 2015 protests broke out in the landlocked East African country Burundi, when President Pierre Nkurunziza decided to seek a third term in office. A coup attempt failed to dislodge him, leading to a clamp down and arrests. Over 300,000 people left the country, causing a humanitarian crisis.

      In August, Tanzania and Burundi agreed to repatriate all the refugees peacefully to their homes, by the end of 2019. The mass repatriation was supposed to commence from Oct.1.

      Reports said that the first batch of 1000 refugees were transported by buses to Gisuru transit center in eastern Burundi, where they stayed overnight.

      According to officials, they will be transported to their home districts along with rations, that will sustain them for three months.

      Abbasi said the Tanzanian government and the international agencies will ensure the refugees are at peace in their country.

      The UN High Commission for Refugees has asked Tanzania’s government to avoid forceful repatriation of refugees.

      “While an overall security has improved, UNHCR is of the opinion that conditions in Burundi are not currently conducive to promote returns,” the UN agency responsible for the welfare for refugees said in a statement in August.

      However, Abbasi emphasized that repatriation is voluntary. “All those refugees, leaving camps were eager to go home,” he said.

      He stressed that Tanzania respects international agreements on refugees and would ensure the repatriation process takes place well within international humanitarian laws.

      Nestor Bimenyimana, the director general of repatriation and rehabilitation department in Burundi’s Home Ministry told local media that the UNHCR is involved in the identification and registration of Burundian refugees, willing to be repatriated from Tanzania.

      “We don’t force anyone to register,” he said.

      According to the UN agency, as many as 343,000 refugees, were living in the neighboring countries of Tanzania, Rwanda, DR Congo and Uganda as of August 2019.

      Over past two years, refugee agency has facilitated repatriation of 74,600 refugees to their homes in Burundi.

      https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/tanzania-begins-repatriating-burundian-refugees/1602122

    • Tanzania: Burundians Pressured into Leaving

      Mounting Intimidation for 163,000 Burundian Refugees and Asylum Seekers.

      The fear of violence, arrest, and deportation is driving many of the 163,000 Burundian refugees and asylum seekers in Tanzania out of the country. Tanzanian authorities have also made it very difficult for the United Nations refugee agency to properly check whether hundreds of refugees’ recent decision to return to Burundi was voluntary.

      In October and November 2019, Tanzanian officials specifically targeted parts of the Burundian refugee population whose insecure legal status and lack of access to aid make them particularly vulnerable to coerced return to Burundi. The actions come after the Tanzanian president, John Magufuli, said on October 11 that Burundian refugees should “go home.”

      “Refugees say police abuses, insecurity in Tanzania’s refugee camps, and deportation threats drove them out of the country,” said Bill Frelick, refugee rights director at Human Rights Watch. “Tanzania should reverse course before it ends up unlawfully coercing thousands more to leave.”

      In mid-November, Human Rights Watch interviewed 20 Burundian refugees in Uganda who described the pressure that caused them to leave Tanzania between August 2018 and October 2019. Seven returned to Burundi but said they then fled to Uganda to escape members of the Burundian ruling party’s youth league, the Imbonerakure, who threatened, intimidated, or arbitrarily arrested them. Thirteen went directly to Uganda.

      Refugees said their reasons for leaving Tanzania include fear of getting caught up in a spate of arrests, and alleged disappearances and killings in or near refugee camps and fear of suspected members of the Imbonerakure and of abusive Burundian refugees working with Tanzanian police on camp security. They also cited the government’s threats to deport Burundian refugees, the closing and destruction of markets, restrictions on commercial activities, and lack of access to services in the camps and freedom of movement.

      On December 3, Tanzanian Home Affairs Minister Kangi Lugola denied that the government is “expelling” refugees, and said the Tanzanian and Burundian authorities “merely mobilize, to encourage those who are ready to return on their own accord, to go back.”

      A refugee who returned from Tanzania to Burundi in August said: “I returned to Burundi because the Tanzanian authorities said those staying would be forced back… The police became increasingly violent and insecurity was the main reason I decided to return.” In late August, Imbonerakure members targeted him: “They arrested me, tied my arms behind my back and said, ‘you said you fled [Burundi] because of the Imbonerakure, but we are still here.’” He said his wife paid a bribe for his release and he fled to Uganda.

      A December 6 Human Rights Watch report documented widespread abuses by members of the youth league, often working with local Burundian administrators. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) said in August that conditions in Burundi were not safe or stable enough for it to encourage refugees to return, and that it would only facilitate voluntary returns.

      The 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1969 African Refugee Convention prohibit refoulement, the return of refugees in any manner whatsoever to places where their lives or freedom would be threatened. UNHCR says that refoulement occurs not only when a government directly rejects or expels a refugee, but also when indirect pressure is so intense that it leads people to believe they have no option but to return to a country where they face a serious risk of harm.

      Between September 2017 and end of October 2019, 78,380 Burundians – about 725 a week – left Tanzania under an agreement between Burundi, Tanzania, and the UNHCR, which tasks UNHCR with conducting detailed interviews with refugees to ensure they are leaving Tanzania voluntarily. The number is well below the target of 2,000 a week Tanzania and Burundi agreed on in March 2018. An August 24, 2019 agreement between Tanzania and Burundi says all the refugees “are to return to their country of origin whether voluntarily or not” by December 31.

      On November 9, UNHCR said that some Burundians signing up for voluntary return with UNHCR had “cited insecurity in refugee camps, fear of enforced return …, deteriorating living conditions …, prohibition of small commercial activities and closure of camp markets as the main reasons for their return.” The agency previously told Human Rights Watch that “push factors play a significant role” in refugees’ return decision, but that UNHCR considers their return to be voluntary because they have “made an informed decision” and “many other refugees” have decided to stay.

      A government’s duty to protect refugee rights should not be assessed based on statistics but on a case-by-case basis, Human Rights Watch said. The fact that some or many refugees can stay in a host country is not evidence that those who leave do so voluntarily or that they did not leave due to coercion.

      Seven of the refugees Human Rights Watch interviewed said they returned to Burundi between March 2018 and June 2019. One refugee who left Tanzania’s Nduta camp for Uganda in August said he had helped many families register for return to Burundi: “Before August 2018, UNHCR asked people who registered many questions about their decision to return and gave them time to change their minds,” he said. “But now they don’t give time to think or ask questions. They immediately process people for return.”

      UNHCR’s mandate requires it to ask refugees signing up for voluntary return about the reasons behind the decision to ensure the decision is truly voluntary.

      A well-informed source said that after a recent “validation exercise” to verify the number of registered and unregistered Burundians living in camps in Tanzania, about 3,300 people were registered but not given “active status,” which means they have no clear legal status or access to assistance, and are particularly vulnerable to government intimidation and coerced return to Burundi.

      In October, the Tanzanian authorities summoned these people and registered “hundreds” who said they wanted to return to Burundi. The authorities told them to report to a departure center, leaving UNHCR, which usually speaks to people leaving a few days beforehand to make sure they are leaving voluntarily, to conduct some interviews at the departure center “in less than ideal circumstances,” it said.

      Human Rights Watch previously reported on the coerced return of hundreds of Burundian asylum seekers on October 15, after camp authorities said that if they did not register to return, they would be in the camps without legal status and aid.

      In late October, UNHCR said Tanzania was increasing “pressure on Burundian refugees and asylum-seekers to return home.” In the second week of November, Tanzanian authorities banned 10 UNHCR staff involved in managing the refugee registration database from the camp.

      Tanzanian authorities should ensure that UNHCR staff are able to properly verify the voluntary nature of refugees’ decision to return to Burundi, Human Rights Watch said. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the African Union should send a team to visit the refugee camps and urge Tanzania not to directly or indirectly forcibly return asylum seekers or refugees.

      “The African Union should publicly press the Tanzanian authorities to stop trying to bully refugees and the UN into submission,” Frelick said. “Tanzania claims it isn’t doing anything wrong, but Burundian refugees are telling us in clear terms that they are being driven out of the country.”

      Factors Driving Burundian Refugees out of Tanzania

      Twenty Burundian refugees formerly living in three camps – Nduta, Nyarugusu, and Mtendeli – in Tanzania’s northwestern Kigoma region spoke with Human Rights Watch in Uganda in November.

      Tanzanian Deadline; Memories of 2012 Forced Return

      All 20 said they left due to Tanzanian officials’ statements that Burundian refugees should go home. Some said that the combination of Burundian and Tanzanian officials telling refugees to go home, and refugees’ memories of Tanzanian forced refugee return in 2012 had created a climate in which they felt they had no choice but to leave Tanzania.

      Thirteen who went directly to Uganda said they feared for their lives if forced to return to Burundi. Many said they knew other refugees who had returned to Burundi only to flee again to Tanzania to escape ongoing insecurity in Burundi.

      Ten left the camps between August and October, with most citing increased pressure at that time. On August 24, Burundi and Tanzania signed an agreement to ensure that all Burundian refugees would leave Tanzania by the end of 2019. Both countries’ interior ministers jointly visited the camps the following day and said returns would start on October 1.

      A 40-year-old woman said: “I decided to leave the camp when the authorities said they would start sending people back on October 1 and that they didn’t want any more refugees in Tanzania. During the meeting, [the authorities] said they had agreed with the Burundian government to repatriate us. That’s why I left.” She left for Uganda on foot with her young child on September 10. She spent a night in a local family’s compound but became frightened that Tanzanian authorities would catch her and ran away, leaving all her belongings behind.

      Many refugees said they feared Tanzanian officials’ threatening language would turn into forced return. Several cited camp authorities’ phrases such as, “The last cow of the herd is always beaten” or “the cows that go to the trough first drink clean water, those that go last get the dirty water,” which they interpreted as saying that those who do not leave the camp now may be beaten or left without a return support package.

      A refugee who left Mtendeli camp in October said: “Tanzanian authorities intimidated people to make them sign up for repatriation. They said otherwise they would use force and we wouldn’t even have time to collect our belongings or get any assistance. People were afraid, so they registered [to return].”

      Tanzania has hosted hundreds of thousands of refugees over the past few decades and offered citizenship to tens of thousands who had been in the country since 1972. But the country also has a troubling history of forced return. After the forced return of hundreds of thousands of Rwandans in 1996, Tanzania began in 2006 to reduce the number of what it termed “illegal immigrants” by violently expelling thousands of registered Rwandan and Burundian refugees.

      In June 2009, Tanzanian authorities announced the closure of a camp sheltering more than 37,000 Burundian refugees, at Mtabila. Pressure mounted until the camp was closed in December 2012. Some refugees in Uganda said that they had been in Mtabila camp in late 2012 when Tanzanian authorities forced people into returning to Burundi and that they were afraid the Tanzanian authorities would use similar tactics again.

      A refugee leader from Nduta camp said he was summoned to a meeting with Tanzanian authorities on March 14, where refugees were asked: “Do you remember what happened in Mtabila? Our guns still work, you know. Burundi and Tanzania are one country.” A 25-year-old woman who left Tanzania for Uganda in August said: “I left because of what happened in Mtabila. I didn’t want to be forced back while there is insecurity in Burundi.”

      Fear of Insecurity in and Around Refugee Camps

      Most of the refugees said growing insecurity in the camps contributed to their decision to leave Tanzania.

      All said they feared the Tanzanian police, who they believe work closely with the Burundian authorities to encourage refugees to return. Fourteen also said they were afraid of Burundian refugees in charge of refugee camp security, called “Sungu Sungu,” a term used to describe neighborhood militias in Tanzania. Refugees, including a former Sungu Sungu member, and an independent well-informed source in the camps said that Tanzanian police approve the appointment of the most senior Sungu Sungu representatives in the camps, some of whom refugees believed to be Imbonerakure.

      Refugees said Sungu Sungu members had arrested refugees and helped Tanzanian authorities carry out what some called “mobilization efforts” to encourage their return.

      One interviewee said: “In the camps, they [Sungu Sungu members] targeted the [political] opposition, arrested people at night, confiscated phones and demanded bribes. They organized meetings to tell people to return, and said if we don’t return voluntarily, we will be forced back.”

      Some refugees said that Sungu Sungu members came to the houses of those who had registered for return, but had failed to show up on the day of the return convoy, and told people to leave Tanzania, but Human Rights Watch was not able to independently verify these allegations.

      One refugee said he knew four Sungu Sungu members in Nyarugusu camp who were also Imbonerakure members in his home commune in Burundi. He said: “If a normal refugee comes home after 8 p.m., it’s fine, but if an opposition member goes home after 8 p.m., he’s beaten and made to pay a fine of up to 10.000 Shillings (US$4.3).”

      Human Rights Watch independently verified the identity of the four men, as well as that of three other Imbonerakure members in Nduta camp, with a well-informed source in Burundi, who confirmed that at least five of the seven men were Imbonerakure members who either had ties with Tanzania or who had left their home communes in Cankuzo, Ruyigi, Karuzi, and Makamba provinces in Burundi.

      Thirteen interviewees said they had heard of killings, disappearances, and arrests of Burundians in and around Tanzania’s refugee camps since 2018, including when refugees left the camps to look for firewood. The resulting climate of fear and suspicion triggered their decision to leave.

      A 44-year-old man said: “After the August agreement … arrests increased. There were new ones every day. The camp authorities said they wanted to close the camps and that we had to register to go back.” A well-informed source confirmed that reports of disappearances and arrests by Tanzanian police have increased since August. Refugees also said that they believe Tanzanian authorities arrested people suspected of opposing their refugee-return “mobilization efforts.”

      Market Closures; Other Restrictions

      Most refugees said that restrictions that led to market closures, a ban on motorbikes and bicycles, and restrictions on access to services and commercial activities in the camps convinced them that Tanzanian authorities were planning to close the camps. Several also said that police and Sungu Sungu members prevented refugees from moving around the camps at night and prohibited refugees from listening to radio broadcasts by Burundian exiles.

      One refugee who was repatriated to Burundi in August 2018 said: “I didn’t want to leave but they put us in an untenable situation… [The Sungu Sungu] forbade us from listening to the radio and beat us if they found us out after 7 p.m. They worked with the Tanzania police, which collaborates with the Burundian police.”

      “In August, camp authorities closed Nduta camp market,” a 25-year-old woman who left Tanzania in August said. “This meant we had to survive on food rations, as we couldn’t buy vegetables and other small things in the camps anymore.”

      A 35-year-old carpenter, who left Tanzania for Uganda with his wife and four children on September 24 said: “Something changed after August 2019. Assistance for building houses or education programs were suspended. Aid for refugees definitely diminished.”

      Although these restrictions were added incrementally, refugees said that in August they became more severe. One refugee said: “After August, things changed. Markets inside and outside the camps were closed. The camp authorities said it would continue this way until all infrastructure is closed down.”

      Increasing Pressure on Certain Groups

      Human Rights Watch research indicates that as of October 31, there were about 151,000 registered refugees living in Tanzania’s camps together with 12,000 registered asylum seekers who were waiting for the Tanzanian authorities to decide on their individual asylum applications. In their August agreement, the Tanzanian and Burundian authorities erroneously referred to the 12,000 as “illegal migrants.”

      The source said that a recent “validation exercise” in the camps also identified about 2,800 Burundians who arrived in the camps after January 2018, when the Tanzanian authorities stopped registering asylum seekers. The authorities registered their presence in October, but refused to give them “active status,” leaving them without clear legal status and assistance.

      The source said that the exercise also identified and registered the presence of another 500 people whose refugee or asylum seeker status had been deactivated by UNHCR after they failed to show up for three consecutive food distributions, indicating they had left, but who had subsequently returned to the camps. As of early December, hundreds of them remain in the camp without “active status” or assistance.

      In October, sources in the camps said Tanzanian authorities posted lists in the camps of people without active legal status and access to assistance, saying they should report to Home Affairs Ministry officials in the camps. Hundreds did and signed up to return to Burundi. Tanzanian authorities did not follow standard procedure, requiring them to report to UNHCR to verify the Burundians were leaving Tanzania voluntarily. Instead, the authorities told them to report to Nduta camp’s departure center, where returning refugees go with all their belongings ahead of their scheduled return to Burundi. UNHCR said they had to conduct some voluntariness interviews at the departure center “in less than ideal circumstances.”

      UNHCR’s Handbook on Voluntary Repatriation says that “registration for repatriation should not be viewed as a merely clerical task” and that staff should “interview…the potential repatriates to obtain … relevant information, counselling them on issues of concern, answering questions on repatriation related issues [and] assessing vulnerability.”

      The source said that between September 2017 and mid-November 2019, about 10,500 refugees signed up for voluntary return to Burundi but then decided to stay in Tanzania. They informed UNHCR, which took them off the agency’s “pending departure” list.

      Nonetheless, in early October, the Tanzanian authorities posted a list of names in the camps of about 4,000 refugees who had signed up for return but had not shown up on the departure date and summoned them to Home Affairs Ministry representatives in the camps. A few hundred responded and said they wanted to return to Burundi and left in October and November. The rest remain in the camps.

      Returning Refugees Fleeing Burundi Again

      In its September report, the UN Human Rights Council’s Commission of Inquiry on Burundi said that “serious human rights violations – including crimes against humanity – have continued…across the country” and that the targets were real and suspected opposition supporters, including Burundians who had returned from abroad.

      Seven refugees said they had returned to Burundi between March 2018 and August 2019 under the voluntary repatriation program. Four said that members of the Imbonerakure had stolen the money and goods they had received from UNHCR, which include 70,000 Burundian Francs ($37), perishable goods, and cooking and other utensils. All said they left Burundi for Uganda to escape insecurity in Burundi.

      A man who returned to Burundi on September 27, 2018 and left again for Uganda one year later, described the challenges returning refugees face in Burundi:

      The Imbonerakure said we were ibipinga [a pejorative Kirundi expression to designate those who are against the party] and that we would pay for it in [the] 2020 [elections]. When they saw us at the market, they made us pay more. In July, August, and September [2019], CNDD-FDD [ruling party] members forced us to pay contributions for the elections and the ruling party. The Imbonerakure monitored our houses, especially if they suspected people might try and flee, and said they were going to kill us. The [local] authorities made me sign up to become a member of the ruling party... I thought I would be killed.

      Several interviewees said Imbonerakure members accused them of joining rebel groups abroad and threatened to arrest them. One person said that Imbonerakure members beat people trying to get goods at distributions by aid agencies and prevented people from getting food. He said he was forced to give up much of the repatriation-assistance money he had received from UNHCR:

      Of the 70,000 Francs I received [from UNHCR], I had to give 10,000 ($5.3) to the communal counsellor, 5,000 ($2.6) to the hill-level authorities, and 3,000 ($1.6) to the local Imbonerakure chief. Then, whenever an Imbonerakure came to my house, I had to give them 1,000 Francs ($0.5) …The Imbonerakure said they were going to kill me because I didn’t tell them how rebel groups were planning on attacking Burundi. They said they would cut my head off. I was afraid and decided to leave without any belongings – if the Imbonerakure suspected I was fleeing; they would have prevented me from crossing the border.

      An interviewee who returned to Burundi in August said Imbonerakure members arrested and accused him of denouncing Imbonerakure abuses while he was abroad. He said his wife had to sell all the goods they had received from UNHCR in Tanzania to pay for his release, and they both fled the country later the same month.

      https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/12/12/tanzania-burundians-pressured-leaving

  • Lebanon looks to hardline eastern Europe approach for Syrian refugees

    Lebanon said on Wednesday it wanted to follow the example of eastern EU states that have largely rejected refugees as a way of resolving its own refugee crisis.
    Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil sympathized with the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia’s refusal to accept refugee distribution quotas proposed by the EU after the 2015-16 migrant crisis, when more than a million people streamed into Europe, mostly from Syria.
    Populist eastern EU leaders including Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Poland’s powerbroker Jaroslaw Kaczynski and Czech President Milos Zeman, among others, blasted German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s “open door” policy on accepting migrants during that period.
    These countries “were acting in their national interest and decided that the redistribution of refugees among European countries is not in their national interest, although they faced EU sanctions for that,” Bassil told reporters in Prague.
    “I would like this attitude to be an inspiration for Lebanon, because every state must make national interests its top priority and at this moment Lebanon’s key national interest is the return of Syrian refugees to their homeland,” he added.
    Lebanon says it is hosting 1.5 million Syrians — around a quarter of its own population. Less than one million of them are registered with UN refugee agency the UNHCR.
    Most of the Syrian refugees in Lebanon live in insecurity and depend on international aid.
    The International Monetary Fund has said their presence has led to increased unemployment and a rise in poverty due to greater competition for jobs.
    The influx has also put strain on Lebanese water and electrical infrastructure.
    Lebanese government officials and politicians have ramped up calls for Syrians to return home, but the United Nations has consistently warned that conditions in the war-ravaged country are not suitable for such returns.
    “I would like Prague or Beirut to host a meeting, an initiative of countries seeking to plan and ensure the return of Syrian refugees to their country,” said Bassil.
    “This would be immensely useful for both Lebanon and Syria and in general it would be the best solution to the human, humanitarian and political crisis we have right now and which could get worse in the future,” he said.


    http://www.arabnews.com/node/1473496/middle-east
    #Liban #it_has_begun #modèle_hongrois #asile #migrations #réfugiés #réfugiés_syriens #intérêt_national #populisme #modèle_Visegrad #retour_au_pays

  • Quand l’#Union_europeénne se met au #fact-checking... et que du coup, elle véhicule elle-même des #préjugés...
    Et les mythes sont pensés à la fois pour les personnes qui portent un discours anti-migrants ("L’UE ne protège pas ses frontières"), comme pour ceux qui portent des discours pro-migrants ("L’UE veut créer une #forteresse_Europe")...
    Le résultat ne peut être que mauvais, surtout vu les pratiques de l’UE...

    Je copie-colle ici les mythes et les réponses de l’UE à ce mythe...


    #crise_migratoire


    #frontières #protection_des_frontières


    #Libye #IOM #OIM #évacuation #détention #détention_arbitraire #centres #retours_volontaires #retour_volontaire #droits_humains


    #push-back #refoulement #Libye


    #aide_financière #Espagne #Grèce #Italie #Frontex #gardes-frontière #EASO


    #Forteresse_européenne


    #global_compact


    #frontières_intérieures #Schengen #Espace_Schengen


    #ONG #sauvetage #mer #Méditerranée


    #maladies #contamination


    #criminels #criminalité


    #économie #coût #bénéfice


    #externalisation #externalisation_des_frontières


    #Fonds_fiduciaire #dictature #dictatures #régimes_autoritaires

    https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/20190306_managing-migration-factsheet-debunking-myths-about-migration_en.p
    #préjugés #mythes #migrations #asile #réfugiés
    #hypocrisie #on_n'est_pas_sorti_de_l'auberge
    ping @reka @isskein

  • L’agenda européen en matière de migration : l’UE doit poursuivre les progrès accomplis au cours des quatre dernières années

    Dans la perspective du Conseil européen de mars, la Commission dresse aujourd’hui le bilan des progrès accomplis au cours des quatre dernières années et décrit les mesures qui sont encore nécessaires pour relever les défis actuels et futurs en matière de migration.

    Face à la crise des réfugiés la plus grave qu’ait connu le monde depuis la Seconde Guerre mondiale, l’UE est parvenue à susciter un changement radical en matière de gestion des migrations et de protection des frontières. L’UE a offert une protection et un soutien à des millions de personnes, a sauvé des vies, a démantelé des réseaux de passeurs et a permis de réduire le nombre d’arrivées irrégulières en Europe à son niveau le plus bas enregistré en cinq ans. Néanmoins, des efforts supplémentaires sont nécessaires pour assurer la pérennité de la politique migratoire de l’UE, compte tenu d’un contexte géopolitique en constante évolution et de l’augmentation régulière de la pression migratoire à l’échelle mondiale (voir fiche d’information).

    Frans Timmermans, premier vice-président, a déclaré : « Au cours des quatre dernières années, l’UE a accompli des progrès considérables et obtenu des résultats tangibles dans l’action menée pour relever le défi de la migration. Dans des circonstances très difficiles, nous avons agi ensemble. L’Europe n’est plus en proie à la crise migratoire que nous avons traversée en 2015, mais des problèmes structurels subsistent. Les États membres ont le devoir de protéger les personnes qu’ils abritent et de veiller à leur bien-être. Continuer à coopérer solidairement dans le cadre d’une approche globale et d’un partage équitable des responsabilités est la seule voie à suivre si l’UE veut être à la hauteur du défi de la migration. »

    Federica Mogherini, haute représentante et vice-présidente, a affirmé : « Notre collaboration avec l’Union africaine et les Nations unies porte ses fruits. Nous portons assistance à des milliers de personnes en détresse, nous en aidons beaucoup à retourner chez elles en toute sécurité pour y démarrer une activité, nous sauvons des vies, nous luttons contre les trafiquants. Les flux ont diminué, mais ceux qui risquent leur vie sont encore trop nombreux et chaque vie perdue est une victime de trop. C’est pourquoi nous continuerons à coopérer avec nos partenaires internationaux et avec les pays concernés pour fournir une protection aux personnes qui en ont le plus besoin, remédier aux causes profondes de la migration, démanteler les réseaux de trafiquants, mettre en place des voies d’accès à une migration sûre, ordonnée et légale. La migration constitue un défi mondial que l’on peut relever, ainsi que nous avons choisi de le faire en tant qu’Union, avec des efforts communs et des partenariats solides. »

    Dimitris Avramopoulos, commissaire pour la migration, les affaires intérieures et la citoyenneté, a déclaré : « Les résultats de notre approche européenne commune en matière de migration parlent d’eux-mêmes : les arrivées irrégulières sont désormais moins nombreuses qu’avant la crise, le corps européen de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes a porté la protection commune des frontières de l’UE à un niveau inédit et, en collaboration avec nos partenaires, nous travaillons à garantir des voies d’entrée légales tout en multipliant les retours. À l’avenir, il est essentiel de poursuivre notre approche commune, mais aussi de mener à bien la réforme en cours du régime d’asile de l’UE. En outre, il convient, à titre prioritaire, de mettre en place des accords temporaires en matière de débarquement. »

    Depuis trois ans, les chiffres des arrivées n’ont cessé de diminuer et les niveaux actuels ne représentent que 10 % du niveau record atteint en 2015. En 2018, environ 150 000 franchissements irréguliers des frontières extérieures de l’UE ont été détectés. Toutefois, le fait que le nombre d’arrivées irrégulières ait diminué ne constitue nullement une garantie pour l’avenir, eu égard à la poursuite probable de la pression migratoire. Il est donc indispensable d’adopter une approche globale de la gestion des migrations et de la protection des frontières.

    Des #mesures immédiates s’imposent

    Les problèmes les plus urgents nécessitant des efforts supplémentaires sont les suivants :

    Route de la #Méditerranée_occidentale : l’aide au #Maroc doit encore être intensifiée, compte tenu de l’augmentation importante des arrivées par la route de la Méditerranée occidentale. Elle doit comprendre la poursuite de la mise en œuvre du programme de 140 millions d’euros visant à soutenir la gestion des frontières ainsi que la reprise des négociations avec le Maroc sur la réadmission et l’assouplissement du régime de délivrance des visas.
    #accords_de_réadmission #visas

    Route de la #Méditerranée_centrale : améliorer les conditions d’accueil déplorables en #Libye : les efforts déployés par l’intermédiaire du groupe de travail trilatéral UA-UE-NU doivent se poursuivre pour contribuer à libérer les migrants se trouvant en #rétention, faciliter le #retour_volontaire (37 000 retours jusqu’à présent) et évacuer les personnes les plus vulnérables (près de 2 500 personnes évacuées).
    #vulnérabilité #évacuation

    Route de la #Méditerranée_orientale : gestion des migrations en #Grèce : alors que la déclaration UE-Turquie a continué à contribuer à la diminution considérable des arrivées sur les #îles grecques, des problèmes majeurs sont toujours en suspens en Grèce en ce qui concerne les retours, le traitement des demandes d’asile et la mise à disposition d’un hébergement adéquat. Afin d’améliorer la gestion des migrations, la Grèce devrait rapidement mettre en place une stratégie nationale efficace comprenant une organisation opérationnelle des tâches.
    #accord_ue-turquie

    Accords temporaires en matière de #débarquement : sur la base de l’expérience acquise au moyen de solutions ad hoc au cours de l’été 2018 et en janvier 2019, des accords temporaires peuvent constituer une approche européenne plus systématique et mieux coordonnée en matière de débarquement­. De tels accords mettraient en pratique la #solidarité et la #responsabilité au niveau de l’UE, en attendant l’achèvement de la réforme du #règlement_de_Dublin.
    #Dublin

    En matière de migration, il est indispensable d’adopter une approche globale, qui comprenne des actions menées avec des partenaires à l’extérieur de l’UE, aux frontières extérieures, et à l’intérieur de l’UE. Il ne suffit pas de se concentrer uniquement sur les problèmes les plus urgents. La situation exige une action constante et déterminée en ce qui concerne l’ensemble des éléments de l’approche globale, pour chacun des quatre piliers de l’agenda européen en matière de migration :

    1. Lutte contre les causes de la migration irrégulière : au cours des quatre dernières années, la migration s’est peu à peu fermement intégrée à tous les domaines des relations extérieures de l’UE :

    Grâce au #fonds_fiduciaire d’urgence de l’UE pour l’Afrique, plus de 5,3 millions de personnes vulnérables bénéficient actuellement d’une aide de première nécessité et plus de 60 000 personnes ont reçu une aide à la réintégration après leur retour dans leur pays d’origine.
    #fonds_fiduciaire_pour_l'Afrique

    La lutte contre les réseaux de passeurs et de trafiquants a encore été renforcée. En 2018, le centre européen chargé de lutter contre le trafic de migrants, établi au sein d’#Europol, a joué un rôle majeur dans plus d’une centaine de cas de trafic prioritaires et des équipes communes d’enquête participent activement à la lutte contre ce trafic dans des pays comme le #Niger.
    Afin d’intensifier les retours et la réadmission, l’UE continue d’œuvrer à la conclusion d’accords et d’arrangements en matière de réadmission avec les pays partenaires, 23 accords et arrangements ayant été conclus jusqu’à présent. Les États membres doivent maintenant tirer pleinement parti des accords existants.
    En outre, le Parlement européen et le Conseil devraient adopter rapidement la proposition de la Commission en matière de retour, qui vise à limiter les abus et la fuite des personnes faisant l’objet d’un retour au sein de l’Union.

    2. Gestion renforcée des frontières : créée en 2016, l’Agence européenne de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes est aujourd’hui au cœur des efforts déployés par l’UE pour aider les États membres à protéger les frontières extérieures. En septembre 2018, la Commission a proposé de renforcer encore le corps européen de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes et de doter l’Agence d’un corps permanent de 10 000 garde-frontières, afin que les États membres puissent à tout moment bénéficier pleinement du soutien opérationnel de l’UE. La Commission invite le Parlement européen et les États membres à adopter la réforme avant les élections au Parlement européen. Afin d’éviter les lacunes, les États membres doivent également veiller à un déploiement suffisant d’experts et d’équipements auprès de l’Agence.

    3. Protection et asile : l’UE continuera à apporter son soutien aux réfugiés et aux personnes déplacées dans des pays tiers, y compris au Moyen-Orient et en Afrique, ainsi qu’à offrir un refuge aux personnes ayant besoin d’une protection internationale. Plus de 50 000 personnes réinstallées l’ont été dans le cadre de programmes de l’UE depuis 2015. L’un des principaux enseignements de la crise migratoire est la nécessité de réviser les règles de l’UE en matière d’asile et de mettre en place un régime équitable et adapté à l’objectif poursuivi, qui permette de gérer toute augmentation future de la pression migratoire. La Commission a présenté toutes les propositions nécessaires et soutient fermement une approche progressive pour faire avancer chaque proposition. Les propositions qui sont sur le point d’aboutir devraient être adoptées avant les élections au Parlement européen. La Commission continuera de travailler avec le Parlement européen et le Conseil pour progresser vers l’étape finale.

    4. Migration légale et intégration : les voies de migration légale ont un effet dissuasif sur les départs irréguliers et sont un élément important pour qu’une migration ordonnée et fondée sur les besoins devienne la principale voie d’entrée dans l’UE. La Commission présentera sous peu une évaluation complète du cadre de l’UE en matière de migration légale. Parallèlement, les États membres devraient développer le recours à des projets pilotes en matière de migration légale sur une base volontaire. L’intégration réussie des personnes ayant un droit de séjour est essentielle au bon fonctionnement de la migration et plus de 140 millions d’euros ont été investis dans des mesures d’intégration au titre du budget de l’UE au cours de la période 2015-2017.

    http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-1496_fr.htm
    –-> Quoi dire plus si ce n’est que... c’est #déprimant.
    #Business_as_usual #rien_ne_change
    #hypocrisie
    #langue_de_bois
    #à_vomir
    ....

    #UE #EU #politique_migratoire #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières

  • IOM : Over 40.000 migrants voluntarily returned home from Libya since 2015

    After an operation for voluntary returns last week, the UN agency for migration International Organization for Migration (IOM) said that the total number of migrants that had voluntarily returned from Libya to their country of origin since 2015 had risen to 40,000.

    Over 160 Nigerian migrants stuck in southern Libya returned to Nigeria voluntarily on February 21 on a charter flight offered by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) as part of its program for Voluntary Humanitarian Returns (VHR).

    The February operation brought the total number of voluntary repatriations from Libya to 40,000 since 2015, IOM has explained.

    https://www.libyanexpress.com/iom-over-40-000-migrants-voluntarily-returned-home-from-libya-since-2
    #retours_volontaires (sic) #retour_volontaire #retour_au_pays #Libye #asile #migrations #réfugiés #OIM #IOM #organisation_contre_la_migration #statistiques #chiffres #machine_à_rapatriement #rapatriement #nouvelair

    j’ajoute à cette métaliste :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/731749

  • In cooperation with @IOM_Libya 8 stranded Eritrean #migrants returned safely home today via #Mitiga Int. Airport
    #Libya 17.02.19


    https://twitter.com/rgowans/status/1097176169978515456

    L’#OIM n’arrêtera jamais de me surprendre... Mais alors là... L’OIM mérite vraiment qu’on lui change son nom... Organisation Internationale CONTRE la migration !

    8 ressortissants érythréens retournés EN SECURITE au pays... soit donc en Erythrée !

    Et petit détail important...
    Dans ce tweet on parle de #migrants_érythréens... si il s’agit de migrants et non pas de réfugiés... leur retour VOLONTAIRE n’est pas considéré comme un #refoulement (#push-back)
    #mots #terminologie #vocabulaire

    #retour_au_pays #IOM #Erythrée #réfugiés_érythréens #Organisation_Internationale_contre_la_migration #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Libye #retour_volontaire #à_vomir

    @_kg_ : il y a aussi utilisation de ce terme dans le tweet, #stranded_migrants...

  • « Je suis devenu fou, je veux retourner au bled » : les migrants qui optent pour un #retour_volontaire

    L’aide au retour volontaire a concerné en 2018 plus de 10 000 personnes, dont beaucoup d’Afghans.

    Il a les yeux rouge vif. A plusieurs reprises, il demande s’il pourra aller aux toilettes après l’enregistrement. Dans un hall de l’aéroport Roissy-Charles-de-Gaulle, Noorislam Oriakhail vit ses derniers moments en France, fébrile. Il prend l’avion pour la première fois de sa vie. Au bout du voyage : l’Afghanistan. Comme 1 055 Afghans en 2018, des hommes majoritairement, Noorislam a choisi de rentrer. Ils étaient déjà 970 à avoir opté pour un « retour volontaire » depuis la France en 2017. Volet peu connu de la politique d’éloignement des étrangers en situation irrégulière, l’aide au retour volontaire a concerné cette année plus de 10 000 personnes au total, un chiffre en hausse de 58 % sur un an.

    Après les Albanais et devant les Moldaves, les Afghans sont les plus concernés par ce dispositif mis en œuvre par l’Office français de l’immigration et de l’intégration (OFII). Une situation qui s’explique : ils sont les premiers demandeurs d’asile en 2018. En outre, précise Didier Leschi, le directeur général de l’OFII, « lorsqu’ils arrivent en France, ils ont déjà déposé en moyenne près de deux demandes d’asile en Europe, principalement en Allemagne et en Suède, où elle a été rejetée ». Ils entrent donc dans la catégorie dite des « Dublinés », ne peuvent pas demander l’asile en France avant un délai de six à dix-huit mois. Dans l’intervalle, ils sont en situation irrégulière.

    L’OFII assume une politique volontariste à leur endroit : « Nous les démarchons pour leur proposer l’aide au retour, d’autant que les retours forcés sont très difficiles », reconnaît Didier Leschi. Au premier semestre, avec 23 éloignements, le taux d’exécution des obligations de quitter le territoire français prononcées à l’encontre des Afghans atteignait 4 %. En plus d’être moins onéreux qu’un éloignement forcé, les retours volontaires ont beaucoup plus de succès.

    « Trop de pression »

    Noorislam est « fatigué » de ne pas parvenir à s’extirper d’une situation précaire. D’un voyage entamé en 2006 et financé par son père et un oncle, il est arrivé « jeune et fort » sur le continent, avec l’Angleterre en ligne de mire. « C’était un rêve, reconnaît-il. J’ai essayé cinq ou six fois avant de réussir à monter dans un camion. » Outre-Manche, il est pris en charge en tant que mineur. Mais, à sa majorité, sa demande d’asile est rejetée et il devient « illégal ».

    Dans la ville de Loughborough (centre de l’Angleterre), Noorislam s’enfonce, affaibli par des soucis de santé. Le petit sac à dos qui lui fait office d’unique bagage après plus d’une décennie en Europe est « rempli de médicaments ». Le jeune homme souffre d’une dystrophie de la rétine – une maladie génétique caractérisée par un déficit visuel très important – et, depuis un an et demi, il explique avoir des problèmes d’incontinence. « Les médecins disent que c’est dans ma tête, assure-t-il, en montrant sa boîte d’antidépresseurs. Si je n’avais pas été malade, j’aurais pu m’en sortir mais, vu ma situation, je lutte pour tout. »

    « Si je n’avais pas été malade, j’aurais pu m’en sortir mais, vu ma situation, je lutte pour tout », témoigne Noorislam Oriakhail avant de monter dans l’avion

    Avec le sentiment d’avoir « perdu [son] temps », Noorislam s’est glissé dans un camion en janvier pour faire le chemin inverse de celui réussi il y a dix ans. Arrivé à Calais, après une nuit dans « le froid et la pluie », il croise des agents de l’OFII. Il est hébergé et on l’informe sur l’asile et le retour volontaire. « J’avais deux semaines pour choisir ou je devais quitter le centre », se souvient-il. Après des atermoiements, Noorislam s’oriente vers l’asile. Mais il est « dubliné », ce qui signifie qu’il risque d’être transféré vers l’Angleterre ou, à défaut, d’errer plusieurs mois avant de pouvoir déposer une demande en France. Il jette l’éponge. « C’est trop de pression », confie-t-il. Le jeune homme rentre en Afghanistan mais, en réalité, il ne doit pas s’y attarder. Sa famille s’est installée au Pakistan alors qu’il était enfant. « Mon père m’a dit qu’il m’aiderait à passer la frontière. »

    Le jour où Noorislam a embarqué, un autre Afghan devait prendre l’avion, mais il ne s’est jamais présenté. En 2018, quelque 1 500 personnes se sont ainsi désistées après avoir demandé une aide au retour. « Ce sont des gens qui peuvent être instables psychologiquement, justifie Didier Leschi. Il y a quelques semaines, un Pakistanais a fait une crise d’angoisse et a dû être débarqué avant le décollage. Depuis, il veut repartir. »

    Qu’est-ce qui motive un retour au pays ? « On ne connaît pas le parcours de ces gens », reconnaît Nadira Khemliche, adjointe au chef du service voyagiste de l’OFII, qui accompagne les candidats au départ à Roissy ou à Orly, jusqu’à leur embarquement sur des vols commerciaux. Nadira Khemliche ne distingue que des profils, les Arméniens qui voyagent en famille, les Chinois qui ont des vols tous les jours, les Ethiopiens qu’elle ne croise que deux ou trois fois l’an… « Parfois, on se demande pourquoi ils veulent rentrer en sachant qu’il y a des bombes chez eux, confie-t-elle. Mais bon, ici, ils n’ont rien. » « Quel est le choix réel de ces gens ?, s’interroge Clémence Richard, en charge des questions « expulsions » à la Cimade. Ils sont à la rue, épuisés socialement, précarisés administrativement. »

    Candidatures marginales

    Pour promouvoir le retour volontaire, l’OFII se déplace sur des campements, dans des centres d’hébergement du 115 ou des centres de demandeurs d’asile dans lesquels s’éternisent des déboutés. L’office tient même des stands dans des salons « diasporiques ». Le retour volontaire donne droit à un billet d’avion et à un « pécule » dont le montant varie. Les Afghans ont actuellement droit à 1 650 euros. Un programme européen permet aussi de financer un projet de réinsertion à hauteur de 3 500 euros.

    Sur un pan de mur de son bureau, à Calais, Laura Defachel, agent du retour volontaire et de la réinsertion de l’OFII, a accroché des photos d’hommes devant des troupeaux de bêtes, dans les montagnes afghanes. « Beaucoup ont saisi l’opportunité pour se lancer dans l’élevage, ouvrir une épicerie ou un magasin de pièces détachées, devenir taxi, assure-t-elle. C’est déterminant pour ceux qui sont partis de leur pays avec la promesse de faire mieux. » Depuis deux mois, toutefois, ce programme a été suspendu, dans l’attente d’un renouvellement. En 2016, l’année du démantèlement de la « jungle », le bureau de Calais a monté plus de 500 dossiers de départs volontaires, les trois quarts en direction de l’Afghanistan et du Pakistan.

    Les candidats au départ restent toutefois marginaux. « Ce sont surtout les personnes épuisées qui ne souhaitent pas demander l’asile en France ou des personnes qui rentrent pour des raisons familiales », analyse Laura Defachel. Elle se souvient de cet homme qui a souhaité partir après la mort de son frère, qui avait fait le voyage avec lui. Il était monté à bord d’un camion et, réalisant qu’il ne prenait pas la direction de l’Angleterre, est descendu en marche. Il s’est tué sur l’autoroute.

    Warseem Mohamad Kareem rentre dans la première catégorie. « C’est Londres ou l’Afghanistan », résume-t-il. Alors qu’il s’apprête à embarquer pour un vol retour, le jeune homme de 27 ans dit avoir dépensé 11 000 dollars (9 645 euros) pour rejoindre l’Europe. Arrivé en France il y a trois mois, il s’est retrouvé dans un cul-de-sac, à Calais et à Grande-Synthe, dans des tentes ou sous un pont. Avec des passeurs afghans ou kurdes, il a tenté vingt ou trente fois de monter dans des camions pour l’Angleterre. A chaque fois, il a été attrapé par la police.

    Le froid, la pluie, la police qui le chasse tous les matins, l’échec ont finalement eu raison de sa détermination. Lors du dernier démantèlement de Grande-Synthe, il a croisé les maraudeurs de l’OFII. « Nous avons faim de paix, pas d’argent », dit-il à l’agent qui lui remet, dans la salle d’embarquement, une enveloppe de billets. Warseem ne s’interdit pas de revenir, un jour. Il semble ignorer qu’il fait l’objet d’une obligation de quitter le territoire et d’une interdiction de retour pendant un an. Une pratique que toutes les préfectures ne mettent pas en œuvre, mais que l’OFII souhaite développer pour éviter les désistements et les retours. Des méthodes « déloyales », dénonce Clémence Richard : « Cela supprime de fait le droit au désistement. En outre, ces personnes ne rentrent pas dans les catégories de la loi susceptibles de se voir prononcer une interdiction de retour, c’est illégal et ça a aussi des conséquences graves, car cela rend quasi impossible toute demande de visa ultérieure. »

    A court d’argent et d’aide

    En matière de départ volontaire, la contrainte affleure. A partir du 1er janvier 2019, dans le cadre de la loi asile et immigration votée en 2018, les agents de l’OFII iront promouvoir l’aide au retour dans les centres de rétention administrative. Partir de gré, pour ne pas risquer de partir de force. C’est peut-être le dilemme qui aurait fini par se poser à Noorullah Nori. Débouté de l’asile en Allemagne, puis en France, à court d’argent et d’aide, il a signé pour un retour en Afghanistan, après quatre ans en Europe.

    « Moi aussi l’OFII m’a proposé le retour, mais jamais je ne rentrerai », jure Karimi, un Afghan qui a accompagné Noorullah à l’aéroport, après l’avoir recueilli tandis qu’il dormait à la rue. Passé par les errances d’un « Dubliné », Karimi est désormais réfugié en France. A voix basse, il dit à propos de son compatriote : « Il a des problèmes psychologiques. Il est resté longtemps sans parler à personne, avec des pensées négatives. » Il n’est pas le seul, dans le hall de Roissy, à sembler accuser le coup. Un autre Afghan a été déposé à l’aéroport par des infirmiers hospitaliers, prenant de court les agents de l’OFII qui n’avaient pas été informés et ont dû se procurer un fauteuil roulant tandis que l’homme, apathique, laissait son regard se perdre dans le vide, immobile.

    Un Soudanais s’apprête aussi à embarquer. Son air triste intrigue deux Afghans qui veulent savoir ce qui l’accable. Salah Mohamed Yaya a 19 ans. Il dit que depuis des mois il n’a plus de traitement contre le VIH. Cela fait deux ans qu’il est en France, passé par Toulouse, Paris, Nantes, les foyers pour mineurs, la rue, l’hôpital. « Je suis devenu fou, dit-il. Je veux retourner au bled. » Salah n’a pas fait de demande d’asile, sans que l’on sache s’il a vraiment été informé qu’il pouvait le faire. La veille de son départ, il a dormi porte de Villette. Il sent encore le feu de bois.

    https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2018/12/31/je-suis-devenu-fou-je-veux-retourner-au-bled_5403872_3224.html

    #retour_au_pays #réfugiés_afghans #France #Afghanistan #asile #migrations #réfugiés

  • Das Geschäft mit den Flüchtlingen - Endstation Libyen

    Wenn sie aufgegeben haben, besteigen sie die Flugzeuge. Die Internationale Organisation für Migration (IOM) transportiert verzweifelte Flüchtlinge und Migranten zurück in ihre Heimatländer – den Senegal, Niger oder Nigeria. Es ist die Rettung vor dem sicheren Tod und gleichzeitig ein Flug zurück in die Hoffnungslosigkeit.

    https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/media/thumbs/2/27a298dc737f6b659d3d4b7b097f1346v1_max_700x394_b3535db83dc50e2

    Flug in die Hoffnungslosigkeit (picture-alliance / dpa / Julian Stratenschulte)

    Für die Menschen, die Tausende Kilometer nach Libyen gereist sind, um nach Europa überzusetzen, wird die EU-Grenzsicherung zunehmend zur Falle. Denn die Schleuser in Libyen haben ihr Geschäftsmodell geändert: Nun verhindern sie die Überfahrt, kassieren dafür von der EU und verkaufen die Migranten als Sklaven.

    Die Rückkehrer sind die einzigen Zeugen der Sklaverei. Alexander Bühler hat sich ihre Geschichten erzählen lassen.

    Endstation Libyen
    Das Geschäft mit den Flüchtlingen
    Von Alexander Bühler

    Regie : Thomas Wolfertz
    Es sprachen : Sigrid Burkholder, Justine Hauer, Hüseyin Michael Cirpici, Daniel Berger, Jonas Baeck und Florian Seigerschmidt
    Ton und Technik : Ernst Hartmann und Caroline Thon
    Redaktion : Wolfgang Schiller
    Produktion : Dlf/RBB 2018

    Alexander Bühler hat in Gebieten wie Syrien, Libyen, Haiti, dem Kongo und Kolumbien gearbeitet und von dort u.a. über Drogen, Waffen- und Menschenhandel berichtet. 2016 erhielt er den Deutschen Menschenrechtsfilmpreis in der Kategorie Magazinbeiträge, 2018 den Sonderpreis der Premios Ondas.

    https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/das-geschaeft-mit-den-fluechtlingen-endstation-libyen.3720.de.

    #migrations #UE #externalisation #contrôles_frontaliers #frontières #désert #Sahara #Libye #gardes-côtes_libyens #Tunisie #Niger #OIM (#IOM) #évacuation #retour_volontaire #réinstallation #Côte_d'Ivoire #traite #traite_d'êtres_humains #esclavage #marchandise_humaine #viol #trauma #traumatisme #audio #interview #Dlf

    @cdb_77, j’ai trouvé la super !!! métaliste sur :
    externalisation, contrôles_frontaliers, frontières, migrations, réfugiés...juste que ce reportage parle de tellement de sujets que j’arrive pas à choisir le fil - peut-être ajouter en bas de la métaliste ? Mais le but n’est pas de faire une métaliste pour ajouter des commentaires non ? En tout cas c’est très bien fait cette reportage je trouve ! ...un peu dommage que c’est en allemand...

  • #ILO Global Estimates on International Migrant Workers – Results and Methodology

    If the right policies are in place, labour migration can help countries respond to shifts in labour supply and demand, stimulate innovation and sustainable development, and transfer and update skills. However, a lack of international standards regarding concepts, definitions and methodologies for measuring labour migration data still needs to be addressed.

    This report gives global and regional estimates, broken down by income group, gender and age. It also describes the data, sources and methodology used, as well as the corresponding limitations.

    The report seeks to contribute to the 2018 Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration and to achieving SDG targets 8.8 and 10.7.


    https://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_652001/lang--en/index.htm

    Le résumé:


    https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_652029.pdf

    #OIT #statistiques #chiffres #monde #genre #âge #2017 #migrations #travailleurs_migrants #travail #femmes

    • Global migrant numbers up 20 percent

      Migrants of working age make up 4.2 percent of the global population, and the number is growing. A UN report notes how poorer countries are increasingly supplying labor to richer ones to their own detriment.

      There are 277 million international migrants, 234 million migrants of working age (15 and older) and 164 million migrant workers worldwide, according to a UN report.

      Figures for 2017 from the United Nations’ Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN/DESA) published on Wednesday show that migrants of working age make up 4.2 percent of the global population aged 15 and older, while migrant workers constitute 4.7 percent of all workers.

      The numbers rose by almost 20 percent between 2013 and 2017 for international migrants, 13 percent for migrants of working age and 9 percent for migrant workers.

      Distribution

      Of the 164 million migrant workers worldwide, 111.2 million (67.9 percent) are employed in high-income countries, 30.5 million (18.6 percent) in upper middle-income countries, 16.6 million (10.1 percent) in lower middle- income countries and 5.6 million (3.4 percent) in low-income countries.

      From 2013 to 2017, the concentration of migrant workers in high-income countries fell from 74.7 to 67.9 percent, while their share in upper middle-income countries increased, suggesting a shift in the number of migrant workers from high-income to lower-income countries.

      The report noted that this growing number could be attributed to the economic development of some lower-income nations, particularly if these countries are in close proximity to migrant origin countries with close social networks.

      The share of migrant workers in the labor force of destination countries has increased in all income groups except for lower middle-income countries.

      In high-income countries, falling numbers of migrant workers were observed simultaneously with a higher share in the labor force as a result of the sharp fall in the labor force participation of non-migrants, due to a variety of factors such as changes in demographics, technology and immigration policies.

      “Stricter migration policies in high-income countries and stronger economic growth among upper middle-income countries may also contribute to the trends observed,” the report noted.

      Geography

      Some 60.8 percent of all migrant workers are found in three subregions: Northern America (23.0 percent), Northern, Southern and Western Europe (23.9 percent) and Arab States (13.9 percent). The lowest number of migrant workers is hosted by Northern Africa (less than 1 percent).

      The subregion with the largest share of migrant workers as a proportion of all workers is Arab States (40.8 percent), followed by Northern America (20.6 percent) and Northern, Southern and Western Europe (17.8 percent).

      In nine out of 11 subregions, the labor force participation rate of migrants is higher than that of non-migrants. The largest difference is in the Arab States, where the labor force participation rate of migrants (75.4 percent) is substantially higher than that of non-migrants (42.2 percent).

      Gender

      Among migrant workers, 96 million are men and 68 million are women. In 2017, the stock of male migrant workers was estimated to be 95.7 million, while the corresponding estimate for female migrant workers was 68.1 million.

      “The higher proportion of men among migrant workers may also be explained by...the higher likelihood of women to migrate for reasons other than employment (for instance, for family reunification), as well as by possible discrimination against women that reduces their employment opportunities in destination countries,” the report noted.

      It added that societal stigmatization, the discriminatory impacts of policies and legislation and violence and harassment undermine women’s access to decent work and can result in low pay, the absence of equal pay and the undervaluation of female-dominated sectors.

      Age

      Prime-age adults (ages 25-64) constitute nearly 87 percent of migrant workers. Youth workers (aged 15-24) and older workers (aged 65 plus) constitute 8.3 percent and 5.2 percent, respectively, of migrant workers. This age composition holds for male and female migrant workers alike.

      “The fact that the overwhelming majority of migrant workers consist of prime-age adults suggests that some countries of origin are losing the most productive part of their workforce, which could have a negative impact on their economic growth,” the report noted, but it added that emigration of prime-age individuals may also provide a source of remittances for countries of origin.

      Destination countries, meanwhile, benefit from receiving prime-age workers as they are increasingly faced with demographic pressures.

      Labor shortage in Germany

      Germany’s BDI industry association said skilled labor from abroad was key to Germany’s future economic success. “The integration of skilled workers from other countries contributes significantly to growth and jobs,” BDI President Dieter Kempf said.

      The country’s VDE association of electrical, electronic and IT engineering was the latest group in Germany to point to the growing need for foreign experts. Emphasizing that Germany itself was training too few engineers, VDE said there would be a shortage of 100,000 electrical engineers over the next 10 years.

      “We will strive to increase the number of engineers by means of migration,” VDE President Gunther Kegel noted.

      https://www.dw.com/en/global-migrant-numbers-up-20-percent/a-46596757

    • Al menos uno de cada cuatro movimientos migratorios son retornos a los países de origen

      Un estudio estima que entre el 26% y el 31% de los flujos de migración mundiales consisten en regresos a los lugares de partida. En los últimos 25 años apenas ha habido cambios en la proporción de población migrante mundial

      https://ctxt.es/es/20181226/Firmas/23708/ctxt-Observatorio-Social-La-Caixa-migracion.htm
      #retour_au_pays
      source: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/1/116

    • GLOBAL MIGRATION INDICATORS

      Préparé par le Centre mondial d’analyse des données sur la migration (CMADM) de l’OIM, le rapport 2018 sur les indicateurs de la migration dans le monde résume les principales tendances mondiales en fonction des dernières statistiques, présentant 21 indicateurs dans 17 domaines relatifs à la migration.

      Le rapport s’appuie sur des statistiques provenant de sources diverses facilement accessibles sur le Global Migration Data Portal.

      Le rapport regroupe les statistiques les plus récentes dans des domaines comme la migration de main-d’œuvre, les réfugiés, les étudiants internationaux, les envois de fonds, le trafic illicite de migrants, la gouvernance des migrations et bien d’autres, permettant aux responsables politiques et au grand public d’avoir un aperçu de l’ampleur et des dynamiques de la migration à travers le monde.

      Par ailleurs, le rapport est le premier à faire le lien entre le programme mondial de gouvernance des migrations et les débats sur les données migratoires. Les thèmes choisis sont particulièrement pertinents pour le Pacte mondial pour des migrations sûres, ordonnées et régulières et pour les Objectifs de développement durable (ODD). Le rapport fait un état des lieux des données sur chaque thème et propose des solutions pour les améliorer.

      « Bien que le Pacte mondial sur la migration et les ODD soient des cadres importants pour améliorer la façon dont nous gérons les migrations, des données plus précises et fiables sur les sujets relatifs à la migration sont nécessaires pour tirer parti de cette opportunité. Ce rapport donne un aperçu global de ce que nous savons et ne savons pas sur les tendances de la migration dans le monde », a déclaré Frank Laczko, Directeur du CMADM. 

      « La communauté internationale prend des mesures pour renforcer la collecte et la gestion des données sur la migration mais il reste beaucoup à faire. Une base de données solide est essentielle pour éclairer les politiques nationales sur la migration et seront plus que jamais nécessaires à la lumière du Pacte mondial pour des migrations sûres, ordonnées et régulières », a déclaré Antonio Vitorino, le nouveau Directeur général de l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations.

      https://www.iom.int/fr/news/loim-publie-un-rapport-sur-les-indicateurs-de-la-migration-dans-le-monde-2018

      –---------
      Pour télécharger le rapport :

      https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/global_migration_indicators_2018.pdf

      Quelques éléments-clé :


      #indicateurs #femmes #travailleurs_étrangers #étudiants #réfugiés #migrations_forcées #étudiants_étrangers #remittances #trafic_d'êtres_humains #mourir_aux_frontières #esclavage_moderne #exploitation #smuggling #smugglers #passeurs #retours_volontaires #retour_volontaire #renvois #expulsions #IOM #OIM #économie #PIB #femmes #migrations_environnementales #réfugiés_environnementaux #catastrophes_naturelles #attitude #attitude_envers_les_migrants #opinion_publique #environnement

  • Flüchtlinge im Winterschlussverkauf

    Mit großflächigen Plakaten und finanziellen Anreizen will die Bundesregierung Flüchtlingen eine zügige Rückkehr in ihre Heimatländer schmackhaft machen. Doch die Aktion wird immer mehr zum PR-Desaster.

    Es ist eine eher ungewöhnliche „Werbung“, an der man derzeit am U-Bahnhof Rosenthaler Platz in Berlin vorbeifährt. Zwischen Reklame für Lieferdienste und Smartphones wirbt da das Bundesinnenministerium (#BMI) in großen Lettern: „Dein Land. Deine Zukunft. Jetzt!“. Und das in sieben Sprachen - Deutsch, Englisch, Französisch, Arabisch, Russisch, Paschtu und Farsi. Und zwar nicht nur in diesem einen U-Bahnhof, sondern in vielen Städten deutschlandweit. Das Ministerium will allerdings nichts verkaufen, sondern sogar Geld unter die Leute bringen.

    Die Plakate sollen Flüchtlinge dazu animieren, freiwillig in ihr Land zurückzukehren. Vorzugsweise möglichst schnell, nämlich noch bis Ende dieses Jahres. Dafür bekommen die Rückkehrer bis zu 1200 Euro zusätzlich als unterstützendes Wohngeld - oder auch für andere Ausgaben im Heimatland. Die genaue Höhe hängt unter anderem vom Aufenthaltsstatus ab. Eine vierköpfige Familie kann auf bis zu 3000 Euro kommen.

    #StartHilfe_Plus“ nennt sich das Programm, das auf die bereits seit den 90er Jahren bestehenden Rückkehrer-Programme #REAG (Reintegration and Emigration Programme for Asylum Seekers in Germany und #GARP (Government Assisted Repatriation Programme) aufbaut. Die Rückkehr in bestimmte Bürgerkriegsländer wie Syrien, Libyen oder den Jemen wird nicht gefördert.

    Heftige Kritik

    Die Kritik an den ungewöhnlichen Plakaten ist allerdings hefig. „Die jüngste Kampagne des Bundesinnenministeriums hat den Charakter einer Winterschlussverkauf-Aktion und ist zynisch“, so Konstantin von Notz, stellvertretender Fraktionsvorsitzender von Bündnis 90/Die Grünen im Bundestag. „Sie verfolgt offensichtlich das Ziel, eigene Versäumnisse zu kaschieren und noch kurz vor Jahresende die bislang sehr niedrigen Zahlen von Menschen, die bisher ausgereist sind, aufzupolieren.“

    Auch in sozialen Medien erntet das BMI scharfe Kritik für die Aktion. Bei Twitter greifen User das Innenministerium unter dem Hashtag #FreiwilligeRückkehr scharf an. Inzwischen hat die Behörde damit begonnen, öffentliche Antworten auf einige Tweets zu verfassen.

    Konkret waren es bislang in der Tat gerade einmal rund 300 Personen, die „Starthilfe Plus“ in Anspruch genommen haben. Die Gesamtzahl der freiwilligen Rückkehrer lag Ende Oktober immerhin bei über 14.000. Am Jahresende dürften es aber weit weniger sein als 2017, als rund 29.000 Personen Rückkehr-Programme in Anspruch nahmen. Man darf vermuten, dass dies ein Grund für die Plakataktion ist, die sich das BMI laut Angaben gegenüber der DW rund 500.000 Euro kosten lässt.

    „Ich fühle mich gekauft“

    Doch was sagen dazu eigentlich die, an die es sich richtet? Fattah aus Afghanistan - der nur seinen Vornamen nennen will, weil er Angst hat, Ärger mit der Ausländerbehörde zu bekommen - macht im Gespräch mit der DW klar, dass er von der Aktion nicht viel hält. Für ihn fühle sich die Aktion so an, als sei er nie richtig angekommen in Deutschland - und dass man ihn wieder loswerden wolle. „Ich fühle mich wie gekauft“, klagt er. Fattah lebt seit 2016 in Potsdam. In seiner Heimat war er stellvertretender Leiter einer Firma, hier in Deutschland kann er aber nicht mehr in seinem Beruf arbeiten. Bislang verdient er sein Geld als Aushilfe in einem Warenlager. Die Plakatkampagne macht ihn wütend: „Ich bin nicht wegen des Geldes nach Deutschland gekommen. In Afghanistan hatte ich einen guten Job und genug Geld. Ich musste Afghanistan verlassen, weil es nicht mehr sicher war.“

    Er kann sich eine Rückkehr zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt allerdings ohnehin nicht vorstellen, denn schon bald erwartet er mit seiner deutschen Partnerin zusammen ein Kind und will heiraten. Seine Motivation, für 1200 Euro das Land zu verlassen, dürfte deshalb verständlicherweise gering sein.

    https://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/fluechtlinge-im-winterschlussverkauf_id_9963374.html

    #retour_volontaire #Allemagne #BMI #Berlin #réfugiés #publicité

  • La #fermeture_des_frontières empêche le #retour des migrants africains au pays

    En Europe, quand on parle de migrations africaines, on fait souvent référence aux arrivées de migrants, moins au fait qu’ils pourraient rentrer volontairement dans leur pays d’origine.

    Ces hommes et femmes sont la plupart du temps associés à des individus fuyant la misère et la guerre, recherchant des conditions de vie meilleures et n’ayant aucune intention de retourner d’où ils viennent. Quand les décideurs politiques européens parlent de « retour », ils font référence aux expulsions de migrants en situation irrégulière ou aux programmes incitant à un retour définitif, avec l’idée de décourager toute migration à venir.

    Tout cela laisse croire que la plupart des migrants africains voudraient s’établir définitivement en Europe et qu’aucun ne souhaiterait rentrer au pays, à moins d’y être contraint. Pourtant, l’éventualité d’un retour est toujours présente et fait partie de la #stratégie_de_mobilité de tout migrant. La migration est une #circulation et non un aller simple dans un sens ou dans l’autre. Le plus souvent, c’est le migrant qui décide de se mettre en mouvement.

    Des retours effectifs nombreux

    Les enquêtes « Migrations entre l’Afrique et l’Europe », menées à la fin des années 2000, ont montré que, à leur arrivée en Europe, de nombreux migrants envisageaient seulement une #migration_temporaire et avaient l’intention de #repartir. Ainsi, la moitié des migrants sénégalais et congolais arrivés en Europe entre 1960 et 2009 projetaient de rentrer dans leur pays d’origine.

    Les retours effectifs vers l’Afrique ont été nombreux. Après 10 ans, 20 % des Sénégalais et 40 % des Congolais qui avaient migré en Europe avaient effectué un retour au pays d’une durée d’un an ou plus, ou y étaient revenus temporairement avec l’intention de s’y installer.

    En fait, la grande majorité des retours sont décidés spontanément ou volontairement par les migrants eux-mêmes. Ils ne rentrent pas parce qu’ils y ont été forcés ou encouragés par les autorités du pays d’accueil. Seuls 11 % des Sénégalais et 3 % des Congolais ayant effectué un retour l’imputent à l’absence de titre de séjour régulier en Europe.

    Préparer soi-même son retour

    Les programmes d’#aide_au_retour « volontaire » (bien que ce choix résulte plutôt de contraintes) ne dissuadent pas de revenir en Europe. Les migrants circulent et les retours peuvent donner lieu à de nouvelles migrations si l’installation n’a été ni voulue ni préparée. C’est le cas, par exemple, de ceux dont le séjour en Europe a été trop court pour qu’ils puissent acquérir suffisamment de ressources pour réussir leur réinstallation réussie au pays d’origine. La part des Sénégalais de retour qui repartent en Europe est impressionnante : au bout de 10 ans, un peu moins de la moitié sont repartis pour l’Europe.

    Les migrants sont bien plus susceptibles de rentrer dans leur pays et d’y rester lorsqu’ils ont eux-mêmes préparé leur retour. Si on connaît mal la réalité statistique des retours décidés et mis en œuvre par les migrants dans le monde (rares sont les pays d’origine et de destination à enregistrer les migrations de retour), on cerne mieux les motivations de retour des migrants africains depuis les enquêtes biographiques MAFE. Particulièrement riches, ces enquêtes ont collecté des informations sur les parcours de vie des migrants, notamment sur leur trajectoire migratoire, leur vie familiale et professionnelle et leur expérience administrative en Europe et en Afrique.

    Les enquêtes MAFE montrent, enfin, que les politiques restreignant l’accès des migrants à l’Europe, même si elles sont accompagnées de programmes d’aide au retour « volontaire », ont un effet négatif sur les retours. Plus il est difficile de migrer vers l’Europe, moins les migrants retournent dans leur pays d’origine. Ils anticipent les difficultés de réinsertion dans un pays qu’ils ont parfois quitté depuis longtemps. Quand la situation du pays d’origine est instable et les conditions de vie difficiles, comme c’est le cas pour les Congolais partis après la crise de 1990, les migrants qui rentrent au pays le font le plus souvent à condition d’avoir l’assurance de pouvoir repartir.

    Les restrictions à l’immigration interrompent cette circulation et découragent les retours en poussant les migrants à s’installer définitivement en Europe. Un paradoxe sur lequel les décideurs pourraient méditer.

    https://theconversation.com/la-fermeture-des-frontieres-empeche-le-retour-des-migrants-africain
    #migration_circulaire #aller_et_venir #migrations #Afrique #Europe #retour_volontaire #mobilité #préjugés

  • #métaliste (qui va être un grand chantier, car il y a plein d’information sur seenthis, qu’il faudrait réorganiser) sur :
    #externalisation #contrôles_frontaliers #frontières #migrations #réfugiés

    Des liens vers des articles généraux sur l’externalisation des frontières de la part de l’ #UE (#EU) :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/569305
    https://seenthis.net/messages/390549
    https://seenthis.net/messages/320101

    Ici une tentative (très mal réussie, car évidement, la divergence entre pratiques et les discours à un moment donné, ça se voit !) de l’UE de faire une brochure pour déconstruire les mythes autour de la migration...
    La question de l’externalisation y est abordée dans différentes parties de la brochure :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/765967

    Petit chapitre/encadré sur l’externalisation des frontières dans l’ouvrage "(Dé)passer la frontière" :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/769367

    Les origines de l’externalisation des contrôles frontaliers (maritimes) : accord #USA-#Haïti de #1981 :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/768694

    L’externalisation des politiques européennes en matière de migration
    https://seenthis.net/messages/787450

    "#Sous-traitance" de la #politique_migratoire en Afrique : l’Europe a-t-elle les mains propres ?
    https://seenthis.net/messages/789048

    Partners in crime ? The impacts of Europe’s outsourced migration controls on peace, stability and rights :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/794636
    #paix #stabilité #droits #Libye #Niger #Turquie

    Proceedings of the conference “Externalisation of borders : detention practices and denial of the right to asylum”
    https://seenthis.net/messages/880193

    Brochure sur l’externalisation des frontières (passamontagna)
    https://seenthis.net/messages/952016

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


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

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

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

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

    • Migrants travel in groups for a simple reason: safety

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

      #sécurité

    • Trump’s Caravan Hysteria Led to This

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

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

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

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

      Vice President Mike Pence also tweeted:

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

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

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

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

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

      Peter Beinart: Trump shut programs to counter violent extremists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Latin American asylum seekers hit US policy “wall”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      The situation hasn’t always been like this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Nogales, Mexico

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Commentaire Emmanuel Blanchar via la mailing-list Migreurop:

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

      #mur_administratif #asile

    • No es una caravana, es un dolor que camina

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • WALKING, NOT FLOWING : THE MIGRANT CARAVAN AND THE GEOINFRASTRUCTURING OF UNEQUAL MOBILITY

      In 2015 our TV screens, newspapers and social media were full of stories about ‘flows’ of migrants ‘pouring’ into Europe, set alongside photos and videos of people packed into boats at sea or meandering in long lines across fields. This vocabulary, and the images that accompanied it, suggested that migration was a natural force: like a flow of water that cannot be stopped, governed only by the forces of gravity. Now, this same language is being used to describe the ‘migrant caravan’ of the thousands of Hondurans leaving the violence of their home country and attempting to journey to the US.

      This essay began life as an angry Twitter thread, hastily tapped out with my morning coffee. I argued that people were not flowing, but rather walking. In this Twitter thread, I tried to forge a connection between the how of the journey—noting both the material and geographical aspects impacting and structuring how people move—and the physical impacts of that journey on the bodies of those on the move. I called attention to the travelers’ tired, blistered feet in an attempt to weave a thread between the material (and political) geographies of the journey and the embodied experiences of those making it. The Twitter thread drew some attention and solicited an invitation to write a short intervention for the small Dutch critical-journalism platform De Nieuwe Reporterwhere it appeared in Dutch with the title: “Dit is waarom media niet moeten schrijven over ‘migrantenstromen’” (“This is why the media should not write about ‘migrant flows’”).

      Time has passed since I wrote the intervention. Since then, the caravan has journeyed to the US-Mexico border. US and Mexican authorities have responded with tear gas and closures, highlighting in clear terms the violence of the border and corresponding mobility governance. This violence is too often obscured by talk of flows: in the intervention, I worked hard to make visible what watery metaphors of ‘flow’ do to shape how we think about migrant mobilities and what is lost in their usage. I attempted to highlight the uneven politics of mobility that is shaped by and made visible through a consideration of what I want to call geoinfrastructuring, alongside the embodied effects of this uneven mobility. Here, in contrast to modernity’s quest for faster, more convenient, more efficient modes of travel to overcome the limits of the body as it encounters and moves through space, the migrant caravan’s mode(s) of travel—walking, stopping, starting, bus hopping, sitting, waiting, sleeping—bring into sharp relief the ways that for those excluded from privileged mobility regimes, the body is in intimate concert with the material world it encounters.

      The remainder of this essay will first reproduce the short intervention I wrote for De Nieuwe Reporter before thinking through more conceptually how this opinion piece relates to scholarly work on mobility and infrastructures.

      What we call things matters (while often invisibilizing how they matter). A Reuters report on the status of the migrant caravan in English from October 21st had the headline “Thousands in U.S.-bound migrant caravan pour into Mexican city”, while two days earlier a report by Reuters had talked about a “bedraggled” migrant “surge” attempting to “breach” the Mexican border. Meanwhile in other news outlets, the watery theme continued with a migrant “storm” in the UK’s Daily Mail, and a “wave” in USA Today. And lest we think this was a something restricted to reporting in the Global North, the Latin American press has not been immune, with Venezuela’s Telesur talking of a “second wave of migration.” Meanwhile in the Dutch language media, De Telegraafwrote of “Grote migrantenstromen trekken naar VS”, the headline handily highlighted in red in case the emergency nature of these “migrantenstromen” was not clear.

      A counterpoint was offered by oneworld.nl, who talked of the dehumanizing effects of such language use. Indeed, what we call things matters, because politicians also echo the language of the media creating a self-re-enforcing migration language. Unsurprisingly Trump has talked of flows in his condemnation of the Honduran migrant caravan, while Mark Rutte earlier this year talked about Europe not being ready for a new “migrantenstroom” (“migrant flow”). However, what we call things also matters as much for what it reveals as what it conceals. The widespread use of watery and other natural metaphors when talking about migration journeys hides both the realities of and the reasons for the people’s journeys. To talk of rivers, streams, floods, and flows masks the experiences of the thousands of people who are walking thousands of kilometers. They are walking along roads, up hills and across borders; they are tired and hungry, and their feet hurt. Many are travelling with children as people are leaving lives of poverty and deadly gang violence and looking for a safe future in the United States. Just as the British-Somali refugee poet Warshan Shire urges us to consider that “No one would put their children in a boat unless the water is safer than the land”, in the case of the Honduran migrant caravan it’s very unlikely that anyone would walk thousands of kilometers unless the road was safer than their homes.

      One of those travelling is Orellana, an unemployed domestic worker travelling with her two five-year-old grandsons. She declared she had no choice after the boys’ father was murdered and she “[Could not] feed them anymore”, and she is too old to get a job herself. Orellana has decided to try and get to Texas where her daughter, who migrated three years before, now lives.

      What the watery metaphors also hide is the agency of Hondurans like Orellana in attempting the journey and what the decision to travel in such a large group tells us about the realities of the journey itself. While the migrant caravan is walking to ostensible safety, the northbound journeys of Central American migrants through Mexico to the US are not safe. Many thousands attempt this journey every year, encountering detention and extortion by the police and drug cartels, physical violence, rape, and death. The policing of Mexico’s southern border, undertaken with the support of the US, does not only capture migrants in its net. Mexicans of indigenous appearance, suspected of being from Guatemala, Honduras or El Salvador because of crude processes of racial profiling, are routinely caught up in and detained in police patrols and at police checkpoints. In all this, women and teenagers are at particular risk. The risks of the journey are the reasons underpinning the choice of the Hondurans to travel in a caravan—the idea being that the greater the number of people, the lower the risk of capture and deportation, of physical harm from police, cartels and criminals along the route, and of being stopped by border controls. Moving in a caravan also removes the need to employ the services of smugglers who are often linked to cartels and are a source of the violence migrants face. In other words, people are reclaiming the right to move without paying large sums of money.

      Talk of “flows” also hides the way the journeys of migrants are shaped by the infrastructures of their travel. Roads direct migrants in particular directions and border controls interrupt their movement and divert them into using different paths. Unlike a river, they are not a force of nature that can make their way to their metaphorical sea by the quickest and most efficient route possible. The obstacles migrants encounter on their journey are not only natural obstacles like rivers, deserts, or mountains, but also human-made obstacles like police roadblocks, border control points and migrant prisons.

      And yet in the face of all this, they still walk. Faced with the difficulties of the journey and the promise of repatriation, some have already returned to Honduras. But many in the caravan have now crossed two national borders, with Guatemala and Mexico. Their numbers are growing as many people see the strength in numbers and the difficulty, both practically and politically, of preventing passage. Many others still are left sleeping on bridges, hungry and thirsty with little access to sanitation or shelter as they wait to enter Mexico. And yet they walk, they wait, and more join because “It’s even worse in Honduras.”

      In my work on humanitarian borderwork I have begun to argue for a deeper focus on the ways infrastructures and geographies intimately shape not only the risks faced by those excluded from safe and legal travel but also how the excluded move (Pallister-Wilkins, 2018, 2019). This builds on William Walter’s earlier demand that studies of migration take the journey seriously:

      The vehicle, its road, its route—these particular materialities are not entirely missing from scholarship on migration politics. But… they rarely feature as a central focus in theorisation and investigation of migration worlds. This is surely a paradox. All migrations involve journeys and those journeys are more often than not mediated by complex transport infrastructures, authorities and norms of transportation. Granted, in many instances those journeys may be rather uneventful and not in the least bit life-changing or politically salient… Nevertheless, in many other instances, the journey is politically salient, perhaps even a life-or-death experience. (2015: 270)

      Alongside taking the journey seriously, Mimi Sheller’s important work has shone a light on systems of ‘motility’, differential mobility capability, and mobility justice (2018) and Vicki Squire has drawn our attention to the biophysical role of deserts and seas in governing mobility (2016). Therefore, a focus on the journey and differential mobility capabilities challenges the watery metaphor of ‘flow,’ compelling us instead to understand how infrastructures and geographies—roads, bridges, deserts, mountains, border controls, police patrols, walls and fences, time and speed — make possible and condition particular types of mobility with embodied effects.

      Infrastructures here, following Lauren Berlant (2016), are defined by use (and movement) coming to pattern social life. They are what organizes life. As such they are agents in the (re)production of social inequalities (Donovan, 2015) and uneven geographies (Chua et. al, 2018). Alongside the way infrastructures pattern social life, consideration of infrastructuring offers a dynamic way of understanding the how of unequal mobility beyond the crafting of policy, enabling a greater consideration of infrastructure as something dynamic and mutable in the context of use. Infrastructures are not all encountered or utilized equally. A road driven is not the same as a road walked. Moreover, in thinking about context and use, Deborah Cowen (2014) has drawn our attention to the ways infrastructure, such as complex systems of just-in-time logistics, not only works to overcome the limits of space and time, but also offers opportunities for disruption and resistance. The essays in the “Investigating Infrastructures” Forum on this site show the role of infrastructures in crafting and reinforcing uneven geographies.

      With this in mind, I also want to consider the role of physical geography as an active agent working along with border, policing, and transport infrastructures in conditioning the how of unequal mobility as well as the embodied risks migrants face. The exclusive and privileged nature of various (safer) transport infrastructures and the growth of differential mobility regimes results in physical geographies and their attendant risks coming to matter to what Karen Barad would call matter (2003), in this instance to human life and well-being. In these instances, physical geographies have been politically made to matter through various policies underpinning mobility access and they come to matter at the level of the individual migrant bodies that encounter them.

      Infrastructural projects—roads, railways, and shipping routes—are all attempts to overcome the limits of physical geography. Planes and their attendant infrastructures of airports, airlines, runways and air traffic control make the traversal of great distance and the geographies of seas, mountains, and deserts possible and less risky. By making air travel exclusive, not through cost alone but through border regimes that deny access to those without the correct documentation, physical geography comes to matter more. Those seeking life through movement are increasingly prevented from accessing such transport. Thus, at the level of individual bodies and the journeys they make, the physical geography of the route comes to play a greater constitutive role. As Mimi Sheller makes clear, “There is a relation between personal bodily vulnerabilities, the struggle for shelter, the splintering of infrastructural systems, and the management of citizenship regimes and borders” (2018: xiv).

      Infrastructural projects such as roads, railways, and runways suggest attempts to overcome the limits of physical geography and yet are also intimately shaped by them. Mountain roads, for example, contain hairpin bends necessitated by the gradient of the slopes they cross. Bridges span rivers where such engineering can practically and safely take place. Meanwhile, a lack of roads or bridges impedes mobility, encouraging migrants to use boats, to swim, or like the Rohingya’s journeys from Rakhine into Bangladesh, to use the small narrow dykes that have shaped the environment of the wetlands of the Naf River delta.

      As John Law noted in his study of the possibilities that the Portuguese ship created for long distance control and an apparent human-technological triumph over space, the physical geographies of the ocean—“the winds and currents”—are an ever-present actor working in concert with infrastructure networks (1986). According to Law, it is not possible to think about these infrastructural networks and the social, political, and economic forces they represent and bring into being without a consideration of what he calls the natural, or what I am calling physical geography. The nature of concern to Law is very different from the natural world evoked by discussion of migrant flows and the wide variety of attendant watery metaphors. In these discussions, flow is a description. For Law, flow would have and perform a relational role. This relational ontology becomes even more politically pressing when the natural has embodied effects on the lives of migrants bound up in such a relational system. Put simply, the physical geography alongside infrastructures affects how people move and the risks they encounter on their journeys.

      Therefore, geoinfrastructuring, I argue, is important in considering how people exercise mobility. Geoinfrastructuring both conditions the journey of the migrant caravan and creates particular embodied effects, such as sore feet, blisters, joint pain, sprained muscles, and dehydration. Moments of enforced waiting on the journey, such as at border crossing points, generate their own embodied risks due to poor sanitation, lack of access to clean drinking water, and exposure to extreme weather, which in turn creates the need for as well as the time and space for limited humanitarian relief (see Pallister-Wilkins, 2018). However, as the migrant caravan attests, geoinfrastructure also creates the possibility for a (conditioned) resistance to exclusionary political-material mobility regimes. Infrastructural spaces and systems—roads, transit areas, buses and pick-up trucks—are being claimed and used by Honduran migrants in their journeys to the United States. In Europe and in the context of my own research, one of the key architects of Médecins Sans Frontiéres’ Search and Rescue operations has impressed upon me the important interrelation of the sea, infrastructures of surveillance and visibility, and the boat in making possible humanitarian efforts not only at saving lives but in addition the “activist” element of such search and rescue. Here, the dynamics of the sea, in concert with European border surveillance systems such as EUROSUR and the boat, make possible certain political interventions and disruptions that, it is argued, are not possible in other environments such as the Sahara and speak to Law’s idea of a relational ontology.[1]

      Away from the migrant caravan and my own research on search and rescue in the Mediterranean, I have become interested in exploring the relationship between physical, infrastructural and border geographies in how migrants choose to cross the Alps from Italy into France. These crossings occur at only a few points along the border, at crossing points that are manageable to migrants with differential mobility capabilities. Importantly, they are less risky than other crossing points due to lower altitude, better transport connections and a reduced police presence, such as at the Col de l’Échelle between the Italian town of Bardonecchia and the French city of Briançon. People do not cross through these places for lack of other routes. The town of Bardonecchia, for example, is located at the Italian entrance of both the Fréjus tunnel linking France and Italy, carrying motor vehicles under the Alps, and the older Mont Cenis tunnel linking France and Italy by rail. The entry point to the Fréjus and the trains using the Mont Cenis are heavily policed. The policing of the Fréjus tunnel is further made easier by traffic having to stop and pass through toll booths. And yet, the presence of the railway and its attendant station in Bardonecchia means that it is relatively accessible for migrants travelling from the rest of Italy. Its proximity to the French border, only 7km and a relatively gentle walk away, means that this particular border region has become a particularly popular passage point for migrants wanting to leave Italy for France.

      I have come to know this region well through its additional and complimentary infrastructures of tourism. The cross-border region is a popular holiday destination for people like me who are drawn there by the geoinfrastructure that makes for excellent cycling terrain. This tourism infrastructure for both summer and winter Alpine sports and outdoor activities means that the area is comparatively heavily populated for the Hautes-Alpes. This has resulted in services capable and willing to assist migrants with their journeys, from dedicated and well-equipped teams of mountain rescuers, to a large hospital specializing in mountain injuries, and solidarity activists offering food and shelter. In this region of the Hautes-Alpes, geoinfrastructuring, like with the migrant caravan, shapes not only how and why migrants make their journeys in particular ways: it also facilitates the exercising of political resistance to exclusionary border regimes by both migrants themselves and those who stand in solidarity with them.

      With this short essay I have attempted to challenge the language of flows and in so doing drawn attention to the constitutive role of infrastructures and their embodied effects in how migrants, excluded from safe and legal forms of transportation, exercise mobility. I have argued that as political geographers we should also consider the role of physical geography in making a difference in these journeys that occur in concert with roads, rivers, mountains, deserts, tunnels, bridges and vehicles. These physical geographies, as Vicki Squire argues, have biophysical effects. This is not to normalize the very real bodily dangers faced by migrants in their journeys by seeking to lay blame at the foot of the mountain, so to speak. Instead, it is to suggest that these physical geographies come to matter and have very real effects because of the political role ascribed to them by human decision-making concerned with (re)producing unequal mobility. It is to make the case for what I have termed here geoinfrastructuring—the assemblage of physical, material and political geographies—that shape how migrants move and the risks they face.

      http://societyandspace.org/2019/02/21/walking-not-flowing-the-migrant-caravan-and-the-geoinfrastructuring

    • Quand les caravanes passent…

      Depuis l’intégration du Mexique à l’Espace de libre-échange nord- américain, la question migratoire est devenue centrale dans ses relations avec les États-Unis, dans une perspective de plus en plus sécuritaire. Sa frontière méridionale constitue le point de convergence des migrations des pays du sud vers les pays nord-américains. Les caravanes de migrants, qui traversent son territoire depuis la fin 2018, traduisent une façon de rompre avec la clandestinité autant qu’une protection contre les périls de la traversée ; elles sont aussi l’expression d’une geste politique.

      Le Mexique occupe dans la stratégie de sécurisation des frontières américaines un rôle pivot, à la fois un État tampon et un relais du processus d’externalisation du contrôle des frontières dans l’espace méso-américain. Si l’attention médiatique tend à se focaliser sur les 3 000 kilomètres de frontières qu’il partage avec son voisin du nord, sa frontière sud catalyse les enjeux géopolitiques du contrôle des flux dans la région.

      Depuis son intégration à l’espace de libre-échange nord-américain au cours des années 1990, le Mexique a vu s’imposer la question migratoire dans ses relations diplomatiques avec les États-Unis. L’objectif d’une régulation du passage des frontières par le blocage des flux illicites, de biens ou de personnes, est devenu un élément central de la coopération bilatérale, a fortiori après le 11 septembre 2001. La frontière sud, longue de près de 1 000 kilomètres, circonscrit l’espace de libre circulation formé en 2006 par le Nicaragua, le Honduras, le Salvador et le Guatemala. Elle constitue le point de convergence des migrations en direction des pays nord-américains.
      Faire frontière

      Dans les années 2000, les autorités mexicaines ont donc élaboré une stratégie de surveillance fondée sur la mise en place de cordons sécuritaires [1], depuis l’isthme de Tehuantepec jusqu’à la frontière sud, bordée par une zone forestière difficilement contrôlable. Responsable de l’examen du droit au séjour, l’Institut national de migration (INM) est devenu en 2005 une « agence de sécurité nationale » : la question migratoire est depuis lors envisagée dans cette optique sécuritaire. Des « centres de gestion globale du transit frontalier » [centro de atención integral al tránsito fronterizo] ont été construits à une cinquantaine de kilomètres de la frontière sud. Chargées de filtrer les marchandises comme les individus, ces mégastructures regroupent des agents de l’armée, de la marine, de la police fédérale, de la migration et du bureau fédéral du Procureur général. En 2014, la surveillance des déplacements a été confortée par l’adoption du « Programme Frontière sud », à l’issue d’une rencontre entre le président Peña Nieto et son homologue américain, mécontent de l’inaction du Mexique face à l’afflux de mineurs à leur frontière commune. Derrière le vernis humanitaire de la protection des personnes, la détention et l’expulsion sont érigées en objectifs politiques. Fin 2016, les placements en rétention avaient augmenté de 85 %, les expulsions doublé. Proche de la frontière guatémaltèque, le centre de rétention de Tapachula, décrit comme le plus moderne et le plus grand d’Amérique centrale [2], concentre près de la moitié des expulsions organisées par le Mexique. Avec ceux des États de Tabasco et de Veracruz, ce sont plus de 70 % des renvois qui sont mis en œuvre depuis cette région. De multiples rapports associatifs font état de l’augmentation des drames humains liés à ces dispositifs qui aboutissent, de fait, à une clandestinisation de la migration et rendent les routes migratoires plus dangereuses.

      La migration a également été incorporée aux multiples programmes américains de coopération visant à lutter contre les trafics illicites, la criminalité transfrontalière et le terrorisme. Ces programmes n’ont eu d’autre effet que de faire des personnes en route vers le nord une nouvelle manne financière pour les organisations criminelles qui contrôlent ces espaces de circulation transnationale. La traversée de la frontière américaine guidée par un passeur coûterait 3 500 dollars, les prix variant en fonction de la « méthode ». Le passage par la « grande porte », à l’un des points officiels d’entrée sur le territoire américain, s’achèterait 18 000 dollars. Mais les cartels recrutent aussi des migrant·es pour convoyer plusieurs dizaines de kilos de drogue sur le territoire américain, des « mules » payées 2 000 dollars si elles y parviennent. L’extorsion, la prise d’otages et le travail forcé des migrant·es en transit vers les États-Unis figurent parmi les pratiques des cartels, avec parfois la complicité des agents de l’État. En 2011, des personnes en instance d’expulsion ont ainsi été vendues par des fonctionnaires de l’INM au cartel des Zetas contre 400 dollars par personne.

      Se donnant entre autres objectifs de « construire la frontière du xxiesiècle », l’Initiative Mérida a investi plus de 2,8 milliards de dollars depuis 2007 dans le renforcement d’infrastructures, la technologie du contrôle – dont l’échange avec la partie nord-américaine des données biométriques des personnes placées en rétention – et l’organisation d’opérations policières à la frontière avec le Guatemala. Ce programme finance aussi l’expulsion de ressortissants centraméricains ou extracontinentaux par le Mexique (20 millions de dollars en 2018).

      Dans une certaine mesure, ces dispositifs font système, au point que certains chercheurs [3] parlent du corridor migratoire mexicain comme d’une « frontière verticale ».
      Des caravanes pas comme les autres

      Du premier groupe constitué d’une centaine de personnes parties du Honduras en octobre 2018 aux divers collectifs formés en cours de route vers la frontière nord-américaine par des milliers d’individus venant d’Amérique centrale, de la Caraïbe et, dans une moindre mesure, des continents africain et asiatique, ce qu’il est désormais convenu d’appeler des « caravanes de migrants » constitue un phénomène inédit.

      Dans l’histoire centraméricaine, la notion renvoie à une pluralité de mobilisations, telle celle des mères de migrant·es disparu·es au cours de la traversée du Mexique, qui chaque année parcourent cette route à la recherche de leurs fils ou filles. Le Viacrucis migrante, « chemin de croix du migrant », réunit annuellement des sans-papiers centraméricain·es et des organisations de droits de l’Homme afin de réclamer la poursuite des auteur·es de violations des droits des migrant·es en transit au Mexique, séquestrations, racket, assassinats, viols, féminicides, exploitation ou tous autres abus.

      La première caravane de migrants du Honduras et celles qui lui ont succédé s’inscrivent dans une autre démarche. Elles traduisent une façon de rompre avec la clandestinité imposée par les politiques autant qu’une forme de protection contre les périls de la traversée. Le nombre des marcheurs a créé un nouveau rapport de force dans la remise en cause des frontières. Entre octobre 2018 et février 2019, plus de 30 000 personnes réunies en caravanes ont été enregistrées à la frontière sud du Mexique mais, chaque jour, elles sont des milliers à entrer clandestinement. Entre janvier et mars 2019, les États-Unis ont recensé plus de 234 000 entrées sur leur territoire, le plus souvent hors des points d’entrée officiels.

      Ces caravanes ont aussi révélé un phénomène jusqu’alors peu visible : l’exode centraméricain. Depuis les années 2000, près de 400 000 personnes par an, originaires du Honduras, du Salvador, du Guatemala, migrent aux États- Unis. Fuyant des États corrompus et autoritaires, une violence endé- mique et multiforme, dont celle des maras (gangs) et des cartels, ainsi que les effets délétères du modèle extractiviste néolibéral, elles quittent des pays qui, selon elles, n’ont rien à leur offrir.

      Ces migrations ne doivent pas être appréhendées de façon monolithique : les caravanes constituent une juxtaposition de situations diverses ; les groupes se font et se transforment au cours de la route, au gré des attentes de chacun. Certains ont préféré régulariser leur situation dès l’entrée sur le territoire mexicain quand d’autres ont choisi de pousser jusqu’à la frontière nord, d’où ils ont engagé des démarches auprès des autorités mexicaines et américaines.
      Du Nord au Sud, la fabrique d’une « crise migratoire »

      En réaction à ces différentes mobilités, le Mexique et les États-Unis ont déployé leurs armées, le premier oscillant entre un accueil humanitaire ad hoc, des pratiques de contention et l’expulsion, ou la facilitation des traversées en direction des États-Unis. Les mesures adoptées tant par les États-Unis que par le Mexique ont participé à l’engorgement des frontières, du sud au nord, créant ainsi la situation de « crise migratoire » qu’ils prétendaient prévenir.

      Sollicité par le gouvernement mexicain avant même l’arrivée de la première caravane sur le territoire des États-Unis, le Haut-Commissariat pour les réfugiés (HCR) a obtenu des fonds de ces derniers pour faciliter l’accès à la procédure d’asile mexicaine. Les États-Unis ont également mobilisé l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) pour qu’elle mette en place des campagnes de sensibilisation sur les risques de la traversée, et d’encouragement au retour. Écartant d’emblée la revendication des marcheurs de pouvoir solliciter collectivement l’asile à la frontière américaine, les agents du HCR ont insisté sur la complexité des procédures et la faible probabilité d’obtenir l’asile aux États-Unis, confortant le discours porté par l’OIM. Les organisations mexi- caines de défense des droits des étrangers ne se sont pas saisies du droit comme d’une arme politique de soutien à l’appel des marcheurs à une libre circulation au Mexique et au refuge pour tous aux États-Unis. L’ensemble des discours en direction des caravanes ont convergé en faveur de la promotion de l’installation au Mexique. « À chaque fois, on nous parle de la détention, de l’expulsion… Mais nous, on est là et on va continuer d’avancer ! » a observé l’un des marcheurs.

      Depuis plusieurs années, les obstacles à la traversée clandestine du Mexique ont contribué à l’accroissement des demandes d’asile qui sont, avec la carte de visiteur pour raison humanitaire délivrée par l’INM, l’unique option de régularisation. Entre 2013 et 2018, le nombre de requêtes a augmenté de 2 332 %, passant de 1 269 à 29 600. Cette tendance se poursuit. Au premier semestre 2019, la Commission mexicaine d’aide aux réfugiés (Comar) – équivalent de l’Ofpra français – enregistrait une hausse de 182 % par rapport à la même période en 2018, sans que n’augmentent ses moyens. Elle ne disposait en 2017 que de 28 officiers de protection chargés d’instruire les dossiers. L’année suivante, le HCR a soutenu le recrutement de 29 autres officiers tandis que le gouvernement votait une diminution du budget alloué à la Comar. En février 2018, la Commission nationale des droits de l’Homme révélait que des demandes d’asile déposées en 2016 n’avaient toujours pas été examinées, de même que près de 60 % des requêtes formées en 2017. Aux 33 650 dossiers en attente de traitement, se sont ajoutées plus de 12 700 demandes depuis le début 2019.

      Pour éviter d’être expulsées, les personnes n’ont d’autre choix que de « faire avec » ce système en pleine déliquescence. En décembre 2018, il fallait compter jusqu’à six semaines avant de pouvoir déposer une requête à la Comar de Tapachula, et six mois à l’issue de l’audition pour obtenir une réponse. En attendant, les postulant·es doivent, chaque semaine, attester du maintien de leur demande et, pour survivre, s’en remettre à l’assistance humanitaire offerte dans les lieux d’hébergement tenus par des ecclésiastiques. Conséquence de cette précarisation croissante, le taux d’abandon des demandes d’asile déposées à la Comar dans l’État du Chiapas atteignait 43% en 2017. Nombreux sont ceux et celles qui sollicitent l’asile et le visa humanitaire dans le même temps et, une fois le second obtenu, partent chercher un travail au nord du pays. Afin de réduire l’abandon des demandes d’asile, le HCR verse un pécule durant quatre mois aux personnes jugées « vulnérables », une appréciation subordonnée à son budget. En plus des pointages hebdomadaires auprès des administrations, les bénéficiaires doivent chaque mois attester de leur présence au bureau du HCR pour recevoir ce pécule. Dans cette configuration, la distinction entre les logiques sécuritaire et humanitaire se brouille. Parmi les personnes rencontrées à Tapachula, nombreuses sont celles qui ont souligné l’artifice d’une politique d’assistance qui n’en porte que le nom, à l’exemple de Guillermo, originaire du Salvador : « Pour demander des papiers aujourd’hui, il faut passer d’abord par la mafia des organisations. Tout le monde te parle, chacun te propose son petit discours. Cela me fait penser aux prestidigitateurs au cirque, c’est une illusion.[...] Le HCR dit que la procédure d’asile est longue et qu’on peut en profiter pour faire des formations pour apprendre un nouveau métier [...]. Mais déjà, la plupart ici n’a pas l’argent pour ça et se bat pour vivre et trouver un logement ! Ensuite moi, je dois aller signer chaque mardi à la Comar et chaque vendredi à l’INM, le HCR me propose deux jours de cours de langue par semaine pour apprendre l’anglais, mais ça veut dire quoi ? Cela veut dire qu’on peut juste aller travailler un jour par semaine ?! [...] Ils te font miroiter des choses, ils t’illusionnent ! [...] Le HCR te dit : "Tu ne peux pas sortir du Chiapas." La Comar te dit : "Tu ne peux pas sortir de Tapachula." L’INM te dit : "Si on te chope, on t’expulse." »

      La formation d’un espace de contention au bord de l’implosion au sud du Mexique fait écho à la situation de blocage à la frontière nord du pays, renforcée en novembre 2018 par le plan « Reste au Mexique », mal renommé depuis « Protocole de protection de la migration ». Les États-Unis, qui obligeaient déjà les demandeurs d’asile à s’enregistrer et attendre à la frontière, ont unilatéralement décidé de contraindre les non-Mexicains à retourner au Mexique durant le traitement de leur demande d’asile, à moins qu’ils ne démontrent les risques qu’ils y encourraient.
      Frontières et corruption : une rébellion globale

      Ces derniers mois, les entraves et dénis des droits ont engendré de nouvelles formes de mobilisation des migrant·es originaires de la Caraïbe, d’Afrique et d’Asie, jusqu’alors peu visibles. Les personnes en quête de régularisation se heurtent à la corruption qui gangrène les arcanes de l’État : toute démarche, du franchissement de la frontière en passant par la possibilité d’entrer dans les locaux de l’INM jusqu’à l’obtention d’un formulaire, est sujette à extorsion. La délivrance de l’oficio de salida, permettant à certain·es [4] de traverser le pays en direction des États-Unis, est devenue l’objet d’un racket en 2018. Les agents de l’INM disposent d’intermédiaires chargés de récolter l’argent auprès des migrant·es pour la délivrance de ce sauf-conduit, qui donne une vingtaine de jours pour parvenir à la frontière nord. Les montants varient en fonction des nationalités : un Cubain devra payer 400 dollars, un Pakistanais 200 quand un jeune Congolais parviendra à négocier 70 dollars, 100 étant demandés aux autres Africains. Pour tenter de contourner ce système, des personnes sont restées des journées entières devant l’entrée du centre de rétention, dans l’espoir d’y accéder : le plus souvent, seules les familles finissaient par entrer. En mars 2019, des Cubains, exaspérés d’attendre depuis plusieurs mois, ont tenté d’entrer en force à la délégation de l’INM. Rejoints par des personnes originaires de Haïti, d’Amérique centrale, d’Afrique et d’Asie, ils ont été plus de 2 000 à faire le siège des locaux de l’INM, avant de décider, après plusieurs semaines d’attente vaine, de former la caravane centraméricaine et de la Caraïbe vers la frontière nord.

      Aujourd’hui, l’élan de solidarité qui avait accueilli la première caravane de Honduriens est retombé. Celles et ceux qui continuent leur route en direction du Mexique et des États-Unis ne bénéficient ni de la même couverture médiatique ni du même traitement politique. Les promesses gouvernementales d’accueil sont restées lettre morte. En janvier 2019, l’INM annonçait avoir délivré 11 823 cartes de visiteurs pour raisons humanitaires au cours du mois. En mars, on n’en comptait plus que 1 024. Outre une recrudescence des expulsions, un nouveau « plan de contention » prévoit le renforcement de la présence policière dans l’isthme de Tehuantepec. Cette stratégie se déploie aussi par-delà le territoire puisque les demandes de visa humanitaire devraient désormais se faire depuis le Honduras, le Salvador et le Guatemala.

      Si certains voient dans les caravanes un nouveau paradigme migratoire, une chose est sûre : la contestation des frontières et la défiance envers les États portées par ces mouvements sont l’expression d’une geste politique longtemps déniée à une migration jusqu’alors confinée au silence.

      https://www.gisti.org/spip.php?article6226

    • Primer vuelo “exprés” con 129 hondureños retornados de México

      Tras meses de espera en la frontera norte de México, los hondureños solicitantes de asilo en Estados Unidos comienzan a desesperarse y están pidiendo retornar de forma voluntaria al país, tal y como lo hicieron 129 compatriotas que llegaron hoy por vía aérea a #San_Pedro_Sula.

      El vuelo, organizado por la embajada de Honduras en México y financiado por la Organización Internacional para las Migraciones (#OIM), salió de la ciudad de #Matamoros (Tamaulipas), donde los hondureños llevaban varios meses de espera.

      El embajador de Honduras en México, Alden Rivera Montes, informó que los retornados venían en 55 grupos familiares, constituidos por 32 hombres, 30 mujeres y 65 menores acompañados de sus padres; además, retornaron dos adultos solos.

      Rivera Montes detalló que el nuevo Consulado Móvil de Honduras en Matamoros expidió los salvoconductos para que los compatriotas pudieran salir de México mediante la modalidad de Retorno Voluntario Asistido (AVR) a través de la OIM.

      Aseguró que debido a los altos índices de violencia de esa ciudad mexicana se están haciendo las gestiones para que los hondureños que son devueltos por las autoridades estadounidenses a México, sean trasladados a puntos fronterizos menos vulnerables.

      De la misma manera las autoridades de la embajada de Honduras en México anunciaron que los procesos de atención a los migrantes en situación de espera que deseen regresar voluntariamente a Honduras seguirán abiertos durante los próximos meses y que pronto se habilitará esta misma opción de retorno voluntario desde Nuevo Laredo, Ciudad Juárez y Tijuana.

      ATENCIÓN DIGNA

      El vuelo llegó al aeropuerto sampedrano a las 3:00 de la tarde y posteriormente los compatriotas fueron trasladados Centro de Atención para la Niñez y Familias Migrantes Belén, ubicado en San Pedro Sula.

      En Belén los compatriotas fueron recibidos con un plato de sopa caliente; posteriormente hicieron el Control Biométrico con personal del Instituto Nacional de Migración (INM) y llenaron una ficha socioeconómica para optar a los diferentes programas de reinserción social y de oportunidades que ofrece el gobierno.

      Los menores retornados también reciben atención médica y psicológica; posteriormente, si son menores no acompañados, un grupo de especialistas de la Dirección de Niñez, Adolescencia y Familia (Dinaf) les brinda seguimiento para garantizar que se cumplan sus derechos.

      Asimismo, con el apoyo de la Cruz Roja Hondureña se les brinda una llamada para que puedan comunicarse con sus familiares acá en Honduras, se les proporciona un ticket para que puedan trasladarse a sus lugares de origen y si lo requieren se les brinda un albergue temporal.

      https://www.latribuna.hn/2019/10/09/primer-vuelo-expres-con-129-hondurenos-retornados-de-mexico
      #renvois #expulsions #réfugiés_honduriens #IOM #retour_volontaire

    • Honduran Migrants Return from Mexico with IOM support

      The International Organization for Migration (IOM) organized a charter flight for 126 migrants who expressed their decision to return voluntarily to their country of origin. Fifty-three family groups comprising 33 men, 29 women and 64 children flew on Wednesday (09/10) from the city of Matamoros (Tamaulipas, Mexico) to San Pedro Sula (Honduras).

      IOM deployed all efforts and collaborated closely with the Honduran Embassy in Mexico and with the National Migration Institute of Mexico to arrange for this first charter flight in its Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) programme.

      In the days preceding departure, with the support of its Shelter Support programme and local partners, IOM provided migrants with accommodation and food. According to its internal protocols, IOM ensured that all migrants were made aware of all processes so that all decisions could be taken based on complete information. Further, IOM verifies that persons who express a desire to return do not face any immediate risks upon arrival.

      “I made the decision to return to my country because of the situation I faced with my son; because promises made to us by the ‘coyotes’ are not fulfilled, and we risk our lives along the way,” said a young mother on board the flight. “When we finally crossed the border into the USA, they took us back to Matamoros in Mexico, where I spent eight days in a shelter. There, we saw IOM and we learned about different options. But I want to see my other daughter now, so I decided to return home.”

      “Something I want to say is that if I ever migrate again, I will look for information before leaving, because many people simply give money which we do not really have to ‘coyotes’ or guides, who takes advantage of us,” said another Honduran migrant who decided to return due to the difficult conditions in the Mexican border city. “After considering our options, we found the shelter supported by IOM who helped us out by giving us food and a place to stay, and the possibility of return.”

      “IOM has been providing support to shelters to increase their capacity along with the option of assisted voluntary returns by bus and commercial flights over the last months,” explained Christopher Gascon, IOM Chief of Mission in Mexico. “This is the first return by charter flight, which offers a better service to migrants who want to return home. We hope to provide many more charter flights in the weeks to come.”

      The IOM Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) programme offers an alternative for an orderly, safe and dignified voluntary return for migrants. IOM offers humanitarian assistance to those who cannot or do not wish to remain in Mexico. Voluntariness is a key principle of IOM #AVR programmes worldwide.


      https://www.iom.int/news/honduran-migrants-return-mexico-iom-support

  • Forced displacement at record high of 68.5 million, UNHCR #Global_Trends report reveals

    UNHCR released its Global Trends report this week to coincide with World Refugee Day, detailing the latest statistics on forced displacement across the world. According to the report, over 68.5 million people are currently displaced from their homes for reasons of conflict, violence and other forms of persecution. This figure represents a record high for the fifth consecutive year.

    In 2017 alone, over 16.2 million people were forcibly displaced, a figure which translates to 44,500 people a day, or one person every two seconds. Over two thirds of the world’s refugees originate from just five countries: Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Myanmar and Somalia.

    The report found that over half of those displaced are children, many of whom are unaccompanied or separated from their parents. In 2017 173,800 children sought asylum on their own, although UNHCR states that this figure is likely an underestimation.

    The report dispels a number of common misconceptions about forced displacement, such as the belief that most of those displaced are hosted in countries in the Global North. UNHCR affirms that in fact the opposite is true, stating that “approximately 85 per cent of all refugees at the end of 2017 were granted protection in countries in developing regions, which included nine of the 10 largest refugee-hosting countries”. Turkey hosts the largest number of refugees, now reaching 3.5 million, while Lebanon hosts the greatest number in proportion to its own population.

    Another misconception the report addresses is the number of cross-border displacements. Almost two thirds of those forced to flee are internally displaced within their own borders. In addition, most of those who do cross a national border settle as close as possible to their home.

    The EU also launched its Annual Report from EASO, the European Asylum Support Office, providing an overview of asylum related policies and practices, both at EU and at national level. In 2017, more than 728,000 applications for international protection were lodged in EU countries, with 33% of decisions granting asylum seekers either refugee status or subsidiary protection.

    https://www.ecre.org/forced-displacement-at-record-high-of-68-5-million-unhcr-global-trends-report-
    #statistiques #chiffres #migrations #asile #réfugiés #HCR #monde #2017

    Lien pour télécharger le #rapport :
    http://www.unhcr.org/5b27be547.pdf
    http://www.unhcr.org/globaltrends2017
    #IDPs #déplacés_internes #apatridie #Rohingya #retour_volontaire #réinstallation #RDC #Congo #république_démocratique_du_congo #taux_de_protection #MNA #mineurs_non_accompagnés

    Quelques graphiques :


    #cartographie #visualisation

    cc @reka

  • Speech by High Representative/Vice-President Federica #Mogherini at the European Parliament plenary session on the Progress on the UN Global Compact for safe, regular and orderly migration and UN Global Compact on refugees

    Let me start with a good news, a good story for once; a little, big European achievement of the last few months. You might remember, last December I came to Strasbourg and here, in this hemicycle we talked about detention centres in Libya. I took in front of you, and most of all, in front of all those people who are suffering inside these detention centres in Libya, the commitment to bring back to their homes 15.000 migrants from within the detention centres to their countries or origin, in a safe manner with Assisted Voluntary Returns, made with our assistance, through the IOM [International Organisation for Migration].

    At that moment we had just reached an unprecedented agreement between our European Union, the African Union, and the United Nations, in particular the United Nations’ agencies for migrants and refugees – at our EU-Africa Union Summit in Abidjan. Thanks to this agreement, in the first two months of this year – so January and February - we managed to rescue and free more than 16.000 people from the camps in Libya. In two months, we managed to achieve more than in the previous year and already in 2017, the results were ten times better than the previous year.

    Now, in the detention camps, there are still some 4.000 to 5.000 people. It is far too much and we are going to continue our work with the United Nations and with the African Union to empty the camps. We have managed to bring out from there 16.000 people in two months, I believe we can make it and empty them completely, within the, at maximum, coming next couple of months.

    This has been possible for one reason: we joined forces – first of all within Europe, second with our African partners and friends, and on a global scale, within the UN system. I am glad to start with this positive note - while acknowledging that there is still work to be done -because sometimes we forget to focus on the achievements we managed to build. I think the achievements are important to lead us towards the solution.

    https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage/41272/speech-high-representativevice-president-federica-mogherini-european-par
    #Libye #camps #centres_de_détention #détention #asile #migrations #réfugiés #vide #plein

    Commentaire de Marie Martin via la mailing list Migreurop :

    No resettlement from Libya to the EU was mentioned, if anyone has information on this it will be welcome

    #réinstallation

    @reka :
    ça rentre aussi peut-être dans tes réflexions sur la #géographie_du_vide et #géographie_du_plein

  • « Les conditions sont réunies pour des renvois en Erythrée »

    En tête des demandes d’asile en Suisse en 2017, les ressortissants érythréens étaient jusqu’alors protégés dans leur ensemble d’un renvoi dans leur pays. Cela devrait désormais changer, comme l’explique Mario Gattiker, secrétaire d’Etat aux migrations.

    Le renvoi d’Erythréens dans leur patrie d’origine est licite et exigible, a statué le Tribunal administratif fédéral (TAF) dans un arrêt d’août 2017. A deux conditions : il faut que l’individu ait déjà effectué son service obligatoire avant de quitter l’Erythrée ou qu’il dispose du statut de « membre de la diaspora » défini par Asmara. Sur la base de cette décision, le Secrétariat d’Etat aux migrations (SEM) considère que 3200 ressortissants de ce pays sont désormais éligibles à un « #retour_volontaire ». Environ 200 d’entre eux ont déjà été contactés. Ils disposent d’un mois pour avancer des raisons qui pourraient s’opposer à leur retour. Le Temps a rencontré Mario Gattiker, secrétaire d’Etat aux migrations, pour en parler.

    Le Temps : La situation a-t-elle évolué en Erythrée pour qu’on puisse envisager le retour de certains de ses ressortissants ?

    Mario Gattiker : La Suisse offre une protection uniquement à ceux qui en ont besoin. En ce qui concerne l’Erythrée, le SEM a constaté que le pays ne connaissait pas une situation de #violence_généralisée et qu’y retourner n’était pas dans tous les cas inexigible. Les opposants politiques ne seront par ailleurs pas touchés par cette mesure. Le TAF soutient en outre notre position et a également estimé qu’un individu qui a déjà servi ou qui ne peut pas être recruté ne se trouve pas en danger concret de #persécution. J’ajoute que nous évaluons constamment la situation du pays, ce pour quoi nous sommes actuellement à la pointe en Europe.

    Comment peut-on être sûr que les personnes renvoyées ne seront pas exposées à des actes de répression ? Le CICR ne dispose lui-même que d’un accès limité aux prisons du pays.

    Il n’existe pas de garantie incontestable. Nous arrivons cependant à la conclusion que, pour certaines catégories de personnes, il n’existe pas de #risque concret. Cette décision se base sur des témoignages de diasporas érythréennes à l’étranger, notamment en Ethiopie et au Soudan, sur des rapports d’ambassades, d’organisations internationales et non gouvernementales, ainsi que sur des missions organisées sur place ou encore des sources provenant de l’opposition au régime.

    Il n’existe pas d’#accord_de_réadmission avec l’Erythrée. Comment être sûr que le pays acceptera bien de reprendre ses ressortissants ?

    Parmi les pays d’origine des personnes qui demandent l’asile chez nous, seul un pays sur deux a un accord de réadmission avec la Suisse. L’absence d’un tel traité ne signifie pas pour autant que des renvois sont impossibles. La Côte d’Ivoire accueille par exemple des vols spéciaux sans aucune convention de ce type. En ce qui concerne l’Erythrée, le pays n’accepte certes pas de #renvois_forcés mais des retours volontaires sont possibles. Je précise que si la personne éligible à un retour volontaire ne s’en va pas, elle prend le risque de tomber dans l’#aide_d’urgence.

    C’est là le bras de levier dont dispose la Suisse pour convaincre des « volontaires » ?

    Je ne vois pas ça comme un bras de levier, mais comme l’application de la loi. Il existe 9400 Erythréens admis provisoirement en Suisse. Certains ont obtenu ce statut alors qu’ils ne souffraient d’aucune persécution, mais que des circonstances particulières, comme une maladie, le justifiaient à ce moment-là. Leur statut n’est pas protégé par la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme ou par les Conventions de Genève mais par la loi sur l’asile, que nous appliquons. Nous avons par ailleurs pour obligation de revoir le statut des personnes admises de manière provisoire à intervalles réguliers. Cela non seulement pour les Erythréens mais également pour toutes les autres communautés étrangères présentes sur le territoire suisse.

    A combien se monte l’#aide_au_départ fournie par la Confédération ?

    La pratique en vigueur est d’allouer 1000 francs par individu. Dans des situations particulières, cette somme peut être augmentée jusqu’à 4000 francs.

    En ce qui concerne l’#Ethiopie maintenant, où en sont les négociations concernant un accord migratoire ?

    L’Ethiopie était un pays difficile en ce qui concerne le retour de ses ressortissants. L’Union européenne (UE) est toutefois parvenue à un accord avec Addis-Abeba pour les renvois, volontaires ou non. Comme la Suisse est dans l’espace Schengen, nous reprenons les accords conclus par l’UE dans le domaine de la migration. J’ajoute qu’il est absolument nécessaire de procéder au renvoi de personnes qui n’ont pas besoin de notre protection afin d’éviter d’inciter des personnes à venir en Suisse pour profiter d’une aide sans motifs valables. Cet accord crédibilise la politique migratoire suisse et européenne et permet d’apporter la protection nécessaire aux personnes qui en ont besoin.
    #dissuasion

    La Suisse sera appelée à collaborer avec les #services_secrets éthiopiens, régulièrement dénoncés pour des violations des droits de l’homme par des organisations comme Amnesty International. Est-ce cohérent de travailler avec un tel partenaire ?

    Notre partenaire est l’autorité éthiopienne des migrations. Dans les décisions de renvoi, la situation des droits de l’homme dans le pays d’origine représente par ailleurs toujours un facteur important. Les décisions doivent toutefois être prises sur la base d’une évaluation individuelle des risques encourus par chaque personne concernée.

    L’Ethiopie est un des plus grands pays d’Afrique, avec environ 90 millions d’habitants. La situation sur place n’est pas celle de violences généralisées. Les ressortissants de ce pays en mesure de fournir des raisons valables peuvent bien entendu obtenir un statut de protection en Suisse. Les autres doivent quitter le territoire.

    https://www.letemps.ch/suisse/conditions-reunies-renvois-erythree
    #asile #réfugiés_érythréens #migrations #réfugiés #Suisse #renvois #expulsions #it_has_begun

    @isskein : le "#modèle_suisse" frappe encore ? Est-ce que ça sera la Suisse le premier pays à renvoyer les Erythréens en Erythrée ?

    Sur le jugement du #TAF (tribunal administratif fédéral), voir :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/626866

    • Pourquoi la décision de levée de l’admission provisoire pour 3’200 érythréens est prématurée

      Interviewé récemment par Le Temps, Mario Gattiker, Secrétaire d’Etat aux migrations (SEM) estime que le renvoi de milliers d’érythréens admis à titre provisoire est licite. Il explique que la levée d’admission provisoire concernera uniquement les personnes qui ont déjà effectué leur service militaire obligatoire avant de quitter l’Erythrée ou qui disposent du statut de « membre de la diaspora » défini par Asmara. Ce sont 3’200 érythréens sur un total de 9’400 personnes admises à titre provisoire et sans statut de réfugié qui sont visées.

      https://blogs.letemps.ch/jasmine-caye/?p=906

      via @forumasile

    • Switzerland: 3200 Eritrean nationals facing possible deportation

      According to a ruling from the Federal Administrative Court in Switzerland from August 2017 the return of Eritrean nationals is lawful provided they have completed their military service. On that basis the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) will examine the cases of 3,200 Eritrean nationals in Switzerland granted temporary admission and enforce their return.

      Persons granted temporary admission in Switzerland are not ensured permission to stay but the admission confirms that deportation cannot be carried out and that a person can stay as long as that is the case. The ruling by the Federal Administrative Court established that Eritreans who have completed military service or resolved their situation with the Eritrean government through payment of necessary fees can be returned, affecting 3,200 Eritrean nationals of a total of 9,400 currently on temporary admission who are having their cases examined by the SEM. A letter sent from SEM to Eritrean nationals concerned states: “The SEM thus intends to annul the provisional admission and order the enforcement of the return.” This despite the fact that Switzerland currently lacks agreements with the Eritrean authorities enabling forced return.

      Human rights violations by Eritrean authorities including indefinite military service, arbitrary arrest and enforced disappearances, forced labour, repression of speech, expression, and association and lack of religious freedom are widely reported by civil society organisations and the UN. According to Eurostat the recognition rate for Eritrean asylum seekers in the 28 EU member states was 90% in 2017. With 3,375 claims Eritrean nationals were the largest group of asylum seekers in Switzerland in 2017 though the number decreased by 35% compared to 2016.

      https://www.ecre.org/switzerland-3200-eritrean-nationals-facing-possible-deportation

    • Swiss Treatment of Eritreans Sets Dangerous Precedent

      A controversial Swiss decision to review the status of 3,200 Eritrean asylum seekers may have dangerous consequences in Israel, where it has been cited as a precedent for returning Eritreans to Eritrea, says researcher Shani Bar-Tuvia.


      https://www.newsdeeply.com/refugees/articles/2018/05/14/swiss-treatment-of-eritreans-sets-dangerous-precedent

      Encore une fois le #modèle_suisse, chère @isskein
       :-(

    • Erythrée. Un réexamen des admissions provisoires précipité

      L’arrêt du Tribunal administratif fédéral (TAF) d’août 2017 modifiant sa jurisprudence et estimant licites et exigibles certains renvois en Erythrée est actuellement examiné par le Comité de l’ONU contre la torture (CAT) sur le plan de la conformité avec la Convention ratifiée par la Suisse. Le CAT a demandé le 8 novembre 2017 à la Suisse de suspendre l’exécution du renvoi concerné durant l’examen de cette plainte. Le Secrétariat d’Etat aux migrations (SEM) a confirmé par lettre le lendemain qu’il respecterait cette recommandation. Or, on apprend dans un article du 11 avril publié sur le site du SEM, que "sur la base de la décision du TAF, le Secrétariat d’Etat aux migrations considère que 3200 ressortissants de ce pays sont désormais éligibles à un « retour volontaire »."

      1. La nouvelle pratique du SEM consistant à réexaminer les admissions provisoires de ressortissant-e-s érythréen-ne-s est susceptible de violer la Convention contre la torture ainsi que la Constitution fédérale. Elle s’appuie sur un arrêt dont la recevabilité en droit international n’a pas encore été confirmée. Le Conseil fédéral est-il prêt à prendre le risque de rendre des décisions qui pourraient par la suite être annulées ?

      2. Le Conseil fédéral prend-il en considération l’impact de décisions de renvois, potentiellement annulées par la suite, sur la santé mentale ainsi que sur le processus d’intégration des milliers de ressortissant-e-s érythréen-ne-s concerné-e-s ?

      3. Le Conseil fédéral prend-il en considération le coût que représentent des centaines, voire des milliers de décisions négatives potentiellement annulées ?

      4. En cohérence avec l’engagement pris auprès du CAT et pour éviter de prononcer des décisions qui pourraient être annulées par la suite, le Conseil fédéral s’engage-t-il à ne pas appliquer la nouvelle pratique avant que le CAT ne se soit prononcé sur la légalité de l’arrêt du TAF ?

      5. Le secrétaire d’Etat aux migrations reconnaît dans son interview du 11 avril qu’il n’existe pas de garantie incontestable que les personnes renvoyées ne seront pas exposées à des actes de répression. Le Conseil fédéral ne pense-t-il pas que, dans le doute, la protection des personnes concernées prime la volonté de renvoi ?

      1./4./5. Le recours auprès du Comité de l’ONU contre la torture (CAT) mentionné par l’auteure de l’interpellation constitue un moyen de recours hors des voies de recours internes. Déposé dans un cas d’espèce, il ne vise pas à revoir fondamentalement la pratique en matière de renvoi suivie actuellement par le Secrétariat d’Etat aux migrations (SEM) à l’égard de l’Erythrée. Dès que le CAT aura rendu sa décision, le SEM l’analysera soigneusement et étudiera si elle peut influer sur sa pratique actuelle et, si oui, dans quelle mesure.

      L’admission provisoire représente une simple mesure de remplacement lorsque le renvoi ne peut pas être exécuté. Le SEM est légalement tenu d’examiner régulièrement les admissions provisoires prononcées. Il lève une telle admission et ordonne l’exécution du renvoi lorsque le retour de la personne concernée est à la fois licite, raisonnablement exigible et possible et que cette mesure s’avère, dans l’ensemble, proportionnée. Ces conditions sont étudiées minutieusement et individuellement par le SEM, à la lumière de la jurisprudence du Tribunal administratif fédéral (TAF). Ainsi, les décisions de lever une admission provisoire sont toujours édictées dans le droit fil de la Constitution fédérale et de la Convention contre la torture et autres peines ou traitements cruels, inhumains ou dégradants (RS 0.105).

      En ce qui concerne les répressions à l’encontre des Erythréens rapatriés craintes par l’auteure de la présente interpellation, il convient de souligner qu’une admission provisoire n’est pas levée et que l’exécution d’un renvoi n’est pas ordonnée lorsque la personne concernée serait exposée à des tortures ou à un traitement inhumain au sens de l’article 3 de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales (CEDH ; RS 0.101). Pour tomber sous le coup de cette disposition, l’intéressé doit cependant prouver ou du moins rendre vraisemblable un risque concret ("real risk") de subir un tel traitement. Cette interprétation de l’article 3 CEDH s’inscrit également dans la lignée de la pratique constante de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme.

      2. Le Conseil fédéral reconnaît que les procédures relatives à la levée de l’admission provisoire peuvent engendrer une situation éprouvante pour les personnes concernées. Toutefois, comme il l’a déjà expliqué, le SEM ne décide de lever une admission provisoire qu’après avoir soigneusement examiné le dossier et uniquement dans le respect des prescriptions légales. Ce faisant, il tient également compte, dans les limites prévues par la loi, des mesures d’intégration en cours.

      3. En raison du contrôle juridique exercé par le TAF, il n’est pas exclu que des recours soient admis dans des cas d’espèce, mais il est peu probable que cela devienne la règle. Il ne faut donc guère s’attendre à des admissions de recours aussi nombreuses et à des conséquences financières aussi lourdes que le craint l’auteure de la présente interpellation.

      https://www.parlament.ch/FR/ratsbetrieb/suche-curia-vista/geschaeft?AffairId=20183471

    • Quel avenir pour les jeunes requérants d’asile érythréens ?

      Le SEM (Secrétariat d’Etat aux migrations) a récemment durci sa pratique vis-à-vis des requérants d’asile érythréens parmi lesquels se trouvent de nombreux jeunes. Il considère notamment que la sortie illégale du pays en raison de leur volonté d’échapper à un service militaire à durée indéterminée, que l’ONU assimile au travail forcé et à l’esclavage, ne pose pas de problème en cas de renvoi.

      Il reste difficile de comprendre quelles sont les sources d’information sur lesquelles le SEM s’appuie pour considérer que des ressortissants érythréens, ayant fui leur pays en tant que mineurs et avant l’âge de la conscription, ne risqueraient plus de sérieux préjudices en cas de retour.

      Le 12 mars dernier, lors du Dialogue interactif renforcé sur la situation des droits de l’homme en Erythrée, la Suisse a déclaré « rester inquiète de la situation des droits de l’homme en Erythrée et du manque d’informations vérifiables à disposition, en raison de l’absence d’accès libre et indépendant au pays ».

      De plus, la récente décision de procéder au réexamen de l’admission provisoire de plus de 3200 Erythréens a semé un grand trouble tant dans cette communauté que parmi les bénévoles qui les soutiennent. Si ces jeunes se voient refuser l’asile ou l’admission provisoire, ils seront obligés de demander l’aide d’urgence, ce qui les précarisera fortement et compromettra leurs chances de s’intégrer.

      Je prie donc le Conseil fédéral de répondre aux questions suivantes :

      1. Sur la base de quelles informations indépendantes s’appuie le SEM pour évaluer les risques réels liés aux renvois ? Les autorités suisses ne devraient-elles pas s’inspirer des récents rapports de l’ONU qui sont la seule source actuellement fiable pour fonder leur politique à l’égard des requérants d’asile érythréens ?

      2. Quel est le but réel visé par ce durcissement ? Ne risque-t-on pas de créer des problèmes sociaux en empêchant des jeunes de continuer à se former et de s’intégrer ?

      3. Des citoyen-n-es s’engagent bénévolement pour apporter un soutien à des jeunes requérants d’asile et des mineurs non accompagnés : n’y-a-t-il pas une contradiction entre la pratique du SEM qui révise les admissions provisoires d’une part, et la volonté des pouvoirs publics d’encourager le soutien de la population suisse envers ces jeunes en vue de les aider à construire leur autonomie d’autre part ?

      1. Le 22 avril 2016, le Secrétariat d’Etat aux migrations (SEM) a publié un rapport intitulé « Update Nationaldienst und illegale Ausreise » (mis à jour le 10 août 2016), lequel contient les informations pertinentes pour définir la pratique en matière d’asile et de renvoi à l’égard de l’Erythrée (lien : https://www.sem.admin.ch/dam/data/sem/internationales/herkunftslaender/afrika/eri/ERI-ber-easo-update-nationaldienst-d.pdfpdf). Ce rapport présente tous ses éléments de manière aussi actuelle, claire, neutre et transparente que possible. Il tient compte de toutes les sources disponibles et les commente dans le chapitre introductif. Ces sources comprennent des rapports sur les droits de l’homme (entre autres ceux des Nations Unies), des textes de loi, des positions du gouvernement érythréen, des observations d’experts en Erythrée et dans d’autres pays ainsi que les enseignements tirés par d’autres unités européennes spécialisées dans l’analyse de pays. Le SEM a recueilli une partie de ces informations lors d’une mission d’enquête en Erythrée qui s’est déroulée en février et mars 2016. Le Bureau européen d’appui en matière d’asile (EASO) a repris le rapport du SEM dans une forme légèrement modifiée et l’a publié en plusieurs langues (lien : https://coi.easo.europa.eu/administration/easo/PLib/EASO_COI_Eritrea.pdfpdf).

      2. Le SEM évalue en permanence sa pratique en matière d’asile et de renvoi à l’égard de l’Erythrée et l’ajuste en cas de besoin. C’est ainsi qu’en juin 2016 il a adapté sa pratique à l’égard des Erythréens qui ont illégalement quitté leur pays en se fondant sur les nouvelles informations à sa disposition. Le Tribunal administratif fédéral a confirmé ce changement de pratique dans son arrêt D-7898/2015 du 30 janvier 2017, qui a été rendu à l’issue d’une procédure de coordination. Le SEM examine chaque demande d’asile avec minutie et au cas par cas. S’agissant des personnes qui ont besoin de la protection de la Suisse et qui obtiennent par conséquent le droit de rester dans notre pays, la priorité est à l’intégration. Les personnes qui n’ont pas besoin de notre protection sont quant à elles tenues de quitter la Suisse. C’est pourquoi ni les cantons ni le SEM n’encouragent l’intégration de ces personnes. Par contre, ils leur offrent un soutien sous forme d’un conseil en matière de réintégration dans leur pays d’origine et d’un cofinancement éventuel de projets professionnels et de formation dans le cadre de l’aide au retour individuelle.

      3. Le SEM a l’obligation légale de vérifier périodiquement si les conditions des admissions provisoires existantes sont toujours réunies. Si tel n’est plus le cas, il lève l’admission provisoire et ordonne l’exécution du renvoi. Une admission provisoire ne peut être levée que si le retour de la personne concernée est exigible, licite et possible et si une telle mesure s’avère dans l’ensemble proportionnée. Ces conditions sont examinées au cas par cas. Lors de l’examen, qui est en cours, des admissions provisoires des ressortissants érythréens, le SEM veille à informer aussi vite que possible les jeunes en formation et les mineurs non accompagnés du résultat auquel il est parvenu.

      https://www.parlament.ch/FR/ratsbetrieb/suche-curia-vista/geschaeft?AffairId=20183431

  • Je mentionnais ici le très bon #film de #Andrea_Segre, #L'ordre_des_choses (L’ordine delle cose) :
    http://seen.li/dqtt

    Le film prend le point de vue de Corrado Rinaldi, un homme de loi qui aide à régulariser le débarquement des immigrants en traitant avec les autorités libyennes.

    Sur le fil de discussion en lien avec les accords entre l’#Italie et l’#UE/#EU avec la #Libye et notamment avec les #gardes-côtes_libyens.

    Je remets ici le film, également pour ajouter l’interview à Segre publiée sur Franceinfo.
    https://www.francetvinfo.fr/partenariats/lordre-des-choses-un-film-de-andrea-segre-au-cinema-le-7-mars_2621934.h
    L’interview commence par ce constat : « cette fiction que vous avez imaginée est devenue réalité » (hélas).

    Quelques passages très intéressants de l’interview :

    J’ai réalisé un documentaire, #Mare_Chiuso, qui a été distribué à partir de mars 2012 ; c’est-à-dire au moment où la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme, basée à Strasbourg, a condamné l’Italie pour les opérations de refoulement de migrants en provenance d’Afrique sub-saharienne et les accords, conclus sous l’ère #Berlusconi, avec la Libye de Mouammar #Kadhafi. C’est une condamnation historique car elle a été unanime. L’Italie a été épinglée parce que sa marine militaire a directement participé à des opérations visant à refouler des migrants vers les côtes libyennes, sans que ces derniers n’aient eu la possibilité de demander asile. Ce qui est une violation des traités et conventions dont le pays est signataire. En 2012, Mare Chiuso s’est inscrit dans la campagne destinée à faire pression sur le gouvernement italien pour condamner politiquement la façon dont l’Italie traitait les migrants. Et j’ai compris au cours de cette campagne que le verdict de la Cour de Strasbourg avait été interprété par l’ensemble de la classe politique italienne, y compris le Parti démocrate (de centre gauche), comme un conseil implicite, à savoir celui d’organiser des opérations de refoulement sans que l’Italie ne puisse être accusée d’avoir violé les droits des migrants.

    #accord_d'amitié #traité_de_Benghazi #trattato_di_Bengasi

    C’est à la même période que les opérations de sauvetage des migrants ont été lancées dans le cadre de #Mare_Nostrum, l’opération militaro-humanitaire lancée par #Enrico_Letta, président du Conseil italien en 2013, pour secourir les migrants en mer après le naufrage meurtrier de Lampedusa. Ces opérations ont permis de positionner des navires militaires italiens dans les eaux territoriales internationales, en face de la Libye. Cette flottille a été renforcée par d’autres pays européens. La présence de tous ces navires a permis de continuer à former les garde-côtes libyens en dépit du chaos qui régnait dans leur pays.

    #Letta #3_octobre_2011

    Une certitude : le gouvernement italien est arrivé avec le soutien des Européens à conduire des opérations de #refoulement en étant pleinement conscient des conséquences humaines qu’elles entraînaient. Les fonctionnaires italiens et européens ont visité les centres de détention et se sont entretenus avec les miliciens qui les gèrent. Ils avaient une vision assez claire de la situation en Libye. Par conséquent, le choix de faire aboutir ces opérations de refoulement, coûte que coûte, est bien l’expression d’une débâcle éthique et morale.

    #push-back #milices #débâcle_éthique #débâcle_morale

    Avant l’été 2015, les Allemands et d’autres pays européens ont demandé à l’Italie d’arrêter les opérations de sauvetage parce qu’elles ouvraient les portes de l’Europe. Par ailleurs, à cette même période, tous les efforts européens se sont déplacés vers les Balkans qui étaient le théâtre d’une autre crise migratoire. À partir de ce moment, les ONG ont pris le relais pour porter secours aux migrants, mais la marine italienne a continué à coordonner les opérations de sauvetage. Quelques mois plus tard, les Européens sont revenus en Italie avec un message sans ambiguïté : « Nous avons fermé “la route des Balkans”, il faut faire de même en Méditerranée ». L’Europe se donne dès lors les moyens humains et matériels pour fermer la porte en Libye. Les autorités italiennes ont pu alors bénéficier des ressources financières et humaines émanant de l’Union européenne pour boucler les démarches entamées depuis près de quatre ans. Pour atteindre ce but, et c’est terrible, les pays européens ont accepté que la conséquence inévitable de leur nouvelle politique de refoulement serait la détention de migrants dans des centres gérés par des miliciens libyens, au mépris de leurs droits les plus élémentaires. Autrement dit, durant toutes ces années de préparation, les Européens n’avaient trouvé pour partenaires que ces miliciens, connus également pour être des trafiquants. Résultat : l’Europe a conforté le pouvoir des milices libyennes pour parvenir à ses fins, et s’est compromise sur un plan moral et éthique.

    #Méditerranée #route_des_balkans #balkans

    Dans la brochure qui était offerte dans la salle de cinéma, l’interview était plus long. Je recopie ici deux passages intéressants :

    « Quand à ces opérations de rapatriement, soi-disant volontaires, nous atteignons des sommets d’hypocrisie. C’est évident que l’on ne peut pas parler de volontariat quand on propose à un migrant, qui vit un enfer, de rentrer chez lui »

    #retour_volontaire

    « J’estime que la transformation xénophobe de la société européenne est liée à la pression que nous sommes en train de créer au niveau de nos frontières. »

    #xénophobie #racisme

    • Dans la même brochure un extrait traduit d’un texte de #Igiaba_Scego, écrivaine et journaliste d’origine somalienne :
      https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igiaba_Scego

      Le texte complet, en italien, ici :
      https://lordinedellecose.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Pamphlet-WEB-1.pdf

      Que je copie-colle ci-desssous :
      A noi mai

      Ho sempre amato il film Casablanca. Un classico della cinematografia mondiale. Un intenso Humprhey Bogart, una fatata Ingrid Bergman, una storia d’amore che non ha uguali nel mondo della celluloide. I loro sguardi languidi, intensi, unici sono rimasti nel cuore di molti di noi. Bogie&Ingrid in the star with diamonds, ci verrebbe da dire parafrasando i Beatles, ma c’è dell’altro. E questo altro sono i rifugiati di cui il film parla. Infatti pochi si accorgono, o addirittura non l’hanno mai saputo, che Casablanca mette in scena il dramma dei rifugiati europei in fuga dal nazismo. Una folla fatta di anarchici, ebrei, dissidenti, antifascisti, gente comune, famiglie, bambini che hanno perso ogni cosa. Nel film la città marocchina è solo un riflesso di Marsiglia, un riflesso edulcorato di quella città francese che durante la guerra pullulava di trafficanti e di miseria. Hollywood non ci mostra quella miseria,non può, non sarebbe Hollywood senza un abito da sera e un paio di tacchi a spillo, ma ecco in Casablanca nonostante il glamour spunta qua e là quella verità che negli anni ‘40 era sotto gli occhi di tutti. Ho sempre trovato particolarmente intensa la scena in cui due anziani signori parlano tra loro in inglese rifiutandosi di usare la madrelingua tedesca.
      Il motivo è semplice vogliono (ancor prima di arrivarci) abituarsi all’idioma del nuovo mondo che verrà per loro, vogliono provare a sentirsi un po’ a casa in quella lingua così straniera. C’è una scena che tutti ricordano di #Casablanca, una scena a me particolarmente cara, quella in cui i rifugiati riuniti al Rick cafè (il luogo in cui potevano trovare i trafficanti e vendersi per ottenere un visto) cantano la Marsigliese per contrastare il canto arrogante dei nazisti. L’attrice Madeleine Lebeau, che interpreta Yvonne l’amante di Bogart, ci regala un fotogramma indimenticabile dove piange gridando il nome della patria perduta, Vive La France, dice e noi tutti ci commuoviamo. Le lacrime di Madelaine sono vere, infatti lei e il marito, come i personaggi del film, avevano fatto un viaggio allucinante che li aveva portati dalla Francia occupata fino a Lisbona. Il tutto usando documenti falsi, andando incontro a respingimenti e rimanendo intrappolati in quel non luogo che per molti rifugiati era Marsiglia.La vita di Madelaine sembra quella di una rifugiata siriana di oggi, la coincidenza colpisce. Sono storie quelle di Casablanca di rifugiati europei che l’Europa ha però presto dimenticato, ma che i suoi scrittori non hanno mai perso di vista. Come non pensare ad #Hercule_Poirot di #Agatha_Christie? Quell’investigatore impomatato sempre preoccupato per i suoi baffetti era anche lui un rifugiato. La dama del giallo l’avrebbe inventato ispirandosi a uno dei tanti belgi che l’Inghilterra aveva accolto (ne accoglierà 250.000) durante la prima guerra mondiale.
      L’Europa ha dimenticato quando era lei a scappare dalle guerre. Si scappava anche dalle carestie come gli irlandesi negli Stati Uniti. E poi non ultima l’epopea degli emigranti italiani che in mancanza di tutto si riversavano nelle terze classi dei bastimenti con la speranza di trovare un paese dove ricominciare. L’Europa ha davvero la memoria corta e nel dimenticare non vuole cercare soluzioni per le migrazioni odierne che la vedono come territorio di approdo. Oggi siamo intrappolati in una narrazione binaria per quanto riguarda migranti e rifugiati provenienti in Europa dal Sud globale. Il paradigma in uso è quella del contenimento o respingimento. Ed ecco che le nostre orecchie sono bombardate da una parte da “aiutiamoli a casa loro”, “Non possiamo prenderci carico di tutta l’Africa” o un secco “non li vogliamo, se la sbrigassero da soli”, dall’altra invece si parla solo di accoglienza, dove la buona volontà si unisce a tratti ad una visone solo migratoria dell’altro condita da un paternalismo a tratti coloniale. Sono pochi a parlare oggi di diritto alla mobilità e apartheid di viaggio. Pochi a parlare di reciprocità nei diritti sia per chi scappa dalle guerre sia per chi vuole semplicemente coronare un sogno.
      Così costringiamo sia i rifugiati, sia i migranti a viaggi impossibili. Anzi ultimamente stiamo costringendo molte persone, con una schizofrenia europea che non ha pari nella storia, a fingersi rifugiate. Se scappi da una guerra forse ti tollero (formalmente) un po’, ma se vieni per trovare un lavoro o per studiare non entrerai mai (o peggio entri, ma ti farò rimanere un illegale a vita, sfruttabile da mafie e caporali).
      E ora nel Mediterraneo queste contraddizioni le stiamo pagando con i morti in mare, il terrorismo nelle città, l’ansia che non ci da tregua. Questa idea di fortezza Europa sta intrappolando gli altri fuori e gli europei dentro un recinto malefico, che ci rende sempre più deboli davanti a chi vuole la distruzione delle democrazie.
      Viviamo di fatto in un pianeta dove se nasci nel posto giusto (nel Nord del mondo ricco, il cosiddetto occidente, ma anche la Cina, il Giappone, l’Australia) hai la possibilità di andare dove ti pare, basta un visto, un biglietto aereo e un trolley. Non serve altro. Ed ecco per chi nasce nel posto giusto un ventaglio di possibilità da seguire. E lì si può pensare di andare a studiare all’estero, lavorare per un po’ in un altro paese, trasferirsi per amore (o bisogno), e si perché no farsi una meritata vacanza se questo si desidera. Si è turisti e al limite, anche quando si decide di emigrare, non si viene definiti migranti economici, ma espatriati. Gli italiani lo sanno bene, i media infatti chiamano cervelli in fuga i tanti giovani che vanno all’estero per trovare il lavoro che in Italia non si trova più. Si, cervelli in fuga, anche se molti all’estero non hanno la possibilità di usare il loro cervello, ma sono costretti a raccogliere le cipolle in Australia, fare i camerieri a cottimo a Londra o vivere l’atroce situazione di essere illegale a New York City. L’emigrazione interna, italiana ed europea, viene edulcorata con perifrasi sempre più acrobatiche, Ma questa migrazione (come quella degli spagnoli, dei portoghesi, degli slovacchi, dei polacchi, dei bulgari, oggi addirittura anche dei rumeni e degli albanesi) non fa rumore, perché (per fortuna aggiungo io) è possibile in clima di legalità di viaggio. Questo purtroppo non è possibile per somali, eritrei, ghanesi, gambiani, senegalesi, ecc. Dall’Africa o dall’Asia (Afghanistan e paesi mediorientali soprattutto) si suppone che i corpi hanno come fine ultimo la migrazione, a volte è così (molti effettivamente sono in fuga da guerra e dittatura), ma altre volte no, le situazioni sono sempre complesse e legate al singolo individuo. Non si pensa mai che un corpo del Sud globale voglia studiare, specializzarsi, lavorare per un po’ e avere la possibilità dopo un lungo soggiorno di tornare indietro, al paese, con le conoscenze acquisite. Non si pensa che un corpo del Sud anche quando fugge da guerre e dittature ha bisogno di leggi sull’asilo chiare, di un percorso burocratico facilitato e di un viaggio sicuro fatto attraverso corridoi umanitari, molto lontani dalle attuali agenzie dell’orrore guidate da trafficanti senza scrupoli. Va detto chiaramente ai nostri governanti che gli abitanti del Sud non vanno considerati parassiti da fermare ad ogni costo o vittime passive da aiutare. Hanno un passato e possono riavere un futuro. Ma invece di collaborare ad una sinergia di intenti, il Nord mette in campo per “difendersi” i fantasmi della nostra contemporaneità: i tristi muri, gli apparati securitari, le strutture extraterritoriali che gestiscono enormi flussi di denaro, gli accordi ricatto con sedicenti leader locali (spesso autonominati o da noi imposti) che come usurai chiedono sempre di più ad una Europa disunita e confusa. Chiediamo agli altri di fare il lavoro sporco, di farli morire un po’ più in là questi rifugiati/migranti, non a favore di telecamera insomma. Nessuno dice agli abitanti spaventati del Nord che un viaggio legale è sicuro per il “migrante”, il rifugiato, lo studente ed è sicuro anche per il paese di approdo, perché con un sistema legale si ha la vera percezione di chi effettivamente arriva nel nostro territorio e perché. Possiamo monitorare la situazione, evitando di farci infiltrare da presenze non gradite. E soprattutto il viaggio legale ci toglierebbe dal ricatto in cui siamo precipitati pagando tagliagole e dittatori. Inoltre nessuno parla all’europeo spaventato della contraddizione del continente che da una parte non vuole le persone del Sud (anche se poi gli studi sottolineano che l’Europa senza migranti è perduta, niente più pensioni per esempio) e dall’altra vuole le sue risorse che si prende con la forza usurpando territori e cacciando popolazioni. È utopia, mi chiedo, cambiare il paradigma di questa relazione malata tra Europa (Occidente in genere) e Sud globale? Non credo sia impossibile. Io lo dico sempre che i miei genitori dalla Somalia sono venuti in Italia in aereo (non con il barcone!), erano gli anni ‘70. e ho l’immagine anche di tanti famigliari e dei loro viaggi circolari. Si andava in Svezia, in Egitto, in Francia per tornare poi a Mogadiscio. Mio fratello Ibrahim studiava a Praga. E all’epoca nessuno di loro aveva un passaporto europeo, ma viaggiavano con il passaporto somalo che oggi invece è considerato carta straccia in qualsiasi consolato. Forse dobbiamo ridare dignità ai documenti delle nazioni del Sud del mondo. Uscire dall’idea di fortezza. E cominciare a costruire una relazione diversa. Quindi non considerare chi fugge dalla guerra come un disperato, ma come una persona che a causa della guerra ha perso momentaneamente tutto, ma che è stata studente, maestra, ingegnere, dottoressa e potrà tornare ad esserlo. E lo stesso vale per chi non è in fuga, ma cerca semplicemente fortuna. I media velatamente li considerano usurpatori, invasori. E’ chiaro che questo sguardo e questo linguaggio devono cambiare.
      Perché respingere se si possono creare ponti e scambi commerciali o culturali utili?
      Se ci si può difendere reciprocamente dai pericoli (come il terrorismo) che ci colpiscono? Inoltre non sarebbe un cambio di rotta smettere di pagare dittatori per tenere nei moderni lager giovani uomini e donne e mettere in campo invece una cooperazione che non avvalla la corruzione reciproca come purtroppo è sempre stato, ma le eccellenze? Ahinoi le barriere crescono un po’ ovunque. E non è solo il Mediterraneo il dilemma. Per gli africani, per fare un esempio, è difficile al momento attuale anche viaggiare dentro il continente africano stesso. Basta pensare ai centri di detenzione in Angola. Barriere e muri sono addirittura più alti dentro il continente che fuori. La paura del Nord contagia anche il Sud e la cattiva politica spesso sguazza (per ragioni elettorali) dentro queste inquietudini. Ma serve un approccio più sereno.
      Serve soprattutto rompere il monopolio dei trafficanti che dal 1990, attraverso ricatti e violenze, si stanno arricchendo sulla pelle dei migranti e degli europei.
      Il viaggio legale del sud aiuterebbe il nord a non alimentare un mercato sommerso fatto di crimine e terrorismo, perché lì vanno i soldi che vengono depredati ai giovani in cerca di futuro. Terrorismo che (ricordiamolo!) poi usa quel denaro per compiere attentati nelle nostre città, come abbiamo visto a Manchester, a Barcelona, a Parigi, a Londra.
      Legalizzare il viaggio ci permetterebbe inoltre di mettere a riparo anche il nostro futuro. In un momento di incertezza come questo, dove l’Italia e il Sud Europa sono esposti a mille pericoli, ci conviene fare la guerra a chi è più a sud di noi? Che Dio non voglia, ma se un giorno negassero il viaggio legale anche a noi che abbiamo ora passaporti considerati forti? Basta un cambio di rotta negli equilibri politici ed economici o qualche sfortunato evento che ci schiaccia verso il basso nella scala dei poteri globali. Nulla di così improbabile purtroppo. Negli anni ‘60 i somali, belli, eleganti, facevano belle feste davanti al mare con aragoste e branzini, se qualcuno allora avesse detto loro che i figli e i nipoti avrebbero preso un barcone (e non l’aereo come loro) per andare in Europa, facendosi ricattare, stuprare, imprigionare, non ci avrebbero creduto, Avrebbero scosso la testa dicendo “a noi mai”, avrebbero riso probabilmente. E invece è successo. Il futuro è sempre incerto amici miei. Preoccuparsi per i diritti degli altri non è buonismo, ma significa anche (oltre ad essere segno di umanità) preoccuparsi dei propri. Perché non si sa a chi toccherà la prossima volta il fato avverso. Almeno affrontiamolo tutti quanti con dei diritti in tasca. Datemi retta, lo so per esperienza, è meglio. Preoccuparsi per i diritti degli altri non è buonismo, ma significa preoccuparsi dei propri. Perchè non si sa a chi toccherà la prossima volta il fato avverso.

      #WWII #seconde_guerre_mondiale #histoire #réfugiés_européens #deuxième_guerre_mondiale #paternalisme #paternalisme_colonial #fuite_Des_cerveaux #inégalité

  • SBARCHI, I DATI 2017. 120mila migranti giunti lo scorso anno in Italia

    Sono stati complessivamente poco più di 171mila nel 2017 i migranti giunti via mare sulle coste dei Paesi del Mediterraneo. Si tratta del numero più basso da quando ha avuto inizio nel 2014 il significativo flusso di ingressi via mare verso l’Europa. Il principale Paese di approdo nel Mediterraneo nel 2017 è stato l’Italia con quasi 120mila migranti sbarcati, il 70% di tutti gli arrivi via mare in Europa. Il 2015 fu invece l’anno della Grecia, che raccolse l’84% degli arrivi, mentre nel 2016 gli sbarchi sulle isole greche subirono un significativo ridimensionamento: Italia e Grecia accolsero rispettivamente 181mila (50%) e 174mila (48%) migranti. I dati emergono da un’analisi della Fondazione Ismu, Iniziative e studi sulla multietnicità di Milano.
    Il Paese del Mediterraneo che ha visto aumentare in modo rilevante gli arrivi nel 2017 è stato la Spagna, sulle cui coste sono approdati circa 21mila migranti, con un aumento del 160% rispetto al 2016. Per quanto riguarda la provenienza dei migranti arrivati via mare, tra le nazionalità dichiarate al momento dello sbarco in Italia nel 2017 hanno prevalso Nigeria, Guinea, Costa d’Avorio e Bangladesh. In Grecia sono giunti soprattutto siriani, iracheni e afghani. In Spagna, via mare e via terra, sono arrivati soprattutto migranti dal Marocco, dall’Algeria, dalla Costa d’Avorio e dalla Guinea.
    Anche nel 2017 è rimasto significativo il numero di persone che hanno perso la vita nel tentativo di raggiungere l’Europa via mare: si stimano 3.116 migranti morti o dispersi nelle acque del Mediterraneo e principalmente nella più pericolosa rotta del Mediterraneo Centrale dal Nord Africa-Libia all’Italia.

    Il quadro italiano
    Sono quasi 120mila i migranti sbarcati nel 2017 sulle coste italiane, di cui 15.731 minori stranieri non accompagnati. Rispetto all’anno precedente, quando sono stati registrati 181.436 sbarchi, v’è stato un calo del 34,2%. Le richieste d’asilo nel 2017 sono state 130mila, con un lieve aumento rispetto all’anno precedente (+5,4%); le istanze sono state presentate soprattutto da nigeriani, bangladesi, pakistani, gambiani e ivoriani. Le domande d’asilo esaminate sono state oltre 80mila, 10mila meno rispetto al 2016. Al 60% (47.839 casi) del totale richiedenti asilo non è stata riconosciuta alcuna forma di protezione. È cresciuto il numero di coloro che hanno ottenuto lo status di rifugiato, che nel 2017 ha costituito l’8,5% degli esiti, mentre si è fortemente ridimensionata la protezione sussidiaria, concessa nel 2016 a oltre 11mila migranti e nel 2017 a 5.800. Una domanda su quattro ha avuto come esito la protezione umanitaria.
    Al 31 dicembre 2017 sono stati trasferiti dall’Italia in un altro Paese UE 11.464 richiedenti protezione internazionale. I Paesi dove sono stati trasferiti sono Germania (dove è stato ricollocato il 43% dei migranti), Svezia (10,6%) e Svizzera (7,8%).

    http://www.cinformi.it/index.php/it/news_ed_eventi/archivio_news/anno_2018/sbarchi_i_dati_2017/(offset)/0/(limit)/4/(sb)/312
    #arrivées #statistiques #asile #migrations #Italie #chiffres #Méditerranée #Italie #2017

    v. aussi pour les mois/années précédents: http://seen.li/d6bt

    • Un tweet intéressant de l’#OIM / #IOM, 02.03.2018 :

      Migrant arrivals by #Mediterranean sea in Italy in 2018 are the lowest in 5 years, our @MillmanIOM says:

      https://twitter.com/UNmigration/status/969701973736947712

      La personne qui commente les chiffres dit que jamais les arrivées ont été si peu nombreuses... voici ce qu’il dit, je transcrit :

      “This is the lowest we have seen in the five years we have been compiling this data month by month with the Italian Ministry of Iterior. I can just tell you that in 2014, in the first two months almost 7700 people arrived. In 2015, in the first two months almost 7900. Over 9000 in 2016, over 13’000 in 2017. It’s pretty important I think, because Italians will vote this weekend. Immigration is a huge issue obviously, and to be able to report that arrivals are less than half of last year’s at this time and the lowest in five years I think it’s rather important. Our total for the year so far is 3’730. This week we took migrants back to #Benin, #Mali and #Niger. As I understood it we’ve done a total of 26 countries that we’ve returned from Libya this year, so I think that has had some impact on the flows to Italy.”

      (By the way, peut-être qu’un bref rappel des morts en Méditerranée et des conditions dégradantes en Libye auraient aussi été une bonne chose à rappeler... Mais mieux vaut se vanter des « #retours_volontaires » vers les pays d’origine)

      #renvois #expulsions #retour_volontaire

      cc @isskein

    • Demandes d’asile dans les États membres de l’UE - 650 000 primo-demandeurs d’asile enregistrés en 2017 - Syriens, Irakiens et Afghans demeurent les principaux demandeurs

      En 2017, 650 000 primo-demandeurs d’asile ont introduit une demande de protection internationale dans les États membres de l’Union européenne (UE), soit quasiment deux fois moins qu’en 2016, quand 1 206 500 primo-demandeurs d’asile ont été enregistrés, et à un niveau comparable à celui enregistré en 2014, avant les pics de 2015 et 2016.


      http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/8754398/3-20032018-AP-FR.pdf/f7bca4e4-ab6d-40cb-ae35-1b2e9e71017c

      Les statistiques dans le document pdf d’Eurostat :
      http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/8754398/3-20032018-AP-FR.pdf/f7bca4e4-ab6d-40cb-ae35-1b2e9e71017c

    • Commissione parlamentare di inchiesta sul sistema di accoglienza, di identificazione ed espulsione, nonchè sulle condizioni di trattamento dei migranti e sulle risorse pubbliche impegnate


      #nationalités #2016 #2017


      #régions

      #hotspots:

      #MNA #mineurs_non_accompagnés

      J’ai reçu ce rapport via email, que je ne trouve pas sur internet... mais j’ai fait des copies d’écran des graphiques.

    • « Voyages du désespoir », un rapport du HCR sur les mouvements de réfugiés en Europe

      Malgré la diminution globale du nombre de réfugiés et de migrants arrivés en Europe l’année dernière, les dangers auxquels nombreux d’entre eux sont confrontés dans certaines situations ont augmenté comme l’indique un nouveau rapport du HCR, l’Agence des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés, qui décrit l’évolution des tendances dans leurs déplacements.

      Selon le rapport « Voyages du désespoir », le nombre d’arrivées en Italie par la mer, principalement en provenance de la Libye, a considérablement diminué depuis juillet 2017. Cette tendance s’est poursuivie au cours du premier trimestre 2018, avec une baisse de 74 pour cent par rapport à l’année dernière.

      La traversée vers l’Italie s’est par contre révélée de plus en plus dangereuse et le taux de mortalité des candidats à la traversée depuis la Libye a grimpé à 1 personne sur 14 au cours du premier trimestre 2018, alors qu’il était de 1 sur 29 au cours de la même période en 2017.

      Par ailleurs, on a également observé au cours des derniers mois une détérioration très préoccupante de la santé des nouveaux arrivants en provenance de la Libye, avec un nombre plus important de personnes dans un état de grande faiblesse, amaigries et globalement en mauvais état de santé.

      Si le nombre total des traversées de la Méditerranée est resté bien en deçà de celui de 2016, le HCR a également constaté une recrudescence des arrivées en Espagne et en Grèce sur la fin de l’année 2017.

      En 2017, l’Espagne a observé une augmentation de 101 pour cent par rapport à 2016 et a recensé 28 000 nouveaux arrivants. Les premiers mois de 2018 indiquent une tendance similaire, avec une augmentation de 13 pour cent des arrivées par rapport à l’année dernière. Les Marocains et les Algériens constituent désormais les deux principales nationalités, mais les Syriens forment toujours l’essentiel des arrivées par les frontières terrestres de l’Espagne.

      En Grèce, le nombre total d’arrivées par la mer a diminué par rapport à 2016, mais on a cependant observé une recrudescence de 33 pour cent entre mai et décembre de l’année dernière, avec 24 600 arrivants par rapport à 18 300 au cours de la même période en 2016. La majorité d’entre eux étaient originaires de Syrie, d’Irak et d’Afghanistan, et comprenait un grand nombre de familles avec des enfants. Les demandeurs d’asile arrivés en Grèce par la mer ont vécu de longues périodes d’attente sur les îles grecques, dans des conditions de surpeuplement difficiles.

      Le renforcement des restrictions en Hongrie a poussé de nombreux réfugiés et migrants à emprunter d’autres routes pour traverser l’Europe, indique le rapport. Ainsi, certains passent de Serbie en Roumanie tandis que d’autres passent de la Grèce en Albanie, puis au Monténégro et en Bosnie-Herzégovine pour rallier la Croatie.

      « Les voyages des réfugiés et migrants vers l’Europe et à travers celle-ci restent parsemés de dangers », a déclaré Pascale Moreau, la Directrice du bureau du HCR pour l’Europe. On estime que plus de 3 100 personnes ont perdu la vie en mer l’année dernière pendant la traversée vers l’Europe, et ce chiffre était de 5 100 en 2016. Depuis le début de l’année 2018, 501 personnes se sont ajoutées à la liste des morts ou des disparus.

      À ceux qui ont péri en mer, s’ajoutent au moins 75 autres personnes décédées le long des routes terrestres qui suivent les frontières extérieures de l’Europe ou alors qu’elles traversaient l’Europe en 2017, et les rapports sur la poursuite des refoulements sont profondément préoccupants.

      « Il est vital pour les personnes qui nécessitent une protection internationale d’avoir accès au territoire ainsi qu’à des procédures de demande d’asile rapides, justes et efficaces. Gérer ses frontières et offrir une protection aux réfugiés conformément aux obligations internationales des États ne sont pas des objectifs qui s’excluent ou sont incompatibles », a ajouté Pascale Moreau.

      Le rapport du HCR souligne également les abus et les pratiques d’extorsion que subissent les réfugiés et migrants aux mains des trafiquants, des passeurs ou des groupes armés sur les différentes routes vers l’Europe.

      Les femmes, et surtout celles qui voyagent seules, ainsi que les enfants non accompagnés sont particulièrement exposés au risque de subir des violences sexuelles et sexistes sur les routes vers l’Europe, ainsi qu’à certains endroits au sein de l’Europe.

      Plus de 17 000 d’enfants non accompagnés sont arrivés en Europe en 2017. La plupart de ces enfants sont arrivés en Italie par la mer, et 13 pour cent d’entre eux étaient des enfants voyageant seuls, une tendance similaire à celle de 2016.

      Le rapport du HCR signale toutefois des progrès encourageants quant au nombre de personnes réinstallées en Europe l’année dernière, avec une augmentation de 54 pour cent par rapport à 2016. La majorité de ces 26 400 réfugiés étaient des Syriens (84 pour cent) réinstallés depuis la Turquie, le Liban et la Jordanie. Parmi les pays européens, ce sont le Royaume-Uni, la Suède et l’Allemagne qui en ont accueilli le plus grand nombre.

      Un autre développement positif à la fin de l’année dernière a vu le HCR commencer à faciliter l’évacuation de réfugiés vulnérables de la Libye vers le Niger et de la Libye vers l’Italie.

      « Les évacuations depuis la Libye et l’augmentation des opportunités de réinstallation que nous avons observées l’année dernière sont d’excellentes nouvelles. Il subsiste toutefois des obstacles significatifs qui entravent l’accès à des voies sûres et légales, dont le regroupement familial, pour les personnes nécessitant une protection internationale, et nous appelons à une plus grande solidarité », a déclaré Pascale Moreau.

      Le rapport formule également des recommandations supplémentaires quant à la nécessité de renforcer la solidarité entre les États au sein de l’Europe ainsi qu’avec les pays de premier asile et de transit, afin d’améliorer la qualité de l’accueil — tout particulièrement l’accueil des enfants séparés et non accompagnés, et de ceux qui ont survécu à la violence sexuelle et sexiste — et de mieux protéger les enfants.

      http://www.unhcr.org/fr/news/press/2018/4/5acf30b3a/voyages-desespoir-rapport-hcr-mouvements-refugies-europe.html
      #Grèce #Italie #Espagne #mortalité #mourir_aux_frontières #décès #femmes #réinstallation #MNA #mineurs_non_accompagnés #corridors_humanitaires #desperate_journeys

      Lien vers le #rapport :
      https://data2.unhcr.org/en/documents/download/63039


      #parcours_migratoires #routes_migratoires #Albanie #Monténégro #Bosnie

    • Calo degli arrivi: continuerà?

      Nei primi quattro mesi del 2018 sono sbarcati in Italia circa 9.300 migranti, il 75% in meno rispetto allo stesso periodo del 2017. Si tratta di un trend del tutto in linea con il calo verificatosi negli ultimi sei mesi del 2017 (-75% rispetto allo stesso periodo del 2016). I dati relativi ai primi mesi dell’anno (quelli invernali) risultano tuttavia poco indicativi del livello dei flussi nei mesi successivi. Gli sbarchi iniziano a crescere solo da aprile e raggiungono un picco tra giugno e agosto, seguendo un tipico trend stagionale.

      L’andamento degli sbarchi nel mese di aprile può dunque essere considerato un primo segnale di quanti arrivi potrebbero essere registrati nel corso di tutto l’anno. Particolare attenzione meritano, al riguardo, gli avvenimenti di metà aprile, quando in quattro giorni sono sbarcate 1.500 persone.

      È comunque necessaria un’ulteriore dose di prudenza, perché ai trend stagionali si affiancano anche le decisioni e le politiche degli attori coinvolti lungo la rotta. Il 2017 lo dimostra: fino al 15 luglio dell’anno scorso gli sbarchi sulle coste italiane erano stati circa il 30% in più rispetto al 2016, e proprio da metà luglio, nel periodo dell’anno in cui solitamente si registrano più arrivi, è iniziato il calo degli sbarchi che prosegue a tutt’oggi.

      https://www.ispionline.it/it/pubblicazione/fact-checking-migrazioni-2018-20415

    • Calo degli arrivi: meno morti in mare?

      Il calo delle partenze ha ridotto drasticamente il numero assoluto di persone che perde la vita durante la traversata: se la frequenza delle morti in mare dei primi sette mesi dell’anno scorso fosse rimasta invariata nella restante parte del 2017, a fine anno si sarebbero registrate 4.155 morti – un livello comparabile a quello degli anni precedenti. Al contrario, se la frequenza delle morti in mare nei nove mesi successivi al calo degli sbarchi restasse costante per altri tre mesi, si registrerebbero circa 1.250 morti in un anno: una riduzione del 70%.

      L’Organizzazione mondiale per le migrazioni ha tuttavia fatto notare come, tra gennaio e marzo 2018, il già alto rischio della traversata lungo la rotta del Mediterraneo Centrale sia quasi raddoppiato rispetto allo stesso periodo dell’anno precedente (dal 3,3% al 5,8%). Ma in realtà questo aumento sembra dipendere più dalle condizioni meteorologiche invernali e da singoli casi “eccezionali” che dagli avvenimenti e dalle politiche alla base del calo degli sbarchi. Infatti, estendendo il confronto all’intero periodo del calo degli sbarchi (16 luglio 2017 - 30 aprile 2018) e confrontandolo con lo stesso periodo dell’anno precedente si nota sì un incremento, ma molto meno significativo: dal 2,6% al 3,0%.


      https://www.ispionline.it/it/pubblicazione/fact-checking-migrazioni-2018-20415
      #mortalité

    • Que cache la baisse des arrivées de personnes migrantes en méditerranée centrale ?

      Les États membres de l’Union européenne se félicitent depuis quelques mois de la baisse des arrivées sur les côtes européennes et de celle du nombre de personnes migrantes mortes ou disparues en Méditerranée. Mais que cache cette chute spectaculaire ?

      https://www.lacimade.org/cache-baisse-arrivees-de-personnes-migrantes-mediterranee-centrale
      #Méditerranée_centrale

  • Gambian migrants’ choice: bury the straggler alive or be killed

    Water was running low as the convoy drove through the desert into Libya, so Khadim was given a terrible choice: bury a sickly fellow migrant alive, or be killed by their smugglers.

    “They told us to bury him in the sand,” said Khadim, 29. “They started waving their guns. ‘If you refuse, you’re dead.’ We started digging and digging. As we buried him he said, ‘I’m not dead yet, why are you doing this to me?’ ”

    Khadim is one of about 2,600 migrants repatriated to the Gambia from Libya on flights paid for by European countries trying to stem crossings of the Mediterranean. The vast majority of those coming home are young men, who arrive at Banjul airport with at most a few belongings in a plastic bag, sometimes after spending years in Libyan detention centres.

    They are the among the first to be sent back since footage emerged in November of migrants being sold at slave markets in Libya. African and EU leaders agreed an emergency plan shortly afterwards to repatriate thousands.

    Many tell stories of frequent beatings, or of fellow migrants dying from hunger or violence. Others described watching companions drown on sinking boats in the Mediterranean.

    Like many others, Khadim was betrayed by smugglers and drivers before he saw the sea. He was kidnapped for ransom, arrested and put in a detention centre before he could reach Tripoli.

    He is relieved to have landed back in Banjul, the Gambian capital. Not only is he alive but there are promises of money to help him make a fresh start.

    The UN’s migration agency, as part of an EU-funded plan, can support people to go to college, start a business or buy livestock. Other EU help offers grants to those aged 15 to 35, returning or potential migrants, to start businesses.

    It likely to be just the beginning. The International Organisation for Migration estimates that up to a million migrants remain in Libya. Since late 2015, the EU has spent more than €2 billion in African countries trying to create jobs in the hope that people will stay.

    Those returning to the Gambia, where almost half of the two million population live below the poverty line, are provided with just enough cash to go home and live for a few weeks, after which they can apply for more help.

    Last week, a group of former Gambian migrants, with some funding from the German government, began touring the country to warn young people of the dangers of taking the “back way”, as the journey through the desert and across the Mediterranean is called.

    “Before we go we knew the risks involved, but we didn’t believe,” said Mustapha Sallah. “Most of the people that talked to us were government officials, activists who are living good. I was thinking they were just trying to discourage us.”

    With fellow Gambians who were incarcerated in Libyan detention centres, he has now started Youths Against Irregular Migration. As well as sharing their harrowing experiences, they try to persuade people to stop dreaming of Europe and make a living at home, through education, setting up in business, or agriculture.

    The Gambia’s nascent democracy, restored after the former dictator Yahya Jammeh was deposed last year, has prompted many to return from exile, as the fear of arbitrary arrest, detention and torture dissolved.

    The economy is growing at about 5 per cent but youth unemployment is about 44 per cent. Rising food prices mean many struggle. “The opportunities are not many and they’re not easy to get right now,” said Mr Sallah.

    Paul Jatta, 23, came home on a repatriation flight a few months ago and is trying to put the trauma behind him. Three times he tried and failed to cross to Italy in flimsy boats. On the last attempt he watched five people die as the vessel started to sink. “I seriously cried that day. Because I saw them drown but I couldn’t do anything to help,” he said.

    He said he had not received any support and was back doing what he used to, working in a computer repair shop and cleaning swimming pools in his spare time. He works up to 12 hours a day most days but earns less than £100 a month, and most of that goes to support his extended family.

    After spending his savings of more than £1,000 trying to reach Europe, he is now in a worse financial situation than he was two years ago, and has even less to lose. “I still want to go to Europe. I’m waiting for a miracle,” he said. “There are no opportunities here.”

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/gambian-migrants-choice-bury-the-straggler-alive-or-be-killed-62qf0qjbl
    #retour_volontaire #Libye #asile #migrations #réfugiés #retour_au_pays #renvois #Gambie

    Possible/probable future #migrerrance:

    After spending his savings of more than £1,000 trying to reach Europe, he is now in a worse financial situation than he was two years ago, and has even less to lose. “I still want to go to Europe. I’m waiting for a miracle,” he said. “There are no opportunities here.”