• « #Habiter le monde, c’est être libre de se déplacer »

    Exister, c’est « sortir de soi et de chez soi ». Pourtant, les hommes sont-ils égaux quand il s’agit de vivre chez l’autre ?, interroge la philosophe ivoirienne #Tanella_Boni dans un récit très personnel.

    Invitée à s’interroger sur le verbe « habiter » pour la collection « Paradisier » des éditions Museo, la philosophe ivoirienne Tanella Boni ne livre pas un essai aride sur ce qu’habiter le monde peut vouloir signifier. Au contraire, elle a opté pour un récit personnel et intime. C’est qu’en plus d’être professeure de philosophie à l’Université Félix Houphouët-Boigny à Abidjan, l’actuelle membre du comité d’organisation de la Fédération internationale des sociétés de philosophie est aussi une romancière (prix Ahmadou-Kourouma 2005 pour Matins couvre-feu) et une poétesse reconnue.

    A partir de son expérience de vie entre Abidjan et Toulouse et de ses souvenirs d’enfance, elle questionne cette « spécificité humaine » qu’est l’habiter, qui s’exprime de diverses manières à travers les âges et les cultures. « En Afrique, explique-t-elle au Monde, on oublie peu à peu comment vivre avec l’ensemble du vivant. Il ne s’agit certes pas de revivre comme avant, mais on peut néanmoins s’interroger sur l’érosion de ce lien avec le vivant qui nous amène à construire des villes sans espaces verts, par exemple, ou à utiliser des matériaux modernes introduits par le colonisateur et qui nous oblige à utiliser la climatisation, alors que l’on n’en avait pas besoin avant. Il est important de revaloriser les savoir-faire locaux pour contrer cette obsession moderniste. »
    Lire aussi La Colonie, quartier général de l’intelligentsia « décoloniale »

    Dans Habiter selon Tanella Boni, elle montre comment en Côte d’Ivoire, dans des temps pas si anciens, « l’eau, la terre, le feu, le vent, l’arbre et l’animal étaient parties prenantes de la société des humains qui vivaient en symbiose avec la nature. Des valeurs fondamentales – comme la solidarité – trouvaient leur ancrage dans cette société hiérarchisée où les inégalités avaient toute leur place. On était solidaire parce qu’il y avait des puissants et des faibles, des hommes et des femmes, des enfants et des personnes âgées. » Il importe aujourd’hui, affirme-t-elle, de revaloriser ces savoir-faire traditionnels qui « ont fait leurs preuves » et permettent d’habiter durablement le monde, de manière écologique, et de renoncer à la standardisation de la mondialisation qui a abouti à l’effacement des mondes locaux.
    « Profondes empreintes »

    Tanella Boni rappelle qu’habiter le monde ne se dit pas uniquement dans des structures matérielles, mais s’exprime également dans les imaginaires et les langues que l’on vit. Or le « grand chambardement » qu’a été la colonisation a profondément bouleversé les manières africaines d’être au monde et frappé les esprits et les psychés. En imposant, par exemple, un droit colonial sur des lois coutumières, la France a introduit de la dissonance dont l’écho retentit encore aujourd’hui contribuant aux délétères – et parfois meurtriers – conflits fonciers. « Le pays dominant laisse toujours de profondes empreintes sur nos manières de penser et d’agir », écrit-elle. La question qui se pose alors est de savoir comment ne pas être habité par l’ancien colon.

    En pillant et en détruisant les œuvres d’art, dont il est question aujourd’hui de les restituer aux Etats africains demandeurs, c’est tout une manière d’habiter les mondes que la colonisation a sapée. Les statuettes que les Baoulé, Wan, Gouro, Mona désignent par ce que l’on pourrait traduire par « humains de bois », analyse Tanella Boni, ne sont jamais des objets mais « l’esprit d’un humain qu’un sculpteur qui a appris les règles de son art “rencontre”. Il sculpte ou incruste cet esprit dans le bois » et ensuite les « humains de bois » « jouent leur propre rôle, de protection des vivants ».

    En procédant de la sorte, la France coloniale a affirmé haut et fort aux colonisés que le monde qu’ils habitaient n’étaient pas le leur, comme l’Europe ou les Etats-Unis peuvent le proclamer aujourd’hui à la face de ceux que l’on qualifie désormais de « migrants ». Or, explique Tanella Boni, « se déplacer dans une autre région de son pays fait partie de l’habiter. Migrer dans un autre pays, c’est aussi habiter. (…) Habiter, ce n’est pas être figé en un lieu », c’est se mouvoir, « être libre de se déplacer », et évoluer, ne pas être fermé sur soi.

    Habiter, c’est se sentir chez soi. Mais il arrive que l’on puisse être étranger chez soi, lorsque l’on est mis au ban de la société, à l’image des enfants microbes, ces enfants des rues d’Abidjan qui volent, agressent et parfois tuent. L’on peut également être étranger chez soi lorsqu’il s’agit d’« habiter un monde hétéronormé et patriarcal dans un corps de femme », explique encore Tanella Boni, qui a été pendant deux décennies la seule femme à enseigner au département de philosophie de l’université Félix Houphouët-Boigny.
    « Strates d’habitation »

    Les appartenances sont mouvantes et relèvent aussi d’un choix. En cela, migrer n’est pas une sinécure. C’est une épreuve existentielle qui renvoie « à une manière d’exister, d’être et de connaître ». Epreuve, car il n’est pas toujours aisé d’endosser différentes « strates d’habitation », de composer sa manière de vivre et d’être au monde à partir des différents legs qui sont les nôtres, qu’il s’agisse d’éléments culturels ou de langues. Comment alors se dire soi dans la langue de l’autre ? En l’apprivoisant et en la faisant sienne sans pour autant oublier sa propre langue, suggère l’écrivaine, qui confie se situer « à la croisée des langues », c’est-à-dire écrire en français « en présence d’autres langues qui [l]’habitent ».

    La migration est épreuve également parce qu’elle « n’en finit pas de durer, puisqu’elle apparaît comme un passage éprouvant pour le corps, la mémoire, l’imagination, et toutes nos facultés ». La schizophrénie guette lorsque l’on éprouve une double absence, celle du pays de départ et celle du pays d’arrivée qui refuse de vous accueillir pleinement. « Vivre entre ici et là-bas, ne pas savoir où l’on habite est une histoire de folie qui peut durer toute une vie. » Et de rappeler qu’exister, c’est littéralement « sortir de soi et de chez soi ». Dès lors, refuser aux migrants le droit de vivre hors de chez eux n’est rien d’autre que nier leur humaine condition. Et rejouer la partition coloniale qui distinguait en l’Occident une zone de l’être et dans les pays colonisés, une zone du non-être.

    https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2019/11/10/habiter-le-monde-c-est-etre-libre-de-se-deplacer_6018695_3212.html#xtor=AL-3
    #mobilité #liberté #liberté_de_circulation #être_au_monde #colonisation #Afrique #solidarité #droit_colonial #lois_coutumières #foncier #conflits_fonciers #chez_soi #langue #langues #corps #mémoire #double_absence
    ping @karine4 @cede

  • A #Riace

    In Calabria è un paese che sa sperare bene,
    un sindaco capace di capire con il cuore,
    un bel giorno ai paesani così prese a parlare: amici,
    amici miei ascoltatemi sentite bene a me,
    questo paese è morto cosi non si va avanti,
    sono partiti tutti partono i migranti,
    mancano le stagioni mancano i quattrini,
    mancano le braccia mancano i contadini,
    partono i Narduzzi, Capace, Natofini, Toscale, Caffitta, Capotonno,
    stiamo andando a fondo,stiamo andando a fondo.

    Le vecchie case vuote da far male io non voglio più vederle,
    venitemi ad aiutare persino i vecchi al bar non sanno cosa fare,
    hanno perso il compagno per il loro tresette,
    mi guardano spaesati, qua male si mette,
    siamo soli, qua non c’è più vita,
    siamo soli qua non si va più avanti,
    è arrivato il giorno il momento del coraggio
    per i nostri giovani chiudere e partire,
    chiudere e scappare, chiudere e migrare, oppure?

    Quelle case abbandonate, si vecchie sbeccolate,
    ma, potrebbero essere aggiustate
    Io li ho visti i migranti belli giovani e tanti,
    forti ammassati nei campi senza un avvenire
    Loro un aiuto a noi lo potremmo dare, e loro a noi
    venite migranti, non è più l’ora di migrare,
    questa è l’ora di abitare, venite,
    vi scegliete una casa ve la riparate
    ed è vostra per sempre, questa è una promessa
    è il sindaco che vi parla, venite,
    noi diamo una casa a voi, e voi ridate un paese a noi..
    Silenzio

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=hH5l-EM3z-g

    source : https://www.ildeposito.org/canti/riace

    #migrations #asile #réfugiés #chanson #musique #Mimmo_Lucano #Italie #SPRAR #accueil #solidarité #Giovanna_Marini

    ping @sinehebdo

  • #Pour_Sama

    #Waad_al-Kateab est une jeune femme syrienne qui vit à Alep lorsque la guerre éclate en 2011. Sous les bombardements, la vie continue. Waad tombe amoureuse, se marie avec Hamza et donne naissance à sa fille, Sama. Elle filme au quotidien les #pertes, les #espoirs et la #solidarité du peuple d’Alep. Son mari médecin sauve des centaines de vies dans un hôpital de fortune. Le couple est déchiré entre la protection de leur enfant et leur combat pour la #liberté.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGp7C79Pvzg

    #film #documentaire #film_documentaire #Alep #guerre #vie #bombardements #hôpital #Syrie #révolution #résistance #ville #ville_en_guerre #témoignage #siège

  • Contre les campagnes antimusulmans et contre tous les racismes | Communiqué de LO
    https://journal.lutte-ouvriere.org/2019/11/06/contre-les-campagnes-antimusulmans-et-contre-tous-les-racism

    Lutte ouvrière appelle à participer aux manifestations organisées le 10 novembre contre le #racisme et l’#islamophobie.

    Depuis plusieurs mois, un concours de #démagogie à fond raciste et xénophobe bat son plein dans le monde politicien et médiatique, notamment sous forme d’attaques répétées contre les musulmans.

    Pour faire diversion face à la montée du mécontentement social, #Macron et ses ministres ont repris à leur compte une partie des thèmes de campagne et du vocabulaire du Rassemblement national, entretenant la confusion entre terrorisme, #immigration, #islam et question du #voile. Ils sont relayés par tous les politiciens qui, à droite et à l’extrême droite, cherchent à capter les voix de l’électorat le plus réactionnaire.

    La surenchère odieuse à laquelle se livrent tous ces politiciens ne peut que renforcer les préjugés et les comportements racistes, et encourager les plus violents à passer à l’acte, comme cela a été le cas lors de l’attentat commis contre la mosquée de Bayonne. Il est indispensable de s’opposer à ces pousse-au-crime !

    En participant à ces manifestations, Lutte ouvrière tient à affirmer sa #solidarité avec tous ceux qui sont injustement pointés du doigt . Plus que jamais, il faut affirmer que les travailleurs, quelle que soit leur origine ou leur #religion, constituent une même classe, avec les mêmes intérêts à défendre et un même combat à mener pour s’émanciper et changer la société .
    Communiqué de Lutte ouvrière du 5 novembre

  • #MeToo dans le cinéma : l’actrice Adèle Haenel brise un nouveau tabou - Page 1 | Mediapart
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/france/031119/metoo-dans-le-cinema-l-actrice-adele-haenel-brise-un-nouveau-tabou?onglet=

    3 novembre 2019 Par Marine Turchi

    L’actrice Adèle Haenel accuse le réalisateur Christophe Ruggia d’« attouchements » et de « harcèlement sexuel » lorsqu’elle était âgée de 12 à 15 ans. Son récit est conforté par de nombreux documents et témoignages. Mediapart retrace son long cheminement, de la « prise de parole impossible » au « silence devenu insupportable ». Le cinéaste conteste « catégoriquement » les faits.

    #viol #harcèlement_sexuel #meetoo

  • À Avignon, victoire pour le droit au #Logement des personnes exilées
    https://www.bastamag.net/Avignon-Rosmerta-diocese-occupation-refugies-familles-exil-justice-droit-a

    A Avignon, une association qui occupe un bâtiment du diocèse pour accueillir des réfugiés a obtenu un délai de trois ans avant de devoir évacuer. Un soulagement pour les 150 bénévoles qui s’activent depuis un an. « Nous sommes très contents. Les habitants aussi sont soulagés. » Chantal Raffanel et les autres bénévoles de l’association Rosmerta d’Avignon viennent d’obtenir une importante victoire. Lundi 28 octobre, le tribunal d’instance d’Avignon a accordé à l’association et à près de 50 personnes exilées, (...) En bref

    / #Luttes_sociales, #Garantir_l'accès_au_logement, #Migrations, Logement, #Solidarités_internationales

  • Polémique sur des listes noires de mauvais payeurs incluant des enfants Tristan Hertig, Noémie Guignard - 29 Octobre 2019 - RTS
    https://www.rts.ch/info/regions/autres-cantons/10821859-polemique-sur-des-listes-noires-de-mauvais-payeurs-incluant-des-enfants

    Les listes noires de mauvais payeurs de primes d’assurances maladie tenues par certains cantons sont controversées. Cet automne, c’est le canton de Thurgovie qui est montré du doigt à Berne car il est le seul à inclure les mineurs dans sa liste.
    Depuis maintenant plus de 10 ans, Thurgovie fait figure d’exception dans le paysage politique suisse, parce qu’il inclut les enfants dans sa liste noire de mauvais payeurs d’assurances maladie. Par conséquent, certains traitements peuvent être refusés, à l’exception des cas d’urgences médicales.

    Au cabinet Schlossberg, il n’y a encore jamais eu de refus, mais les situations sont parfois délicates : « Evidemment, pour les urgences, on ne se pose aucune question. Pour certains médicaments, on doit discuter avec les parents. Pour les vaccins par exemple, ils doivent régler la facture sur place ou alors on leur fait une ordonnance pour la pharmacie. Mais les grands examens ne peuvent être entrepris si les parents ne peuvent pas payer et si les caisses maladie refusent la prise en charge », explique Carsten Peters, pédiatre et fondateur du cabinet.

    A l’encontre des droits de l’enfant, selon la Confédération
    A Berne, la conseillère nationale socialiste thurgovienne Edith Graf-Litscher fait partie de ceux qui dénoncent ce système : « Les enfants sont sanctionnés pour quelque chose dont ils ne sont pas responsables. C’est pour cela qu’il est central d’interdire ces listes noires car les enfants ne doivent pas payer pour la négligence de leurs parents. »

    A sa demande, la Confédération a estimé que cette pratique enfreignait la Convention relative aux droits de l’enfant de l’ONU. Mais le gouvernement thurgovien réfute en rappelant que l’accès aux soins d’urgence, au sens large du terme, est garanti. Le canton rappelle aussi qu’outre les réductions de primes, il a aussi pris des mesures d’accompagnement pour chaque cas jugé problématique.

    Pour Rebecca Ruiz (PS/VD), interrogée dans le 19h30, cette situation est tout simplement « intolérable ». La cheffe du Département vaudois de la santé et de l’action sociale juge qu’au coeur de la Lamal, existe le principe de « solidarité » et que l’accès aux soins est « garanti par notre Constitution ».

    Et d’ajouter : « S’il y a bien une catégorie de la population qui n’est pas responsable du fait qu’on ne paie pas ses primes, ce sont les enfants. On imagine bien que les parents qui ne paient pas les primes de leurs enfants ne le font pas de gaieté de coeur. S’ils n’y arrivent pas, c’est en raison du coût très élevé de ces primes ».

    Quid des dettes reportées à l’âge adulte ?
    Jakob Stark, conseiller d’Etat UDC en Thurgovie, estime le chemin à parcourir encore long : « Nous devons être créatifs. C’est pour cela que les communes conseillent ces personnes pour s’assurer que les parents paient les primes de leurs enfants (...) c’est leur responsabilité. Selon la loi actuelle, toutes les dettes contractées par les parents pour leurs enfants seront reportées ensuite sur ces mêmes enfants et ce, dès leur majorité. Ce n’est pas tolérable ! »

    Actuellement, plus de 500 enfants sont concernés par cette liste noire.

    #assurances_maladie #assurances #assureurs #Sécurité_Sociale Suisse #dettes #Thurgovie #listes_noires #enfants #solidarité #économie a #vomir #filles #garçons

    • Cent millions de francs de primes maladie ont servi au marketing
      https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/10826052-cent-millions-de-francs-de-primes-maladie-ont-servi-au-marketing.html

      La LAMal interdit aux assureurs de faire des bénéfices. Pourtant, les caisses maladie ont dépensé près de 102 millions de francs issus de nos primes d’assurance obligatoire pour financer la publicité et le courtage.
      Sur ces 102 millions, 58 millions ont été dépensés en publicité, et 44 millions en commissions pour les courtiers. Ces chiffres sont extraits des comptes d’exploitation de chaque caisse publiés depuis deux ans par l’Office fédéral de la santé publique pour des raisons de transparence voulue par la loi sur la surveillance de l’assurance maladie (LSAMal).

      La LSAMal dit pourtant que les assureurs doivent contenir les coûts des intermédiaires, à savoir les courtiers, et les dépenses publicitaires, mais elle ne fixe pas de limite. Le Parlement a en effet préféré laisser la liberté aux caisses de s’autoréguler.

      20 francs par assuré
      Les premiers chiffres publiés montrent une augmentation des dépenses marketing pour la seule assurance de base. En 2016, les caisses ont dépensé 74,4 millions de francs, un chiffre en hausse de 36% deux ans plus tard.

      Avec 22,7 millions de francs de primes maladie utilisés en publicité et en démarchage en 2018, le Groupe Helsana (Helsana et Progrès) est le plus dépensier. Cela correspond à une vingtaine de francs par assuré consacrés au marketing. En comparaison, la CSS dépense environ 3 francs par assuré.

      #marketing #publicité #gaspillage #santé

  • As #Scott_Warren retrial nears, judge orders lawyer for volunteer nurse in migrant harboring case

    As Scott Warren — a No More Deaths volunteer charged with two counts of human smuggling — again faces trial, the judge has assigned a lawyer for a volunteer nurse who works with the humanitarian group, in one of several rulings issued Monday morning.

    Warren, a 36-year-old geography professor, faced trial in May on three felony charges, including one count of criminal conspiracy to transport and harbor illegal aliens, and two counts of harboring, stemming from his January 2018 arrest by U.S. Border Patrol agents in Ajo, Ariz.

    In early June, after days of deliberation, a jury refused to convict Warren, but did not find him not guilty. The judge declared a mistrial because of the hung jury.

    Undaunted by the jury’s non-decision, federal prosecutors announced in July that they would seek a new trial, but dropped the conspiracy charge against Warren. They also announced a possible plea deal for Warren, which he did not accept by the prosecution’s deadline.

    As the case has moved toward a second trial, federal prosecutors and Warren’s defense team have issued a flurry of motions and counter-motions that will set the stage for the new court proceeding, slated to begin November 12.

    Among these motions was a request that Susannah Brown, a nurse who regularly provides medical aid to migrants crossing the desert, be assigned a lawyer. Federal prosecutors Nathaniel Walters and Anna Wright argued that Brown should retain a lawyer because “as the government argued in closing” her testimony “demonstrated that she conspired with the defendant to harbor” two men at a ramshackle building used as a staging area for humanitarian organizations, called “the Barn” in Ajo.

    Along with Warren, BP agents arrested Kristian Perez-Villanueva, a 23-year-old man from El Salvador, and Jose Arnaldo Sacaria-Goday, a 21-year-old man from Honduras. The men arrived together and stayed for four days and three nights at the Barn after crossing the desert days earlier, ending up at a gas station in Why, Ariz., in the desert west of Tucson.

    During the trial, Brown became a surprising target for federal prosecutors who tried to show that Warren was involved in a “plan,” along Brown, and an organizer of shelters in Mexico — Irineo Mujica — to smuggle the two men into the United States.

    While Brown sat in the courtroom looking shocked, federal prosecutors essentially accused her of a felony, and showed as part of their evidence video from Perez-Villanueva’s phone. In the video, Brown briefly spoke with the Salvadorian during a Christmas Day celebration at the shelter in Sonoyta, Sonora. In the video, Perez-Villanueva asks Brown her name, and she responds with the same question.

    As Perez-Villanueva turns his camera, Mujica comes into view and tells the man to put the phone down. Mujica and Warren had repeatedly emailed about the shelter and its needs, according to documents shown during the trial. This included a plan to arrange a Jan. 12 visit to the shelter, and that a group of No More Deaths volunteers went to Mexico to bring water and operate a temporary medical clinic. The next day, Perez-Villanueva and Sacaria-Goday began their journey by climbing over the fence that separates the U.S. and Mexico.

    In motions, Warren’s lawyers told the court that Brown could invoke her 5th Amendment rights during a retrial “given the accusations” made against her.

    Collins also considered a motion filed by Greg Kuykendall and Amy Knight, who argued that they should be able to submit evidence that shows Border Patrol agents may “hold biases or prejudices against No More Deaths in general and Dr. Warren in particular.”

    In their motion, Kuykendall and Knight, argued that the jury should be shown evidence that the two agents who arrested Warren—Border Patrol agents Brendan Burns and John Marquez—might have had reasons to “perceive Dr. Warren in a negative light and/or shade their testimony against him.”

    During the trial, the two Border Patrol agents said they set up an observation post about 200-300 yards from the Barn, just across from a rural road on a patch of federally owned land.

    As part of an anti-smuggling unit called the “disrupt unit,” the agents said they worked to break up smuggling organizations, but on Jan. 17—the same day that No More Deaths published a report that was highly critical of the agency, including videos of Border Patrol agents destroying water drops that immediately went viral—the two plain-clothes agents parked themselves near the Barn, and using a spotting scope, zeroed in on Warren “gesturing” to the mountains with two men they believed to be illegally in the U.S.

    Kuykendall and Knight argued that “the government depended heavily on these agents’ subjective impressions and intentions.”

    “This case was essentially a credibility contest—the agents’ interpretation set against the NMD volunteers’ explanations for their actions. The government argued that everything the defense had described was a cover-up engineered to avoid criminal liability,” Warren’s attorneys wrote. “In this context, it is crucial for jurors to understand the various possible reasons the agents may portrayed Dr. Warren as they did.”

    They also argued that Warren’s arrest was part of campaign of selective enforcement carried out by Border Patrol because the agents were upset that NMD had “that very morning, released a humiliating report and accompanying video footage exposing the Border Patrol’s gleeful destruction of humanitarian aid supplies, giving them a specific reason to resent NMD and the people associated with it.”

    Reporter profile
    More by Paul Ingram

    Posted Oct 21, 2019, 1:59 pm

    Paul Ingram TucsonSentinel.com

    As Scott Warren — a No More Deaths volunteer charged with two counts of human smuggling — again faces trial, the judge has assigned a lawyer for a volunteer nurse who works with the humanitarian group, in one of several rulings issued Monday morning.

    Warren, a 36-year-old geography professor, faced trial in May on three felony charges, including one count of criminal conspiracy to transport and harbor illegal aliens, and two counts of harboring, stemming from his January 2018 arrest by U.S. Border Patrol agents in Ajo, Ariz.

    In early June, after days of deliberation, a jury refused to convict Warren, but did not find him not guilty. The judge declared a mistrial because of the hung jury.

    Undaunted by the jury’s non-decision, federal prosecutors announced in July that they would seek a new trial, but dropped the conspiracy charge against Warren. They also announced a possible plea deal for Warren, which he did not accept by the prosecution’s deadline.

    As the case has moved toward a second trial, federal prosecutors and Warren’s defense team have issued a flurry of motions and counter-motions that will set the stage for the new court proceeding, slated to begin November 12.

    Among these motions was a request that Susannah Brown, a nurse who regularly provides medical aid to migrants crossing the desert, be assigned a lawyer. Federal prosecutors Nathaniel Walters and Anna Wright argued that Brown should retain a lawyer because “as the government argued in closing” her testimony “demonstrated that she conspired with the defendant to harbor” two men at a ramshackle building used as a staging area for humanitarian organizations, called “the Barn” in Ajo.

    Along with Warren, BP agents arrested Kristian Perez-Villanueva, a 23-year-old man from El Salvador, and Jose Arnaldo Sacaria-Goday, a 21-year-old man from Honduras. The men arrived together and stayed for four days and three nights at the Barn after crossing the desert days earlier, ending up at a gas station in Why, Ariz., in the desert west of Tucson.

    During the trial, Brown became a surprising target for federal prosecutors who tried to show that Warren was involved in a “plan,” along Brown, and an organizer of shelters in Mexico — Irineo Mujica — to smuggle the two men into the United States.

    Sponsorships available
    Support TucsonSentinel.com & let thousands of daily readers know
    your business cares about creating a HEALTHIER, MORE INFORMED Tucson

    While Brown sat in the courtroom looking shocked, federal prosecutors essentially accused her of a felony, and showed as part of their evidence video from Perez-Villanueva’s phone. In the video, Brown briefly spoke with the Salvadorian during a Christmas Day celebration at the shelter in Sonoyta, Sonora. In the video, Perez-Villanueva asks Brown her name, and she responds with the same question.

    As Perez-Villanueva turns his camera, Mujica comes into view and tells the man to put the phone down. Mujica and Warren had repeatedly emailed about the shelter and its needs, according to documents shown during the trial. This included a plan to arrange a Jan. 12 visit to the shelter, and that a group of No More Deaths volunteers went to Mexico to bring water and operate a temporary medical clinic. The next day, Perez-Villanueva and Sacaria-Goday began their journey by climbing over the fence that separates the U.S. and Mexico.

    In motions, Warren’s lawyers told the court that Brown could invoke her 5th Amendment rights during a retrial “given the accusations” made against her.

    Collins also considered a motion filed by Greg Kuykendall and Amy Knight, who argued that they should be able to submit evidence that shows Border Patrol agents may “hold biases or prejudices against No More Deaths in general and Dr. Warren in particular.”

    In their motion, Kuykendall and Knight, argued that the jury should be shown evidence that the two agents who arrested Warren—Border Patrol agents Brendan Burns and John Marquez—might have had reasons to “perceive Dr. Warren in a negative light and/or shade their testimony against him.”

    During the trial, the two Border Patrol agents said they set up an observation post about 200-300 yards from the Barn, just across from a rural road on a patch of federally owned land.

    As part of an anti-smuggling unit called the “disrupt unit,” the agents said they worked to break up smuggling organizations, but on Jan. 17—the same day that No More Deaths published a report that was highly critical of the agency, including videos of Border Patrol agents destroying water drops that immediately went viral—the two plain-clothes agents parked themselves near the Barn, and using a spotting scope, zeroed in on Warren “gesturing” to the mountains with two men they believed to be illegally in the U.S.

    Kuykendall and Knight argued that “the government depended heavily on these agents’ subjective impressions and intentions.”

    “This case was essentially a credibility contest—the agents’ interpretation set against the NMD volunteers’ explanations for their actions. The government argued that everything the defense had described was a cover-up engineered to avoid criminal liability,” Warren’s attorneys wrote. “In this context, it is crucial for jurors to understand the various possible reasons the agents may portrayed Dr. Warren as they did.”

    They also argued that Warren’s arrest was part of campaign of selective enforcement carried out by Border Patrol because the agents were upset that NMD had “that very morning, released a humiliating report and accompanying video footage exposing the Border Patrol’s gleeful destruction of humanitarian aid supplies, giving them a specific reason to resent NMD and the people associated with it.”

    Sponsorships available
    Support TucsonSentinel.com & let thousands of daily readers know
    your business cares about creating a HEALTHIER, MORE INFORMED Tucson

    Collins accepted their argument in part, ruling that “the defense will be able to inquire as to the possible bias or prejudice of the government witnesses.” However, Collins ruled that a document released by No More Deaths itself “will not come into evidence and will not go to the jury.”

    Collins also denied and granted in part a motion filed by Warren’s lawyers to withhold the description of Perez-Villanueva and Sacaria-Goday’s journey in the United States. “The telling of the journey from Mexico to the United States is no longer relevant,” Collins wrote. However, what the two men said to Warren “is relevant and that can come in.”

    Collins also ruled that video from the Why-Not gas station could be played because the video shows the men moving around, buying sports drinks and food before they later received a ride to Ajo.

    “The Court will also allow the playing of the video at the gas station since the extent of the migrants’ injury is still an issue in the case,” Collins wrote.

    Along with this, Collins also will allow testimony that Warren made during a separate trial for misdemeanor charges that he was hit with for entering the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and leaving food and water.

    Collins did accept a motion to allow the defense to submit testimony made during the first trial by Ed McCullough, who showed maps describing where people have died attempting to cross the desert, but was unavailable to testify a second time.

    He also rejected a motion filed by prosecutors that would have kept Warren’s defense team from arguing that NMD had legal “protocols” that were established through consultation with Professor Andrew Silverman and that Warren was acting under the advice of counsel when he brought the two men into the Barn and gave them food, water, and medical care.

    During the first trial, Silverman told the jury that Warren was working under legal protocols that he had helped write, however, federal prosecutors had asked Collins to preclude the defense from “introducing evidence in support of an advice of counsel defense, including evidence pertaining to No More Deaths’ protocols and volunteer training.”

    “Such testimony is irrelevant, improper, and likely to confuse the jury about a material issue in this case,” they argued. Warren and his lawyers had “failed to establish any of the elements of an advice of counsel defense,” because they “did not offer any evidence that [Warren] consulted directly with any attorney and, in fact, objected to disclosing this information to the government.”

    “The defendant’s alleged compliance with the No More Deaths’ protocols also cannot satisfy the elements of the advice of counsel defense,” they wrote.
    First trial ended in jury deadlock

    Warren’s first felony trial began on May 29, and after a seven-day trial, jurors deliberated for about 11 hours over two days before they told the court they were struggling to reach a decision. Collins told the jurors to continue their deliberations, and issued an “Allen charge” instructing jurors to try to reach an unanimous verdict. Among the instructions read by Collins in court, jurors were told to "reexamine their own views, but not to change “an honest belief” because of the opinions of fellow jurors or “for the mere purpose of returning a verdict.”

    But,the next day, the third of deliberations, it became clear that the jury could not reach an unanimous verdict, and Collins declared a hung jury. Following the announcement, Collins set a new hearing for July 2, giving prosecutors time to consider whether they would pursue a retrial.

    During the trial, prosecutors argued that Warren “harbored and shielded from detection” two men in the country illegally at the Barn, and that he was at “hub” of a plan to transport and protect the two men after they illegally crossed the border by climbing over the border fence somewhere near Sonoyta, a Mexican border town.

    Warren, along with two men in the country without authorization, was arrested during at raid by several Border Patrol agents at “the Barn,” a ramshackle building on the town’s outskirts regularly used as a staging point for volunteers who have been working to stem an increasing number of deaths in the remote wildlife refuges west of the unincorporated town.

    As the trial loomed, Warren’s prosecution took on national and international importance, and humanitarian volunteers lead by No More Deaths collected more than 120,000 signatures and submitted them to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Tucson just days before the trial began, asking for them to drop the charges.

    Warren’s prosecution also came to the attention of human rights experts from the United Nations, who wrote that “providing humanitarian aid is not a crime. We urge the U.S. authorities to immediately drop all charges against Scott Warren.”

    In a letter written by Michael Forst, a special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, the UN body said that Warren’’s work is “vital and legitimate,” and said that No More Deaths" upholds the right to life and prevents the deaths of migrants and asylum seekers at the US-Mexican border."

    “The prosecution of Scott Warren represents an unacceptable escalation of existing patterns criminalising migrant rights defenders along the migrant caravan routes,” they said.

    Forst also noted that Warren’s arrest came “hours after the release of a report” by No More Deaths which linked Border Patrol agents to the “systematic destruction of humanitarian supplies, including water stores, and denounced a pattern of harassment, intimidation and surveillance against humanitarian aid workers.”

    The decision to retry Warren will be the first high-profile test for U.S. Attorney Michael Bailey, who was nominated by President Trump in February and just confirmed by the Senate on May 23. Bailey replaced Elizabeth Strange, who served as the acting U.S. attorney for more than two years after John S. Leonardo stepped down from the position in January 2017.

    Warren’s case is one of three high-profile prosecutions launched against No More Deaths volunteers, including two misdemeanor trials — one also involving Warren — for the group’s efforts to leave food, water, medicine, and other aid in the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge.

    Warren’s trial in the misdemeanor charges concluded in May, but Collins has not rendered a verdict in the bench trial, leaving Warren’s fate in those charges also up in the air.

    After the announcement, Warren thanked supporters supporters and castigated the government for bringing charges against him.

    “In the time since I was arrested in January 2018, no fewer than 88 bodies were recovered from the Arizona desert,” Warren said. “The government’s plan in the midst of this humanitarian crisis? Policies to target undocumented people, refugees, and their families. Prosecutions to criminalize humanitarian aid, kindness, and solidarity. And now, the revelation that they will build an enormous and expensive wall across a vast stretch of southwestern Arizona’s unbroken Sonoran Desert.”
    Re-trial would be complete re-do of case

    With the jury deadlocked and the proceedings declared a mistrial, Collins scheduled a hearing for July 2 to review the felony case. Prosecutors may attempt to re-try Warren on the charges, as the jury did not render a verdict. If they do so, the second trial would be a complete re-do, including the selection of a new jury.

    During final arguments, prosecutors argued that Warren “harbored and shielded from detection” two men in the country illegally at “the Barn,” a ramshackle house used as a staging point for aid organizations trying to stem what volunteers like Warren have called a “humanitarian crisis” in the deserts west and south of Ajo, an unincorporated town about 110 miles west of Tucson. Prosecutors said he was at “hub” of a plan to transport and protect the two men after they illegally crossed the border by climbing over the border fence somewhere near Sonoyta, a Mexican border town.

    Warren testified in his own defense telling jurors that his spiritual values compel him to help those who “stumble” out of the desert into the neighborhoods of Ajo, Ariz., and that doing so is “good and right, especially in a place that feels like a low-intensity conflict.”

    No More Deaths has maintained that the arrests of Warren and others were retribution for the release that same day of a report by the humanitarian aid group, documenting claims that Border Patrol agents vandalized water caches placed for migrants crossing the desert.

    After the trial closed, Warren noted that “the other men arrested with me that day Jose Sacaria-Goday and Kristian Perez-Villanueva, have not received the attention and outpouring of support that I have. I do not know how they are doing now, but I do hope they are safe.”

    Warren and other volunteers testified that the men needed medical care, as they were suffering from blisters on their feet, a minor cold, and injuries from being in the desert. However, prosecutors said that this was a “smokescreen,” and repeatedly referred to selfie photos captured from Perez-Villanueva’s cellphone and surveillance video from the Why-Not gas station in Why, Arizona to show that the men were not injured or sick.

    Evidence of a humanitarian crisis, and the loss of lives in the desert didn’t matter , because border crossers haven’t died in Ajo. “That’s not this case, that’s a smokescreen and a distraction for this case,” assistant U.S. Attorney Anna Wright said during her closing arguments.

    As the case went to the jury, the Border Patrol said that it recovered the body of a Guatemalan woman who died trying to cross the Barry M. Goldwater bombing range, which sits just to the north of Ajo and straddles Highway 85.

    Wright said that after Perez-Villanueva and Sacaria-Goday arrived at the barn, Warren called Brown, a registered nurse who volunteers for No More Deaths, not in an effort to get the men medical attention, but rather because she was involved in the “plan” to smuggle the men.

    Brown sat in the courtroom and appeared shocked when she heard the federal prosecutor implicate her in a felony.

    Perez-Villanueva’s phone remained a linchpin to the prosecutor’s case, and Wright highlighted as much saying that while other people who testified might have a bias, the photos and video were evidence that “doesn’t lie.”

    As the trial began, assistant U.S. Attorney Nathaniel Walters told the jury that federal authorities are not targeting humanitarian aid along the border with Mexico.

    “No More Deaths is not on trial,” Walters told the jury. “Scott Warren is.”

    But during the trial, prosecutors argued that these calls and the visit was part of a plan to illegally aid migrants, and noted later that night, Perez-Villanueva and Sacaria-Goday decided to cross the border.

    This brief interaction was enough to show a nexus of relationships between Warren, Mujica, Perez-Villanueva and Brown that could not be a coincidence, Wright argued.

    While Warren testified Wednesday, Mujica was arrested in Sonoyta by Mexican authorities.

    Mujica was later released, and the case against Mujica later collapsed, although there are signs that Mexican officials could once agains launch a case against the organizer, even as he now moves freely from Sonora to areas where there are large numbers of African and Cuban migrants seeking asylum in Tapachula.

    Questions about the timing of Mujica’s arrest and the Mexican government’s case remain.

    During the trial, a Border Patrol agent testified that he reviewed 14,000 pages of data from Warren’s phone, and from those thousands of pages the agent produced a one-page report. “They were not interested in innocence,” Kuykendall said.

    Defense attorney Greg Kuykendall said during his closing argument that it was “frankly terrifying, just terrifying” that his client was charged with a “total lack of evidence.”

    “It’s just supposition,” he said.

    In his opening statement two weeks ago, Kuykendall said Warren did not intend to break the law when he came across two undocumented immigrants early last year.

    “Scott intended to perform basic human kindness,” he told jurors, and was acting in accordance with his Christian faith.

    After the jury said it was deadlocked, Kuykendall was asked if “humanitarian aid being targeted by the federal government?,” Kuykendall responded, “you should ask the federal government. And use your own common sense.”

    Kuykendall also told the court last week that emails between Mujica and Warren, along with others showed that Warren was working on search and rescue and recovery efforts, and that when volunteers went to help the “Hope Shelter” there, they should contact Mujica.

    The U.S. government, he said, had all the power and resources to direct the agent to investigate and present all the evidence to the jury, he said. He also argued that the government failed to interview Mujica, noting that as one of the agents, Burns, who arrested Warren testified, he was called to a checkpoint after Mujica was held in a secondary inspection area, and yet he did not “interrogate” the man who might be at the center of the conspiracy.

    Photos from Perez-Villanueva’s phone shows the two men inside a van, after apparently leaving a gas station in Ajo. In the warrant for Warren’s phone, another agent noted that in Mujica’s vehicle Burns found black water bottles, a notebook containing a “detailed account” of travel through Mexico, and identity cards of men who were later apprehended by Border Patrol. However, Mujica wasn’t arrested by Burns, and weeks later, a passenger in his van was apprehended for being in the country illegally, leaving questions about Mujica’s role in Warren’s case.

    During opening arguments, assistant U.S. Attorney Nathaniel Walters tried to downplay the case’s consequences for humanitarian aid in the borderlands. While Warren is a “high-ranking member” of No More Deaths, the group was not on trial, rather Warren is “on trial,” Walters said.

    “This case is not about humanitarian aid or anyone in medical distress,” Walters said. “But, rather, this is about an attempt to shield two illegal aliens for several days,” from law enforcement, he said.

    However, during her closing arguments, Wright focused on the idea that Warren was a “high-ranking member” of No More Deaths, and she admitted that Warren did not receive a financial benefit, but said that instead, Warren “gets to further the goals of the organization” and “thwart the Border Patrol at every turn.”

    During the trial, the two Border Patrol agents— Burns and John Marquez —said they set up an observation post about 200-300 yards from the Barn, just across from a rural road on a patch of federally owned land.

    As part of an anti-smuggling unit called the “disrupt unit,” the agents said they worked to break up smuggling organizations, but on Jan. 17—the same day that No More Deaths published a report that was highly critical of the agency, including videos of Border Patrol agents destroying water drops that immediately went viral—the two plain-clothes agents parked themselves near the Barn, and using a spotting scope, zeroed in on Warren “gesturing” to the mountains with two men they believed to be illegally in the U.S.

    Warren said during the trial that he was trying to “orient” the men, who were preparing to head north, and that he was telling them to stay inside a valley between Child’s Mountain and Hat Peak, where they “if they got in trouble” they could head to Highway 85 and seek help. Prosecutors said that Warren was telling the men how to bypass a Border Patrol checkpoint on the highway and that Warren was giving them a pathway to follow from Ajo toward Interstate 8.

    Warren said that he stayed outside and was working on building a fire in preparation for students from a high-school in Flagstaff to come the Barn, when he saw a “convoy” of vehicles heading his way. Once agents came up to the barn, Warren said during testimony that he was handcuffed within two minutes, but that he offered to walk into the Barn with the agents.

    Burns and Marquez arrived moments later, and went around to the back where Perez-Villanueva was sitting on the threshold in the bathroom door. Inside, Sacaria-Goday was hiding behind the shower curtain.

    Wright attacked Warren’s credibility, saying that by seeking “context” he was actually trying to “distract” from the central issue and that Warren use of the word “orientation” was just a “fancy word for giving people directions.” When he was outside and spotted by Border Patrol agents, he was giving the men information so they could go “from point A, Ajo, to point B, Interstate 8.” These directions gave the men a “path” to follow away from the Border Patrol checkpoint allowing them to “further their journey,” she said.
    Warren: ’Haunting crisis’

    During his testimony, Warren said that he went to Ajo in order to work on his dissertation as a doctoral candidate at Arizona State University. He became increasingly interested in issues in Ajo and met with members of the Ajo Samaritans after he attended one of the Border Patrol’s citizen academies, a six-week course designed to inform the public about the agency’s mission.

    He said that as he stayed in Ajo, his eyes were “really opened” to the humanitarian crisis in the desert surrounding the small desert town, and that he became heavily involved in the community, becoming an elected member of the West Pima County Community Council. “It’s an elected position, but everyone runs unopposed,” Warren quipped.

    As he lived in Ajo, it became clear that everyday migrants “are stumbling” out of the wilderness aching for food, water and shelter, and that helping them is a “ubiquitous experience,” for residents in the town. After months in Ajo, Warren found himself part of an effort to recover the remains of a migrant who had perished in the nearby Barry M. Goldwater Bombing Range, and the experience of finding human bones in the desert, “felt like a big transition for me,” Warren testified.

    “This crisis became real to me, in a haunting kind of way,” Warren said. He was used to finding animal bones in the desert, but the bones from a human being who had died “not long before,” stuck with him, he said.

    After finding the bones, he found that when he saw someone come out of the desert, he again saw the decaying bones at the “same time, almost like a split-screen,” and that he was struck by the “disturbing reality of how people who are living can be disappeared and lost to the desert,” he said.

    Warren testified that he has helped find and recover 18 sets of human remains in the desert around Ajo, and that the work is a “deeply profound effort.”

    During the hearing, Warren’s lawyer Kuykendall asked him, “what are you doing, spending your whole life helping strangers?”

    “It feels choice-less,” Warren said. “How could you not do that when there are people dying around you?” he asked. “How could you not respond?”

    “Everyone who enters that desert will suffer,” he said. Migrants attempt to cross the desert will have to walk a “long, long way” to cross the desert, and they’ll witness death, either of other migrants or their companions, along the way.

    “It’s an epic undertaking, you have to put everything you’ve got on the line in order to make it,” Warren said, telling the jury that migrants often have already faced danger and deprivation in Mexico before they even attempt “the hardest thing they’ve ever done in their lives.”

    Nonetheless, Warren testified that he felt it was important to follow the law, in part to protect the students and volunteers who came to the Barn.

    “Why would you want to understand the legal limits,” asked Kuykendall.

    “I want to work within the border of the law, and not be doing something illegal and put students in a situation where they’re doing something illegal,” Warren said.
    Payback?

    On the day Warren was arrested, NMD released a report that said that from 2012 to 2015, 415 caches of water left for crossers in the 800-square-mile corridor near Arivaca were vandalized, spilling nearly 3,600 gallons of water into the desert.

    During this same time period, the bodies of 1,026 people were found in the Sonoran Desert, according to records from the Pima County Office of the Medical Examiner.

    Using statistical analysis, including land-use patterns, as well as video from trail cameras, and personal experiences to support their claims, the group said that U.S. Border Patrol agents “are responsible for the widespread interference with essential humanitarian efforts.”

    As part of the report’s release, NMD also published videos of Border Patrol agents intentionally destroying water bottles, including a video in which a female Border Patrol agent systematically kicks a half-dozen water bottles, spilling their contents, and a 2017 video in which an agent punctures a water bottle with a knife.

    This report embarrassed and infuriated agents, prompting one to say that NMD had “gone too far” and “messed with the wrong guy,” according to a motion filed by Warren’s defense lawyers in March.

    Previous prosecutions
    Federal officials have attempted to prosecute humanitarian volunteers before, though after two high-profile cases in 2005 and 2008, the government avoided formal prosecutions until 2017, when nine No More Deaths volunteers–including Warren—were charged with entering a wildlife refuge without a permit and leaving food, water, and other supplies on the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, a 800,000-acre wilderness, west of Ajo.

    In 2005, agents arrested Shanti A. Sellz and Daniel M. Strauss after they stopped the two volunteers, and found three people in the country without authorization in their car. However, that indictment was tossed by U.S. District Judge Raner Collins—the same judge who is overseeing Warren’s case.

    In 2008, U.S. Fish and Wildlife officers cited volunteer Dan Millis for littering on the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refugee after he left water jugs there, however, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned his conviction.

    But, after eight years, a detente between the group and Border Patrol began to collapse, beginning with surveillance of the group’s camp on private land south of Arivaca in 2016, and followed by a June 2017 incident when, with a warrant in hand, Border Patrol agents raided the camp and arrested four men, all migrants suspected of being in the country illegally.

    That raid followed an announcement by then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions who told reporters during a press conference in Nogales on April 11, 2017 that federal prosecutors “are now required to consider for prosecution” the “transportation or harboring of aliens.”

    Sessions announcement was part of the Trump administrations “zero tolerance” policies as part of a hard-nosed crackdown on border and immigrant communities, and just nine months later, prosecutors in Tucson sought an indictment against Warren.

    Kuykendall also questioned the credibility of the agents, noting their use in messages in a group chat of the word “tonc.”

    The term “tonc” or “tonk” is widely used by agents to refer to border-crossers, but the term’s origin is unclear. Some have argued that the term refers to the sound of a metal flashlight hitting a skull, while others have said that it stands for “temporarily outside naturalized country,” or “true origin not known.”

    And, Kuykendall said that Burns did not know that the Barn remained unlocked and unsecured. After Warren’s arrest on Jan. 17, 2018, Border Patrol agents waited until Jan. 22 to execute a warrant and search the property. Burns appeared to not know that detail until he was told so by Kuykendall in court.

    “What kind of investigation is this, that leaves the building unsecured for 120 hours?,” the attorney rhetorically asked the jury.

    Kuykendall also argued that the two men who also arrested with Warren were given immunity from immigration charges so they would testify in a video deposition shown to the jury on Monday.

    “They are the government’s own witnesses” and yet they disputed some of Wright’s arguments. “This is the best the government can come up with?” he asked.

    Kuykendall said that government’s lack of evidence, “if it weren’t so scary, it would be laughable.”

    No More Deaths vows to continue aiding migrants
    “A hung jury means the government could not prove its case,” Warren defense attorney Amy Knight said. “Scott remains innocent and admirable.”

    Chris Fleischman, a volunteer with No More Deaths, said the organization plans to continue its humanitarian aid work following the announcement.

    “It’s still good to know that the Trump administration’s attempt to criminalize humanitarian aid has failed,” he said. “But we will still be working to end death and suffering in the borderlands.”

    It wasn’t immediately clear after the trial whether the government will seek a new case against Warren.

    “I would think that they wouldn’t waste their effort to do that,” Fleischman said, adding, “We’re concerned for his freedom. That he could be prosecuted for doing what we all had thought is legal anyway.”

    http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/102119_warren_trial/as-scott-warren-retrial-nears-judge-orders-lawyer-volunteer-nurse-mi

    #procès #justice #asile #migrations #réfugiés #délit_de_solidarité #solidarité #frontières #USA #Etats-Unis #USA

    Plus sur Scott Warren ici:
    https://seenthis.net/messages/784076

    ping @isskein

    • *Government Doesn’t Want Trump or His Immigration Policies

      Mentioned in Retrial of Border Aid Worker Scott Warren*


      As they prepare to make their second attempt at sending a border-based humanitarian volunteer to prison, federal prosecutors in Arizona are worried that the politics behind the policies they enforce might creep into the courtroom.

      In a late-stage motion, government lawyers have urged an Arizona judge to bar any mention of President Donald Trump or his immigration policies from the upcoming retrial of Scott Warren, a 36-year-old geographer who was indicted on felony harboring and conspiracy charges for giving two young migrants crossing a deadly stretch of desert food, water, and a place to sleep for three days in 2018. Warren is one of nine volunteers with the faith-based organization No More Deaths that the administration has charged with federal crimes for their work in the Arizona desert since Trump’s inauguration.

      The prosecutors’ concerns that Warren’s trial could become a referendum on Trump’s policies — specifically those that involve pressing charges against people for providing humanitarian aid — are not entirely misplaced. According to new research examining public opinion around the president’s hard-line border enforcement measures, Americans, regardless of political affiliation, overwhelmingly reject the notion that providing lifesaving care to people in the desert should be criminalized, suggesting that the government’s crackdown in the borderlands is well outside the bounds of what most people expect or demand from law enforcement.

      A national survey conducted in August by Chris Zepeda-Millán, an associate professor of public policy at UCLA, and Sophia Jordán Wallace, an associate professor of political science at the University of Washington, posed the question: “Do you agree or disagree that it should be a crime for people to offer humanitarian aid, such as water or first-aid, to undocumented immigrants crossing the desert along the U.S.-Mexico border?” To the researchers’ surprise, nearly 87 percent of the 1,500 American adults surveyed disagreed. When the results were broken down along party lines, the survey became even more interesting: Nearly 70 percent of Republicans said they disagreed with criminal prosecution for the provision of humanitarian aid, and nearly 38 percent said they “strongly disagreed” with the idea.

      “The findings suggest that the vast majority of Americans, including the vast majority of Republicans, do not support the criminalization of the type of work that No More Deaths and Scott Warren were doing,” Zepeda-Millán told The Intercept.

      The survey was conducted for a forthcoming book and paper looking at public opinion around Trump’s most aggressive immigration and border policies. And while there’s still work to be done on that broader project, the researchers chose to share their findings on the humanitarian aid question in advance of Warren’s retrial — he returns to court on Tuesday and faces a decade behind bars if convicted and sentenced to consecutive terms — in part because of how striking they are.

      Students of U.S. immigration enforcement history tend to agree that the Trump administration’s approach did not suddenly materialize out of nowhere, but is instead the extension of a multidecade trajectory of increased criminalization of immigration offenses and an unprecedented build-up in border security infrastructure, now infused with the hard-right rhetoric of authoritarian regimes around the world. There is one area, however, in which the current administration has distinguished itself from its White House predecessors, Zepeda-Millán noted: the targeting of immigrant rights activists. While it keeps thousands of asylum-seekers in legal limbo in some of Mexico’s most dangerous border cities, the administration is simultaneously criminalizing — and in some cases arresting and deporting — those who challenge Trump’s policies, he noted.

      It’s a pattern of “anti-movement state repression,” Zepeda-Millán argued, and it’s why understanding public opinion on these policies is so critical. Traditionally, the best indicator of a person’s stance on a given immigration policy issue is their party affiliation, he explained. “When it comes to immigration, there’s usually a really strict and stable partisan divide,” he said. “As long as we know what your political party is, we can pretty much guess what your opinion is going to be on deportation, on the wall, etc.”

      The survey results bucked that trend in a major way, reflecting a rare thing in American politics: strong, bipartisan consensus on a matter of immigration-related policy in the era of Trump.

      The same Trumpian politics and policies that Zepeda-Millán and Wallace examined, and that prosecutors have sought to banish from Warren’s trial, have served as the backdrop for the government’s criminalization campaign in southern Arizona from the beginning.

      It started in the run-up to the 2016 election, with Border Patrol agents parking their vehicles outside the humanitarian aid camp that No More Deaths has used for years and urging the volunteers to “Vote Trump!” by megaphone. Shortly after Trump’s election, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions flew to Arizona, where he encouraged his prosecutors to bring more cases like the one against Warren. “This is the Trump era,” Sessions said at the time.

      Not long after the visit, the Border Patrol raided No More Deaths’ camp in a show of force that involved a helicopter and roughly 20 agents, some carrying rifles, deployed to arrest four undocumented migrants who had crossed the desert and were receiving medical aid. Six days later, a senior Border Patrol agent in the Tucson sector told a world-renowned forensic anthropologist, who works on the issue of migrant deaths in the desert, that the humanitarian aid group had “messed with the wrong guy.” The anthropologist, in a sworn court declaration, said the agent told her his agency intended to “shut them down.”

      Throughout the summer of 2017, the Border Patrol and senior officials at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service worked together to monitor the activity of No More Deaths volunteers who were leaving food and jugs of water on the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, a profoundly remote and extraordinarily deadly stretch of the Sonoran Desert. They compiled blacklists of volunteers and kept tabs on Warren’s movements in the tiny border community of Ajo, where he lives and works. As summer turned to fall, prosecutors filed federal misdemeanor charges — for littering and trespassing — against Warren and eight other No More Deaths volunteers for driving on designated wilderness and leaving humanitarian aid supplies on the wildlife refuge.

      On the morning of January 18, 2018, No More Deaths published a scathing report implicating the Border Patrol in the destruction of thousands of gallons of water, left in jugs for migrants crossing the desert. The report, which included video evidence that soon went viral, was shared with the patrol agent in charge of the Ajo Border Patrol station. Agents from the station then set up surveillance on a building known as “the Barn,” which serves as a base for Warren, No More Deaths, and other border aid groups. Late in the afternoon, the agents spotted Warren with two young men who they suspected to be undocumented. A raiding party composed of most of Ajo’s law enforcement community was quickly organized.

      Warren and the two young men were placed under arrest. Their names were Kristian Perez-Villanueva and Jose Arnaldo Sacaria-Godoy. They had fled El Salvador and Honduras, respectively, and crossed the desert by foot, where they were chased by immigration agents and lost the food they had brought with them. In the depositions they later gave, they described how a man in Ajo dropped them off at the Barn and they let themselves inside. Warren showed up not long after. They asked him for food and water, and he welcomed them to both. Warren came and went in the days that followed, the migrants said, along with a number of other humanitarian aid volunteers using the space at the time.

      Warren was indicted a month later on two charges of harboring and one count of conspiracy, bring the total time he faced in prison to 20 years. His trial, which began in late May, ended in a hung jury.

      With Warren’s retrial approaching, the prosecution and the defense have filed several motions in recent weeks, perhaps none so unusual as the one the government’s attorneys submitted on October 29. “For the first time, the United States learned the defense might mention the President of the United States, Donald Trump, his administration, or his administration’s policies,” the motion read.

      Such references, the prosecutors argued, “would be irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.”

      The idea that Warren’s actions should now be divorced from the politics of the world at large is a new direction for Assistant U.S. Attorneys Anna Wright and Nathaniel J. Walters — though given the events during the last trial, that is perhaps understandable.

      While Walters, in his opening statement at Warren’s trial over the summer, insisted that the prosecution was not about No More Deaths, and that the government’s concern was Warren’s actions alone, the nature of the prosecution’s case was something else entirely. Throughout the eight-day trial, Walters and Wright argued that Warren was the lynchpin in a shadowy criminal conspiracy to move people into the country illegally for political purposes. According to the prosecutors, the goal was not to make a profit, unlike most other criminal operations, but to undermine the Border Patrol and further No More Deaths’ political aim of establishing a borderless world. Over and over, both at the trial and pretrial hearings, the prosecutors asked No More Deaths volunteers if they supported the abolishment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a policy proposal born in the midst of Trump’s immigration crackdown.

      Central to the government’s narrative was a characterization of Warren as a deceptive and “high-ranking leader” of No More Deaths who could not be trusted. In an effort to underscore this idea, Walters at one point entered into evidence an article Warren wrote for the Washington Post on the eve of his trial. The bungled and baffling attempt to draw some damning revelation from Warren’s own assessment of the case backfired spectacularly. On cross-examination, Warren’s attorney, Greg Kuykendall, argued that if Walters was going to cherry-pick details from the op-ed, the jury should hear the rest of what was written. District Judge Raner Collins directed Warren to read the piece out loud and, with that, Warren linked his case directly to Trump’s most infamous immigration enforcement policies, from the crackdown on humanitarian aid to the separation of families at the border to a pattern of potentially preventable deaths in the desert.

      For Warren’s friends and supporters, the introduction of the politics and policies that surround Warren’s prosecution into the official record felt like a turning point, a moment when the people deciding his fate were permitted to see what his case was really all about. In the end, eight jurors chose to oppose Warren’s conviction, while four supported it. In July, when the U.S. Attorney’s Office announced that it would be retry the case, it dropped the conspiracy charge.

      Any efforts to prohibit mention of Trump or his policies would violate Warren’s First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution, defense attorney Amy Knight wrote in a motion responding to the government’s request last week. Knight argued that the motion amounted to a request for an “extraordinary ban” with zero “explanation whatsoever of the prejudice” that would result from “daring to mention the President, a man who maintains ultimate authority over this prosecution (notably, the same man who appointed both the United States Attorney General and the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona).” Not only that, she noted, “the government itself introduced the only mention of President Trump into the previous trial, when, while questioning Dr. Warren, it brought up an article he had written expressing some of his views.”

      Paige Corich-Kleim, a longtime volunteer with No More Deaths, said in a statement to The Intercept that the organization worked “to expose government misconduct and intervene in the border crisis.”

      “The government’s attempts to erase the political nature of this retrial is part of their continued efforts to hide what is truly happening along the border and evade responsibility for the violence they have caused,” she added. “Deaths on the border are the predictable outcome of not just border militarization, but also U.S. intervention in Latin America. Their attempts to limit the scope of evidence are self serving.”

      Whether or not the government’s “he who shall not be named” efforts are successful, there are realities in Warren’s case that the prosecutors cannot escape.

      Since 2001, in Pima County alone, more than 3,000 people have lost their lives trying to cross the Sonoran Desert, a grim result of government policies that began two decades before Trump’s election. These deaths, predominantly resulting from dehydration and exposure to the desert sun, are horrifically agonizing and, as Zepeda-Millán and Wallace’s survey shows, most people oppose criminalizing efforts to stop them from happening. It’s a fact that Zepeda-Millán finds both heartening and deeply sad.

      “The good news is that despite Republican support for very punitive, draconian immigration policies, we seem to have found a limit or a threshold to their nativism,” he said. Though they consistently support a wall to keep undocumented immigrants out, and aggressive deportation measures to remove them once they are here, Zepeda-Millán added, “At the moment of life and death that migrants in the desert often find themselves in, Republicans seem to be willing to throw undocumented migrants at least a momentary lifesaver. That’s the good news.”

      “The bad news,” he said, “is that’s a pretty low bar.”

      https://theintercept.com/2019/11/11/immigration-aid-scott-warren-retrial

  • Using Fear of the “Other,” Orbán Reshapes Migration Policy in a Hungary Built on Cultural Diversity

    In summer 2015, more than 390,000 asylum seekers, mostly Muslim, crossed the Serbian-Hungarian border and descended on the Keleti railway station in Budapest. For Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and his Fidesz party, the arrival of these asylum seekers was not a humanitarian issue but a Muslim invasion threatening the national security, social cohesion, and Christian identity of the Hungarian nation. In the four years since this episode, the fear of the “other” has resulted in a string of anti-immigrant actions and policies.

    For example, barbed wire fences were constructed to deter asylum seekers from entering Hungarian territory. Transit zones on the same Serbian-Hungarian border followed, and since the end of March 2017, anyone applying for asylum in Hungary can only do so from a transit zone and is detained there for the duration of the asylum procedure. Conditions there have been grim. The Hungarian Helsinki Committee (HHC) contends rejected asylum seekers inside the transit zones are denied food, to the point of starvation.

    Furthermore, the Orbán government is fighting anti-immigrant battles not just at the border, but also in Brussels. Under the EU burden-sharing scheme, Hungary was supposed to accept 1,294 refugees. However, the prime minister said that while Hungarians have “no problems” with the local Muslim community, any EU plan to relocate asylum seekers, including many Muslims, would destroy Hungary’s Christian identity and culture. In his attempt to quash admissions, Orbán signaled that his party may split with Europe’s main conservative group and join an anti-immigrant, nationalist bloc in the EU Parliament led by Italy’s Matteo Salvini. Finally, Hungary’s latest anti-immigrant law criminalizes assistance to unauthorized migrants by civil-society organizations and good Samaritans.

    These anti-immigrant sentiments are relatively new. Given Hungary’s geopolitical location, immigration and emigration have been a reality since the birth of the country. At times, Hungary has been quite a multicultural society: for example, during the Habsburg Empire, Hungarians coexisted with Germans, Slavs, Italians, Romanians, and Jews originating in Germany, Poland, and Russia. Later, in the aftermath of World War II, significant population movements greatly modified the ethnic map of Eastern and Central Europe, and many ethnic Hungarians ended up in neighboring countries, some of whom would return later.

    Yet, it is strange to write about multicultural Hungary in 2019. Despite population movements in the postwar and communist eras and significant refugee arrivals during the Yugoslav wars in the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, the country has only recently been grappling with the arrival of migrants and asylum seekers from beyond Europe. Now several years out from the 2015-16 European migrant and refugee crisis, the Orbán administration continues to pursue policies to limit humanitarian and other arrivals from beyond Europe, while welcoming those of Hungarian ancestry. Hungarian civil society has attempted to provide reception services for newcomers, even as the number of asylum seekers and refugees has dwindled: just 671 asylum seekers and 68 refugees were present in Hungary in 2018, down from 177,135 and 146, respectively, in 2015.

    This article examines historical and contemporary migration in Hungary, from its multicultural past to recent attempts to criminalize migration and activities of those who aim to help migrants and asylum seekers.

    Immigrants and Their Reception in Historic Hungary

    In the 11th century, the Carpathian Basin saw both organized settlement of certain peoples and a roaming population, which was in reaction to certain institutional changes in the medieval Hungarian kingdom. Historians note that newcomers came to historic Hungary searching for a better life: first across the entire Carpathian Basin and later in the Danube Valley. In the 12th century, Hungarian King Géza II invited Saxons to settle in Transylvania and later, when the Teutonic Knights were expelled from Burzenland (in modern-day Romania), they were welcomed in Brasov. The aftermath of the Tartar invasion in 1241 was followed by settlement of immigrants from Slovakia, Poland, and Russia. Ethnic minority groups fleeing Bulgaria settled between the Duna and Tisza rivers, while Romanians found new homes in Transylvania. King Bela IV erected new cities populated predominantly by German, Italian, and Jewish immigrants hailing from Central Europe and Germany.

    The 15th century saw a large settlement of Southern Slavs. The desertification of Transdanubia (the part of Hungary west of the Danube River) was remedied with a settlement of Croats and large groups of Serbians. When the medieval Kingdom of Hungary fell to the Ottoman Empire in 1526, some of the Southern Slavs moved to the parts under the Ottoman occupation voluntarily, while those who participated in the conquest were dispatched by the Ottoman rulers. At the same time, large number of ethnic Hungarians fled north and settled in the area of contemporary Slovakia.

    The next large group, of Germans, arrived in the 18th century during the Habsburg dynasty. The German settlement was part of the Habsburg population policy aimed at filling the void left by the Hungarians who perished during Ottoman rule, especially in the southern territories, around Baranya County and the Banat region. Germans also settled in Pest, Vecees, Buda, Esztergom, and the Pilis Mountains. By 1790, an estimated 70,000 ethnic Germans lived in Southern Hungary.

    While German immigrants were largely welcomed in 18th century Hungary, the same cannot be said about Romanians. During the reign of Empress Maria Theresa, Hungarian nobility voiced serious concerns about the rapid increase of the Romanian population. The nobles thought Romanians would ruin Transylvania.

    The Habsburg administration did not want to repeat the mistakes of the Ottomans and decided to control population movement along the Serbian border. A census conducted in the 13 villages of the Tisza region and 24 villages along the Maros river identified 8,000 border guards on duty. Despite these precautions, large-scale emigration from Serbia continued during the Habsburg era, with approximately 4,000 people crossing over to Hungary.

    Jews were the largest immigrant group in Hungary in the 19th century. Some came from the western territories of the Habsburg Empire—Germany, Bohemia, and Moravia—while others fled persecution in Russia. The arrival of Jews to the Hungarian territory was viewed favorably by Emperor Franz Josef I and Hungarian liberal politicians. Well-heeled Jewish families acquired noble status and rose in the aristocratic ranks, and many became patrons of the arts. At the beginning of World War I, an estimated 1 million Jews lived within the boundaries of what is present-day Hungary. However, the early appreciation of the contributions of the Jewish people did not last. Anti-Semitic sentiments flared up, culminating in the notorious Tiszaeszlár affair, in which Jews were accused of kidnapping and murdering Christian children in order to use their blood as part of religious rituals. Later, the violent repression known as the White Terror (1919-21) victimized many Jews, who were blamed by the right-wing camp for the severe sanctions placed on Hungary under the Treaty of Trianon in the aftermath of World War I.

    Refugees During and After World War II

    During World War II, Hungary was well disposed towards refugees, especially from Poland. Prime Minister Pál Teleki gave refugee status to some 70,000 Polish soldiers and nearly 40,000 civilians when Hitler invaded Poland. Ninety-one refugee camps for military personnel and 88 camps for civilians were established. A joint effort by Hungarian and international aid organizations and the Red Cross resulted in the establishment of the Committee for Hungarian-Polish Refugee Affairs. As the war escalated, most Polish officers and soldiers departed Hungary to join the Polish Home Army fighting Germany alongside Britain and France. In late 1940, a group of French refugees arrived in Hungary. By 1942, there were 600 French refugees in the country.

    The immediate post-WWII period—with its ensuing peace treaties, evictions, and forced settlements—resulted in considerable population movements, significantly modifying the ethnic map in Eastern and Central Europe. Some 200,000 ethnic Germans were evicted from Hungary, and 73,000 Slovaks left as part of what was described as a “population exchange.” Judit Juhász estimated that in the three years following the end of the war more than 100,000 people left Hungary. At the same time, 113,000 ethnic Hungarians were resettled in Hungary from Czechoslovakia, 125,000 from Transylvania, 45,500 from Yugoslavia, and 25,000 from the Soviet Union. Technically, ethnic Hungarians coming to Hungary were not considered migrants, but rather returning citizens.

    When the communist regime took over in 1947, the borders were closed and the government prohibited migration. Illegal departure from the country and failure to return from abroad became a crime. The borders opened briefly in 1956 when nearly 200,000 people fled Hungary during the uprising against the communist government. Most went to nearby Austria, but 38,000—mainly students and scientists—were airlifted to the United States, in a mobilization sponsored by the U.S. government and National Academy of Sciences. Their integration into American society was relatively easy due to their young age and high educational attainment. The Hungarian government tried to encourage the refugees to return by offering them amnesty, but only about 147 decided to return to Hungary from the United States.

    Migration in the Post-Socialist Period

    Although Hungary allowed some refugees to settle in its territory—Greeks after World War II, Chileans after the fall of the Allende government, and Kurds during the Iran-Iraq war—the country did not witness a large number of asylum seekers until the late 1980s, just months before the fall of communism in Hungary in 1989. Starting in mid-1987, ethnic Hungarians, discriminated by the Ceausescu regime, fled Romania to seek refuge in Hungary. By the beginning of 1988, some 40,000 Romanian citizens, primarily of Hungarian ancestry, arrived. By the fall of the same year, the number doubled, an exodus the author witnessed firsthand.

    For the most part, the central government left the responsibility for assisting refugees to private and municipal authorities. The Hungarian Red Cross opened a special information bureau in Budapest and mounted a national relief appeal called Help to Help. Twelve million forints (the equivalent of approximately US $250,000 at the time) were raised, including 1 million from foreign donations. Assistance programs were established in Budapest and in Debrecen, a town on the border with Romania, where most of the refugees came first. Local Red Cross chapters, municipal and county agencies, and local churches—especially the Hungarian Reformed Church—were also involved in the relief program. The assistance included cash grants, job placements, and Hungarian language training for ethnic Romanians. Clothing, blankets, dishes, and utensils were also provided. When the author visited Debrecen in 1988, most refugees were kept in school dormitories as housing in socialist Hungary was scarce.

    At the time, there was no formal procedure to separate refugees from other migrants. Many of the service providers interviewed by the author indicated that ethnic Hungarians and Baptist Romanians were persecuted and therefore were bona fide refugees, while all others were fleeing because of deteriorating economic conditions. The majority fleeing Romania were skilled workers and professionals. Very few ethnic Hungarian peasants from Transylvania migrated to Hungary, and neither did the cultural leaders of the Hungarian community in Romania. Additionally, the sudden arrival of asylum seekers and migrants from Romania was followed by a considerable return of ethnic Hungarians and ethnic Romanians to Romania.

    Refugees from the Yugoslav Wars

    In the summer of 1991, war broke out on Hungary’s southern border between Croatia and Serbia. Hungarian border guards faced large groups of civilians fleeing the fighting. Most were from the Baranyi triangle, an area of Croatia near Vukovar. More than 400,000 refugees fled to countries outside the former Yugoslavia’s borders. Germany admitted the largest number, 200,000, followed by Hungary, with 60,000. However, by late 1994 the refugee population registered in Hungary had dwindled to fewer than 8,000 people. The situation changed in 1995. New ethnic cleansing and renewed combat in Bosnia sent more refugees to Hungary in the spring and summer of 1995, and the Hungarian government reopened a refugee camp that had been long closed.

    The total number of refugees registered in Hungary between 1988 and 1995 reached more than 130,000 people and transformed the country from a refugee-producing country to a refugee-receiving country. However, up until the 2015-16 European refugee and migrant crisis, 75 percent of immigrants and refugees who entered the country post-1988 were ethnic Hungarians. This phenomenon has significantly influenced the development of Hungarian refugee law and policy.

    Refugee and Asylum Law since 1989

    The 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees constitutes the foundation of Hungarian refugee law. Hungary became a party to the Refugee Convention in early 1989—the first East bloc country to do so—and it also ratified the 1967 Protocol. Although its accession to the Refugee Convention signaled that Hungary was willing to accept the international definition of refugee, Hungary conditioned its ratification on a narrow definition of those who qualify as refugees, recognizing only those who fear persecution in Europe. According to Maryellen Fullerton, “known as the geographic reservation, this provision allows Hungary to limit its obligations under the Convention to a small (and totally European) subset of all the refugees in the world.”

    Refugees who came to Hungary in the late 1980s and in the 1990s entered a country “with an undeveloped refugee policy and a patchwork of legislation and government decrees concerning refugees and migrants,” according to Fullerton. Legal scholars indicate that the government’s attempt to establish a modern refugee system was affected by a powerful preference for protecting refugees of Hungarian ancestry. This preference has permeated both existing law and the administration of the refugee system, resulting in a de facto law of return. While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with wanting to protect fellow co-ethnics—many countries, including Israel, Germany, France, and Poland, among others, have similar laws—what seems objectionable is the desire to accomplish this goal by misusing the refugee process. Ethnic Hungarians who entered Hungary seeking refuge were not only channeled into the refugee system but were also eligible for Hungarian citizenship within one year, and all the rights that citizenship accords, while others who needed refuge were mainly provided temporary protection status. They received food, shelter, and other necessities, although in recent years these too are becoming scarce, but they lacked any substantial legal protection.

    Since joining the European Union in 2004, Hungary has broadly transposed the relevant EU asylum-related directives into national legislation. In June 2007, the Law on Asylum was adopted and the Office of Immigration and Nationality became responsible for asylum and statelessness determination procedures, the provision of reception services, and (very) limited integration services to asylum seekers and refugees, respectively. Three years later, in December 2010, amendments to the legislation relevant to asylum seekers and refugees were enacted. The maximum length of administrative detention from six to 12 months and the detention of up to 30 days of families with children were introduced. While the minimum standards of refugee protection were implemented—at least on paper in the early 2000s—xenophobic attitudes towards refugees, especially Muslims, are on the rise and the protection for asylum seekers and refugees is virtually nonexistent. At the same time, support for ethnic Hungarian refugees such as those from Venezuela, is flourishing.

    Weaponizing Xenophobia: No to Muslim Refugees

    During the 2015-16 European migrant and refugee crisis, the European Union asked Hungary to find homes for 1,294 refugees. Rather than accepting the EU decision, the Hungarian government spent approximately 28 million euros on a xenophobic anti-immigrant campaign. The government called on voters to defend Christian values and Hungarian national identity in order to stop Hungary from becoming a breeding ground for terrorism. The fear that Muslim women will bear many children and the local population will be outnumbered, somehow diluted or “discolored” by Muslims and multiculturalism was palpable in pro-government media. By the end of 2015, a total of 391,384 refugees and asylum seekers entered Hungary through its southern border, most intent on transiting the country to get elsewhere in Europe. This means that the government spent around 70 euros per refugee on a campaign of intolerance, in a country where the monthly welfare check is around the same amount. Undoubtedly this amount could have been used more effectively either to provide transitional assistance to refugees or to facilitate integration of asylum seekers who wanted to settle in Hungary. Attracting migrants to stay would been in line with Fidesz’s strategic goal to stop the long-declining Hungarian birth rate and the aging of the Hungarian society.

    Instead, Hungary decided to go a step further and in September 2015 amended its Criminal Code to make unauthorized crossing of the border closure (fence), damaging the border closure, and obstruction of the construction works related to the border closure punishable by three to ten years imprisonment. The Act on Criminal Proceedings was also amended with a new fast-track provision to bring the defendant to trial within 15 days after interrogation, or within eight days if caught in flagrante. With these new provisions, the Hungarian government declared a “state of crisis due to mass migration,” during which these criminal proceedings are conducted prior to all other cases. Between September 2015 and March 2016, 2,353 people were convicted of unauthorized border crossing. These people generally remained in immigration detention pending removal to Serbia, which Hungary deemed a safe country to which asylum seekers could return. HHC argued that Serbia could not be regarded as safe third country as it recognized virtually no asylum seekers. Applications for a stay of proceedings referring to the nonpenalization principle of the 1951 Convention were systematically dismissed on the grounds that “eligibility for international protection was not a relevant issue to criminal liability.” In order to gain the public’s support for criminalizing migration and rejecting the European Union’s request to admit a few hundred refugees, the Hungarian government organized a national referendum.

    The Referendum

    On October 2, 2016, the citizens of Hungary were asked a simple question: “Do you want the European Union to prescribe the mandatory settlement of non-Hungarian citizens in Hungary without the consent of the National Assembly?”

    Voter turnout was only 39 percent, far short of the 50 percent participation required to make the referendum valid under Hungarian law. Never one to let facts get in the way of politics, Orbán, whose eurosceptic Fidesz party has more support than all opposition parties combined, said in a televised speech:

    “The European Union’s proposal is to let the migrants in and distribute them in mandatory fashion among the Member States and for Brussels to decide about this distribution. Hungarians today considered this proposal and they rejected it. Hungarians decided that only we Hungarians can decide with whom we want to live. The question was ‘Brussels or Budapest’ and we decided this issue is exclusively the competence of Budapest.”

    Orbán decided that the 3.3 million Hungarians who voted “no” in the referendum spoke for all 10 million Hungarians. After his speech, there were fireworks over the Danube river in the colors of the Hungarian flag.

    In order to prevent the European Union from sending refugees to Hungary, Orbán proposed a constitutional amendment to reflect “the will of the people.” It was presented to the Parliament on October 10, 2016, but the bill was rejected by a narrow margin. The far-right Jobbik party, which contends that some of the new arrivals pose a national security threat, sealed the bill’s rejection by boycotting the vote. However, it held out a lifeline to Orbán by indicating that it would support the ban if Orbán scrapped a separate investor visa scheme under which foreigners could effectively buy the right to live in Hungary (and move freely within the Schengen area) in exchange for buying at least 300,000 euros in government bonds with a five-year maturity. Some 10,000 Chinese utilized this scheme, at this writing, to move to Hungary, as did smaller numbers of affluent investors from Russia and the Middle East.

    The Orbán government feared that the referendum alone would not deter potential asylum seekers from trying to enter Hungary. In order to ensure that the situation from the summer of 2015 would not be repeated, the government begun to further strengthen the borders and to close existing refugee camps.

    Border Hunters

    In 2016, the Hungarian police started recruiting 3,000 “border hunters” to join some 10,000 police and soldiers patrolling a 100-mile-long, four-meter-high, razor-wire-topped fence erected on Hungary’s southern borders with Serbia and Croatia to keep refugees out. The recruitment posts were scattered all over Budapest, including the Keleti railway station that became a de facto refugee camp for tens of thousands of people fleeing violence in the Middle East in 2015. Today, the thousands of police and border hunters deal with fewer than 200 refugees who reach Hungary’s southern border with Serbia every day.

    The border hunters must have a high school diploma and receive six months of training. They earn approximately HUF 200,000 (US $709) a month, and receive other perks: housing and clothing allowances, and discount on travel and cell phones. During a recruiting fair in early October 2016, a pack of teenagers ogled a display of machine guns, batons, and riot gear. A glossy flier included a picture of patrols in 4x4s, advanced equipment to detect body heat, night-vision goggles, and migrant-sniffing dogs.

    At a swearing-in ceremony in Budapest for border hunters in spring 2017, Orbán said Hungary had to act to defend itself. The storm has not died, it has only subsided temporarily, he said. There are still millions waiting to set out on their journey in the hope of a better life (in Europe).

    Refugee Camp Closures

    Erecting fences and recruiting border hunters to keep refugees out is one strategy; closing existing refugee camps is another. Beginning in December 2016, Orbán moved to close most refugee camps. The camp in Bicske operated as a refugee facility for more than two decades. In the little museum established by refugees on the premises of the reception center one could see artifacts, coins, and paintings from many parts of the world: several countries in Africa, the Middle East, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, to name a few. However, in December 2016, the camp was shut down as part of the wave of closures. When the author visited the camp a few days before it closed, 75 individuals, hailing from Cuba, Nigeria, Cameroon, Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, lived there.

    At the time of the author’s visit, Bicske, which can house as many as 460 refugees, was operating well below capacity. The number of asylum applicants also decreased dramatically. According to HHC data, in October 2016, 1,198 refugees registered for asylum in Hungary compared with 5,812 in April 2016. As of October 2016, there were 529 asylum seekers staying in Hungarian refugee reception facilities: 318 at open reception centers such as Bicske and 211 in detention centers.

    The refugees who the author spoke with, including a couple from Nigeria and a young family from Cuba among others, were no terrorists. Jose and his family fled persecution in Cuba in hopes of reuniting with his elderly mother, who had received permission to stay in Budapest a couple of years earlier. Jose is a computer programmer and said he was confident that he would have no problem finding a job. In addition to his native Spanish, he speaks English, and was also learning Hungarian. The Nigerian couple fled northern Nigeria when Boko Haram killed several members of their family. They told the author mean no harm to anybody; all they want is to live in peace.

    When the camp in Bicske closed, the refugees were relocated to Kiskunhalas, a remote camp in southern Hungary, some 2 ½ hours by train from Budapest. The Bicske camp’s location offered its residents opportunities to access a variety of educational and recreational activities that helped them adjust to life in Hungary. Some refugees commuted to Budapest to attend classes at the Central European University (CEU) as well as language courses provided by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Bicske residents often attended events and met with Hungarian mentors from groups such as Artemisszió, a multicultural foundation, and MigSzol, a migrant advocacy group. Christian refugees were bused to an American church each Sunday morning. Moving the residents to Kiskunhalas has deprived them of these opportunities. The Hungarian government offers very few resources to refugees, both to those in reception facilities awaiting decisions on their cases and those who have received asylum, so it is clear that access to the civil-society organizations helping refugees prepare for their new lives is important.

    Magyar abszurd: Assistance to Venezuelan Refugees of Hungarian Ancestry

    While third-country nationals—asylum seekers or labor migrants—receive virtually no assistance from the government, ethnic Hungarians from faraway places such as Venezuela continue to enjoy a warm welcome as well as financial assistance and access to programs aimed at integrating them speedily.

    Recently, Hungary accepted 300 refugees from Venezuela. The Hungarian Charity Service of the Order of Malta led the resettlement effort. The refugees must prove some level of Hungarian ancestry in order to qualify for the resettlement scheme. About 5,000 Hungarians emigrated to Venezuela in the 20th century, mostly after World War II and in 1956.

    By Hungarian law, everyone who can prove Hungarian ancestry is entitled to citizenship. As Edit Frenyó, a Hungarian legal scholar, said, “Of course process is key, meaning political and administrative will are needed for successful naturalization.” According to media reports, the Venezuelan refugees are receiving free airfare, residency and work permits, temporary housing, job placement, and English and Hungarian language courses.

    Apparently, the refugees have been directed not to talk about their reception, perhaps in an effort to bolster the official narrative: an ethnonational story of homecoming, in which they are presented as Hungarians, not refugees or migrants. As Gergely Gulyás, Chancellor of the Republic of Hungary, declared, “We are talking about Hungarians; Hungarians are not considered migrants.” Frenyó posits that the Hungarian government must present the refugees as Hungarians seeking to come home to avert political backlash and to make sure the controversial immigration tax law is not levied on the Malta Order.

    Anti-Refugee Policy and the Role of Civil Society: Views on the Ground

    In contradiction to the government’s anti-refugee policies of recent years, civil-society organizations and civilians offered assistance to refugees who descended on the Keleti railway station in summer 2015. As Migration Aid volunteers recount, volunteers brought toys and sweets for the refugee children and turned the station into a playground during the afternoons. However, when Migration Aid volunteers started to use chalk to draw colorful pictures on the asphalt as a creative means to help children deal with their trauma, the Hungarian police reminded the volunteers that the children could be made liable for the “violation of public order.”

    In contrast to civil society’s engagement with children, the Hungarian government tried to undermine and limit public sympathy towards refugees. Hungarian state television employees were told not to broadcast images of refugee children. Ultimately, the task of visually capturing the everyday life of refugee families and their children, as the only means to bridge the distance between the refugees and the receiving societies, was left to volunteers and Facebook activists, such as the photo blog Budapest Seen. Budapest Seen captured activities at the train station, at the Slovenian and Serbian border, and elsewhere in the country, where both NGO workers and regular citizens were providing much needed water, food, sanitary napkins for women, diapers for babies, and medical assistance.

    Volunteers came in droves also in Debrecen, among them Aida el-Seaghi, half Yemeni and half Hungarian medical doctor, and Christina, a trained psychotherapist, and several dozen others who communicated and organized assistance to needy refugees through a private Facebook page, MigAid 2015.

    There were many other volunteer and civil-society groups, both in Budapest and Debrecen, who came to aid refugees in 2015. Among them, MigSzol, a group of students at the Central European University (CEU), Menedék (Hungarian Association for Migrants), established in January 1995 at the height of the Balkan wars, HHC, Adventist Development and Relief Agency, and several others.

    At the time of writing, many of these organizations are no longer operational as a result of the “Stop Soros” bill, passed in June 2018, which criminalizes assistance to irregular migrants, among other things. However, organizations such as the HHC continue to provide legal aid to migrants and refugees. Many volunteers who worked with refugees in 2015 continue their volunteer activities, but in the absence of refugees in Hungary focused their efforts on the Roma or the homeless. In interviews the author conducted in spring 2019, they expressed that they stand ready should another group of asylum seekers arrive in Hungary.

    Acknowledgments

    This article was prepared using funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program under grant agreement No. 770330.

    Sources

    Atkinson, Mary. 2015. How a Hungarian Train Station Became a Hub for Refugees. Middle East Eye, September 6, 2015. Available online.

    Bimbi, Robert. 2011. Magyar Heat Pumping Magyar Blood: The Dynamics of Immigrant Reception in Post-Socialist Hungary. Doctoral Dissertation. Dallas, Texas: Southern Methodist University.

    Bursten, Martin A. 1958. Escape from Fear. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press.

    Frank, Tibor. 2016. Migration in Hungarian History. Part I. Hungarian Review 7 (1). Available online.

    Fullerton, Maryellen. 1996. Hungary, Refugees, and the Law of Return. International Journal of Refugee Law 8 (4): 499-531.

    Goździak, Elżbieta M. 1989. From East to East: Refugees from Rumania in Hungary. Migration World 5: 7-9.

    Goździak, Elżbieta M. and Péter Márton. 2018. Where the Wild Things Are: Fear of Islam and the Anti-Refugee Rhetoric in Hungary and in Poland. Central and Eastern European Migration Review, 7 (2): 125-51. Available online.

    Gyollai, Daniel and Anthony Amatrudo. 2019. Controlling Irregular Migration: International Human Rights Standards and the Hungarian Legal Framework. European Journal of Criminology 16 (4): 432-51.

    Hungarian Central Statistical Office. 2019. Asylum Seekers in Hungary and Persons Granted International Protection Status (2000-18). Updated March 8, 2019. Available online.

    Juhász, Judit. 2003. Hungary: Transit Country Between East and West. Migration Information Source, November 1, 2003. Available online.

    Kamm, Henry. 1992. Yugoslav Refugee Crisis Europe’s Worst Since 40s. The New York Times, July 24, 1992. Available online.

    Komócsin, Sándor. 2019. Magyar abszurd: menekülteket segít a kormány, de titkolja (Hungarian Absurd: The Government is Helping Refugees, but They Are Hiding). Napi.hu February 21, 2019. Available online.

    Ministry of Human Resources and Department of Aid and Assistance. 2015. Tájékoztató a Pénzbeli és Természetbeni Szociális Ellátásokat Érintő, 2015. Március 1-Jétől Hatályos Változásokról (Information on Changes in Cash and In-kind Social Benefits, Effective March 1, 2015). Official notice, Ministry of Human Resources and Department of Aid and Assistance. Available online.

    Pastor, Peter. 2016. The American Reception and Settlement of Hungarian Refugees in 1956-57. Hungarian Cultural Studies 9: 196-205.

    Patai, Raphael. 1996. The Jews of Hungary: History, Culture, Psychology. Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University Press.

    Puskás, Julianna. 2000. Ties That Bind, Ties That Divide: 100 Years of Hungarian Experience in the United States. New York: Holmes and Meier.

    Simon, Zoltan. 2018. Hungary Should Repeal Immigration Tax, Rights Organizations Say. Bloomberg, December 14, 2018. Available online.

    Szakacs, Gergely. 2019. Hungary Accepts Hundreds of Refugees from Venezuela: Report. U.S. News & World Report. February 21, 2019. Available online.

    Than, Krisztina. 2018. Hungary Could Pass “Stop Soros” Law Within a Month After Re-Electing Viktor Orban’s Anti-Immigrant Government. The Independent, April 9, 2018. Available online.

    UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). 2016. Hungary as a Country of Asylum. Observations on Restrictive Legal Measures and Subsequent Practice Implemented between July 2015 and March 2016. UNHCR, Geneva, May 2016. Available online.

    Wallis, Emma. 2019. Starving in Hungary’s Transit Zones. InfoMigrants, April 23, 2019. Available online.

    Wikimedia Commons. 2009. Kingdom of Hungary, 1370-87. Accessed October 8, 2019. Available online.

    Zsoldos, Attila. 2015. Kóborlás az Árpád-kori Magyarországon (Roaming in Hungary in the Age of Árpád). In … in nostra lingua Hringe nominant. Tanulmányok Szentpéteri József 60. születésnapja tiszteletére, eds. Csilla Balogh, et al. Budapest: Kecskeméti Katona József Múzeum.

    https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/orban-reshapes-migration-policy-hungary

    #réfugiés #asile #migrations #Hongrie #xénophobie #anti-réfugiés #islamophobie #société_civile #solidarité #zones_de_transit #nourriture #camps_de_réfugiés #peur #histoire #milices #frontières #fermeture_des_frontières

    ping @isskein

  • Le #Trièves, terre d’accueil des réfugiés

    Le Trièves, c’est un joli coin de campagne niché entre l’Obiou et le Mont-Aiguille, à une cinquantaine de kilomètres au Sud de Grenoble. Depuis cinq ans, une centaine d’habitants se sont regroupés dans le #CART, le « #Collectif_d'Accueil_de_Réfugiés_du_Trièves ». A #Mens, #Chichilianne et #Monestier_de_Clermont, ils hébergent et accompagnent ceux qui se sont « exilés », qui ont du quitter leur pays pour échapper à la mort ou à la misère.


    https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/auvergne-rhone-alpes/isere/grenoble/trieves-terre-accueil-1734021.html
    #accueil #solidarité #asile #migrations #réfugiés #hébergement #campagne #rural #Isère #audio

    ping @karine4 @isskein

  • Max DUEZ - Et maintenant qu’ils sont là... on fait quoi ?

    Pardonnez-moi, monsieur le procureur, j’ai dû manquer une case. À vingt-cinq ans j’étais un bandit, je vendais de la drogue, j’ai payé pour cela, j’ai pris trois ans fermes et j’ai rendu ma dette à l’État. Et maintenant, devenu vieux, que je fais de l’humanitaire en aidant de pauvres gens épuisés qui ont soif, froid et faim... vous voulez me mettre en prison tout ça parce que je ferais partie d’une bande organisée ? Je ne saisis pas bien votre raisonnement, là... je vous le dis, j’ai dû louper une case. Arrêtez, vous vous fichez du monde. « Eux, les migrants, ils disent merci toutes les cinq minutes. Merci de quoi ? pense Pierre. C’est lui qui doit dire merci de ce rappel impérieux de la nécessité du partage. Eux, ils ont les yeux grands ouverts sur l’avenir, pupilles noires au centre de billes blanches. Ce sont eux qui sont propres et c’est lui qui a la gale, pas sur la peau du corps, mais sur la peau du coeur sans doute depuis toujours... » « Une famille nombreuse, c’est quelque chose. Il n’y a pas un avis comme aux époques patriarcales, il n’y a pas deux positions qui s’affrontent comme en politique au moment du choix présidentiel, il y a une foultitude d’avis qui vont, qui viennent, qui remettent tout en cause et qui font qu’on évolue. »


    https://www.editions-baudelaire.com/auteur/max-duez/et-maintenant-qu-ils-sont-la-on-fait-quoi
    #livre #Max_Duez #réfugiés #asile #migrations #frontière_sud-alpine #Hautes-Alpes #solidarité #accueil

    –------------

    Pour celleux qui ne le connaissent pas (encore), Max Duez est médecin... il habite #Briançon... et c’est une figure magnifique.

    Il apparaît dans le film Déplacer les montagnes.
    J’ai cité ces paroles qu’il a prononcées lors des Etats généraux de la migration (décembre 2017) dans le petit article que j’ai écrit pour la revue L’Alpe :

    Max Duez, chirurgien à l’hôpital de Briançon qui « a passé sa vie à réparer des corps cassés », prend à sa suite la parole : « Dans nos montagnes, le sauvetage ne se discute pas ». Faisant référence à Zola, il déploie un long « J’accuse ». « J’accuse l’État qui se tait lorsqu’on condamne un humaniste comme Cédric Herrou. J’accuse le ministère de l’Intérieur qui donne ses directives aux préfectures, au prétexte de délits qui n’en sont pas. J’accuse la police qui exécute ses ordres ; N’aggravons pas les choses, c’est assez difficile comme ça. »

    https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02289383/document

    ping @reka @isskein @karine4

  • Entretien avec Miguel Peralta, prisonnier anarchiste
    d’Eloxochitlán de Flores Magón, Oaxaca

    https://lavoiedujaguar.net/Entretien-avec-Miguel-Peralta-prisonnier-anarchiste-d-Eloxochitlan-d

    Histoire des luttes de son village, assemblée communautaire, infiltration des partis politiques, répression, solidarité internationale, liens entre mouvement libertaire et mouvement indigène... Dans cet entretien, Miguel Peralta revient sur cette histoire collective.

    Dans l’État d’Oaxaca, il y a approximativement plus de cinq cents municipalités, la majorité autochtones et qui sont réparties en huit régions. C’est très caractéristique d’Oaxaca cette question, parce que la majorité des gens parlent une langue autochtone, mais aussi parce que depuis très longtemps ces municipalités sont régies par un système qui s’appelle us et coutumes, plus de la moitié sont régies par ce système dont le nom a été modifié il y a tout juste quelques années de cela, il y a cinq ans, pour le remplacer par celui de système normatif interne, qui veut dire qu’on suppose que les municipalités ont leur propre autonomie dans laquelle elles se régissent par ce système, et où elles élisent leurs autorités, tant leurs autorités municipales que toutes les charges qui sont liées à cette organisation politique. Mais c’est de cette manière aussi que l’État a une forme d’ingérence à Oaxaca, parce que, au final, les municipalités sont régies par les us et coutumes, les élections se font par une assemblée et c’est en assemblée que sont pris les accords pour élire leurs autorités, mais quand elles élisent leur représentant ou leurs différents représentants, elles envoient leurs documents au bureau du « Système normatif interne » (...)

    #Mexique #Oaxaca #peuples_originaires #anarchisme #Flores_Magón #assemblée_communautaire #autonomie #territoire #communauté #répression #solidarité

  • Déclaration internationale de solidarité avec le Rojava

    https://lavoiedujaguar.net/Declaration-internationale-de-solidarite-avec-le-Rojava

    Face au retrait des troupes états-uniennes en Syrie, décidé par les présidents Donald Trump (États-Unis) et Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Turquie), et à l’invasion militaire contre le Rojava et les peuples libres de ce territoire que permet ce retrait, nous considérons urgent et nécessaire d’exprimer ce qui suit :

    1. La Commune du Rojava est au Moyen-Orient le premier projet politique, anticapitaliste fondé sur le confédéralisme démocratique, qui promeut une approche alternative de l’organisation sociale à partir de l’autonomie non étatiste, l’autodétermination, la démocratie directe et la lutte contre le patriarcat. L’autonomie du Rojava est l’utopie d’un monde possible, où l’interculturalité, la relation entre genres différente et juste, et le respect de la Terre mère se construisent de jour en jour. Le Rojava est la preuve que nous ne devons pas nous résigner face aux atrocités de notre époque. (...)

    #Rojava #Syrie #Turquie #Kurdes #solidarité_internationale

  • The Conversation | Contrairement aux idées reçues, l’accueil des réfugiés a suscité un élan citoyen en Europe
    https://asile.ch/2019/10/14/the-conversation

    Dans cet article, The Conversation, démontre que l’accueil des réfugiés a suscité un élan citoyen en Europe, et ce, contrairement aux idées reçues et que des actions collectives spontanées initiées par des volontaires non-politisés peuvent aboutir à des actions ayant un impact sur les structures politiques et les opinions publiques. Dans son ouvrage à paraitre, […]

  • A professor held her student’s baby while giving a 3-hour lecture so the mother could take notes - CNN
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/27/us/georgia-biology-professor-holds-baby-trnd/index.html

    A photo from that class is showing the world what kindness and compassion look like.

    Ramata Sissoko Cissé, an assistant professor of biology at Georgia Gwinnett College in the Atlanta suburb of Lawrenceville, told CNN that one of her students called her late the night before class to let Cissé know that her babysitter was sick. Due to that, the student would have to bring her baby to Cissé’s anatomy and physiology class the next day.

    #empathie #solidarité

  • La Chiesa italiana accoglie 58 profughi della Ocean Viking (a sue spese)

    Firmato un protocollo d’Intesa con il Viminale. Il ministro Lamorgese ringrazia il cardinale Gualtiero Bassetti, presidente della Cei. Tra gli sbarcati anche un bimbo di 10 giorni

    La Chiesa italiana accoglierà, a proprie spese, una sessantina di migranti (per l’esattezza 58) dei 182 sbarcati ieri a Messina dalla nave Ocean Viking. Questo pomeriggio è stato firmato un nuovo protocollo d’intesa tra il Viminale e la Conferenza episcopale italiana, finalizzato ad assicurare l’accoglienza di quanti non saranno ridistribuiti tra Francia, Germania, Portogallo, Irlanda e Lussemburgo. Per queste persone la Chiesa italiana ha risposto affermativamente alla richiesta del Ministero, impegnandosi a proprie spese a fornire ospitalità, accoglienza ed assistenza.

    Tra gli sbarcati ci sono anche 14 minori, tra i quali anche un neonato di 10 giorni con i suoi fratellini di 1 e 3 anni.

    Il ministro dell’Interno, Luciana Lamorgese, ha ringraziato la Cei nella persona del cardinale Gualtiero Bassetti per la disponibilità incontrata, che rinnova una forma di collaborazione già sperimentata nel recente passato e che ha permesso di venire incontro al dolore di tante persone in fuga da guerre, persecuzioni e situazioni di povertà estreme in taluni casi dovute anche ai cambiamenti climatici, come ad esempio in Afar.

    Intanto sono in via di completamento le procedure di identificazione dei 182 migranti sbarcati martedì dalla Ocean Viking nel porto di Messina. 124 migranti saranno ridistribuiti tra 5 Paesi europei. A Francia e Germania andranno 50 ciascuno, 20 al Portogallo, 2 all’Irlanda, 2 al Lussemburgo. Lo rende noto il Viminale. I restanti 58, come detto, saranno presi in carico dalle strutture della Conferenza Episcopale Italiana, senza oneri a carico dello Stato.

    E proprio oggi con un volo di linea da Beirut 64 rifugiati siriani, tra i quali diversi minori, sono arrivati questa mattina all’aeroporto di Fiumicino «in modo legale e sicuro» grazie ai corridoi umanitari promossi dalla Federazione delle Chiese Evangeliche in Italia, dalla Comunità di Sant’Egidio e dalla Tavola Valdese, in accordo con i ministeri dell’Interno e degli Esteri. Un primo gruppo di 27 profughi siriani provenienti dal Libano era arrivato ieri a Roma. Salgono così a 2.700 le persone accolte in Europa con un progetto della società civile totalmente autofinanziato, nato in Italia, ma poi adottato anche da altri Paesi. I nuovi arrivi accolti da associazioni, parrocchie, comunità e famiglie in diverse regioni italiane.

    https://www.avvenire.it/attualita/pagine/cei-accoglie-60-migranti-viking
    #accueil #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Eglise-refuge #solidarité #sauvetage #Méditerranée #Italie

    ajouté à cette méta-liste sur les villes-refuge :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/759145

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    #machine_à_expulsion

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

    ping @isskein @karine4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Merci beaucoup Monsieur le Président du Conseil, cher Giuseppe.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      The mechanism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Return as a priority

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

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

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

      Doublethink ahoy

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

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

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

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

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

      Beefing up the Libyan Coast Guard and aerial surveillance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • L’INFO. Une étude du #CNRS révèle les effets prodigieux du #bio sur les #abeilles | Courrier de l’Ouest
    https://www.courrierdelouest.fr/actualite/chize-une-etude-du-cnrs-revele-les-effets-prodigieux-du-bio-sur-les

    Ce cercle vertueux trouve ses racines dans les spécificités mêmes de l’agriculture bio synonyme de #biodiversité accrue. Le non-recours aux pesticides et une rotation davantage diversifiée, faisant la part belle aux prairies, haies et bosquets, « diminuent, ainsi, la mortalité des abeilles tout en augmentant les ressources florales disponibles ». Elles contrebalancent « l’absence de colza, ressource primordiale car présente dès avril mais très peu cultivée en bio », décrypte Vincent Bretagnolle.

    Attendus mais pas « forcément avec une telle ampleur », ces résultats sont fondamentaux pour le CEBC dont les travaux précédents avaient déjà conduit à l’interdiction des #néonicotinoïdes ou mis en lumière une augmentation moyenne de plus de 35 % des rendements de colza par la simple pollinisation des abeilles domestiques et sauvages. A la clef, un #gain « de 160 euros par hectare » (lire CO du 23 septembre 2018).

    « Tout le monde parle mais nous, on quantifie car on a besoin de chiffres pour faire bouger les lignes du monde réel, inciter à la prise de conscience des relations d’interdépendance entre les humains et les non-humains afin de créer de nouvelles #solidarités », appuie celui qui refuse l’étiquette « de lanceur d’alerte » tout en dessinant les contours d’une #agroécologie inéluctable. « Le message que je veux adresser aux ##agriculteurs, c’est de ne pas réfléchir pesticides, azote et sélections variétales mais abeilles. C’est un levier de croissance inégalable, sans doute le moins coûteux et qui profite aux bio comme aux conventionnels. C’est prodigieux. »

    Reste désormais à polliniser les esprits les plus réfractaires à l’évidence.

  • Wir alle sind #Bern

    Wir alle sind Bern ist eine Plattform, eine Bewegung, ein Netzwerk – Menschen, welche sich gemeinsam einsetzen für eine Solidarische Stadt Bern, in der Vielfalt und Migration als gesellschaftliche Realität anerkannt werden. Nicht die Herkunft, sondern der Lebensmittelpunkt und die gemeinsame Zukunft sollen im Zentrum stehen, wenn es darum geht, das Leben in der Stadt zu gestalten.

    Wir beziehen uns dabei auf «#Urban_Citizenship» oder «Stadtbürger*innenschaft»: Uns geht es um eine rechtliche, politische, soziale und kulturelle Teilhabe aller Bewohner*innen der Stadt. Die Gegenwart und Zukunft in Bern soll von allen Menschen, die hier leben, gleichberechtigt mitbestimmt und auf Augenhöhe mitgestaltet werden können – ohne Ausgrenzung und Diskriminierung.

    https://wirallesindbern.ch/about

    Manifeste (en français) :

    Pour une ville de Berne solidaire

    Nous nous engageons pour une ville de Berne solidaire, dans laquelle migration et diversité sont reconnues comme des réalités sociales et priment, non pas l’origine, mais le point d’attache et l’avenir commun.
    Pour tout.e.s celles.eux qui sont ici et celles.eux qui arrivent encore.

    Nous considérons que la décision d’une personne pour s’établir à Berne relève de son libre choix et prenons ce point de départ pour nos réflexions sur un vivre ensemble solidaire. La criminalisation du franchissement des frontières, ainsi que la distinction entre des groupes qui sont inclus et ceux qui sont exlus, sont des obstacles à ce but. Nous nous engageons pour une ville solidaire, qui fait activement abstraction du statut de séjour de ses habitant.e.s et qui s’oppose aux expulsions.

    Dépassement de la culture dominante et droit à la #participation pour tout.e.s

    En plus de la sécurité du #droit_de_séjour, une ville solidaire comprend selon nous un accès au #logement, un #travail et une #formation, ainsi que la garantie de tous les #droits_fondamentaux pour tout.e.s – indépendamment de tout statut de séjour. Nous revendiquons également la reconnaissance de la migration en tant que réalité sociale, ainsi que le démantèlement de la culture dominante existante, qui nous divise au moyen d’un racisme structurel entre « locaux » et « étrangers ». Les structures du pouvoir, qui empêchent les membres de notre société de vivre une vie autonome, se révèlent non seulement à travers le #racisme, mais également dans la #marginalisation par la #pauvreté et par la #discrimination genrée ou sexuelle. Afin de surpasser ces structures du #pouvoir, nous devons tout d’abord les rendre visible, afin de les remplacer finalement par une #participation_égalitaire pour tout.e.s.

    #Démocratisation de la #démocratie et un « Nous » solidaire

    Une participation égalitaire signifie en premier lieu qu’il n’existe pas de déséquilibre structurel du pouvoir entre les habitant.e.s de la ville. Cette égalité se réfère aux rapports interpersonnels et, ainsi, à quelque chose de commun. La nature de cette chose commune, à laquelle nous prenons tout.e.s. part, se traduit par un processus constant de négociation. Afin que cette dernière aboutisse, nous avons besoin d’une démocratisation de la démocratie afin de remplacer un modèle dépassé, dans lequel les privilégiés et les puissants décident du destin des exclu.e.s. Une démocratie égalitaire demande des espaces de rencontres, un #droit_de_vote pour tout.e.s les habitant.e.s de la ville et un réel droit de participation, au lieu de processus participatifs, qui se contentent de mettre en scène cette participation. De plus, nous devons concevoir la solidarité comme un « #Nous », qui va au-delà de notre propre famille, notre origine, notre classe, notre orientation sexuelle ou notre genre. Cette solidarité relève d’un « Nous » commun, qui défend la #liberté, l’#égalité et la #justice pour tout.e.s et qui ne s’arrête pas aux frontières de la ville, car : nous sommes tout.e.s Berne.

    https://wirallesindbern.ch/manifeste

    La question d’une #carte_citoyenne qu’ils appelle #city_card :
    https://wirallesindbern.ch/city-card

    #ville-refuge #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Suisse #solidarité #accueil #citoyenneté #citoyenneté_urbaine

    Ajouté à cette métaliste sur les #villes-refuge :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/759145#message801886

    ping @karine4 @isskein @cede

    • Et à #Zurich, projet de #Züri_city_card

      In unserer Stadt sollen alle in Sicherheit leben. Dafür braucht es eine städtische Identitätskarte für alle Zürcherinnen und Zürcher, ob mit oder ohne geregelten Aufenthaltsstatus.

      Stadtbürgerschaft für alle

      In Zürich leben geschätzte 14’000 Menschen ohne Aufenthaltsstatus, sogenannte Sans-Papiers. Sie gehören zu den Schutzlosesten unserer Gesellschaft, weil sie ihre Grundrechte nicht wahrnehmen können. Sans-Papiers können – wenn sie Opfer von Gewalt oder Ausbeutung werden – keine Anzeige erstatten, sie können sich nur unter dem Risiko einer Ausschaffung ärztlich behandeln lassen, keine Versicherung abschliessen, keinen Handyvertrag lösen, keine eigene Wohnung mieten und keine staatliche Hilfe annehmen. Sie leben im Schatten unserer Stadt.

      https://www.zuericitycard.ch