• Migrants: le règlement de Dublin va être supprimé

    La Commission européenne doit présenter le 23 septembre sa proposition de réforme de sa politique migratoire, très attendue et plusieurs fois repoussée.

    Cinq ans après le début de la crise migratoire, l’Union européenne veut changer de stratégie. La Commission européenne veut “abolir” le règlement de Dublin qui fracture les Etats-membres et qui confie la responsabilité du traitement des demandes d’asile au pays de première entrée des migrants dans l’UE, a annoncé ce mercredi 16 septembre la cheffe de l’exécutif européen Ursula von der Leyen dans son discours sur l’Etat de l’Union.

    La Commission doit présenter le 23 septembre sa proposition de réforme de la politique migratoire européenne, très attendue et plusieurs fois repoussée, alors que le débat sur le manque de solidarité entre pays Européens a été relancé par l’incendie du camp de Moria sur lîle grecque de Lesbos.

    “Au coeur (de la réforme) il y a un engagement pour un système plus européen”, a déclaré Ursula von der Leyen devant le Parlement européen. “Je peux annoncer que nous allons abolir le règlement de Dublin et le remplacer par un nouveau système européen de gouvernance de la migration”, a-t-elle poursuivi.
    Nouveau mécanisme de solidarité

    “Il y aura des structures communes pour l’asile et le retour. Et il y aura un nouveau mécanisme fort de solidarité”, a-t-elle dit, alors que les pays qui sont en première ligne d’arrivée des migrants (Grèce, Malte, Italie notamment) se plaignent de devoir faire face à une charge disproportionnée.

    La proposition de réforme de la Commission devra encore être acceptée par les Etats. Ce qui n’est pas gagné d’avance. Cinq ans après la crise migratoire de 2015, la question de l’accueil des migrants est un sujet qui reste source de profondes divisions en Europe, certains pays de l’Est refusant d’accueillir des demandeurs d’asile.

    Sous la pression, le système d’asile européen organisé par le règlement de Dublin a explosé après avoir pesé lourdement sur la Grèce ou l’Italie.

    Le nouveau plan pourrait notamment prévoir davantage de sélection des demandeurs d’asile aux frontières extérieures et un retour des déboutés dans leur pays assuré par Frontex. Egalement à l’étude pour les Etats volontaires : un mécanisme de relocalisation des migrants sauvés en Méditerranée, parfois contraints d’errer en mer pendant des semaines en attente d’un pays d’accueil.

    Ce plan ne résoudrait toutefois pas toutes les failles. Pour le patron de l’Office français de l’immigration et de l’intégration, Didier Leschi, “il ne peut pas y avoir de politique européenne commune sans critères communs pour accepter les demandes d’asile.”

    https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/entry/migrants-le-reglement-de-dublin-tres-controverse-va-etre-supprime_fr_

    #migrations #asile #réfugiés #Dublin #règlement_dublin #fin #fin_de_Dublin #suppression #pacte

    –---

    Documents officiels en lien avec le pacte:
    https://seenthis.net/messages/879881

    ping @reka @karine4 @_kg_ @isskein

    • Immigration : le règlement de Dublin, l’impossible #réforme ?

      En voulant abroger le règlement de Dublin, qui impose la responsabilité des demandeurs d’asile au premier pays d’entrée dans l’Union européenne, Bruxelles reconnaît des dysfonctionnements dans l’accueil des migrants. Mais les Vingt-Sept, plus que jamais divisés sur cette question, sont-ils prêts à une refonte du texte ? Éléments de réponses.

      Ursula Von der Leyen en a fait une des priorités de son mandat : réformer le règlement de Dublin, qui impose au premier pays de l’UE dans lequel le migrant est arrivé de traiter sa demande d’asile. « Je peux annoncer que nous allons [l’]abolir et le remplacer par un nouveau système européen de gouvernance de la migration », a déclaré la présidente de la Commission européenne mercredi 16 septembre, devant le Parlement.

      Les États dotés de frontières extérieures comme la Grèce, l’Italie ou Malte se sont réjouis de cette annonce. Ils s’estiment lésés par ce règlement en raison de leur situation géographique qui les place en première ligne.

      La présidente de la Commission européenne doit présenter, le 23 septembre, une nouvelle version de la politique migratoire, jusqu’ici maintes fois repoussée. « Il y aura des structures communes pour l’asile et le retour. Et il y aura un nouveau mécanisme fort de solidarité », a-t-elle poursuivi. Un terme fort à l’heure où l’incendie du camp de Moria sur l’île grecque de Lesbos, plus de 8 000 adultes et 4 000 enfants à la rue, a révélé le manque d’entraide entre pays européens.

      Pour mieux comprendre l’enjeu de cette nouvelle réforme européenne de la politique migratoire, France 24 décrypte le règlement de Dublin qui divise tant les Vingt-Sept, en particulier depuis la crise migratoire de 2015.

      Pourquoi le règlement de Dublin dysfonctionne ?

      Les failles ont toujours existé mais ont été révélées par la crise migratoire de 2015, estiment les experts de politique migratoire. Ce texte signé en 2013 et qu’on appelle « Dublin III » repose sur un accord entre les membres de l’Union européenne ainsi que la Suisse, l’Islande, la Norvège et le Liechtenstein. Il prévoit que l’examen de la demande d’asile d’un exilé incombe au premier pays d’entrée en Europe. Si un migrant passé par l’Italie arrive par exemple en France, les autorités françaises ne sont, en théorie, pas tenu d’enregistrer la demande du Dubliné.
      © Union européenne | Les pays signataires du règlement de Dublin.

      Face à l’afflux de réfugiés ces dernières années, les pays dotés de frontières extérieures, comme la Grèce et l’Italie, se sont estimés abandonnés par le reste de l’Europe. « La charge est trop importante pour ce bloc méditerranéen », estime Matthieu Tardis, chercheur au Centre migrations et citoyennetés de l’Ifri (Institut français des relations internationales). Le texte est pensé « comme un mécanisme de responsabilité des États et non de solidarité », estime-t-il.

      Sa mise en application est aussi difficile à mettre en place. La France et l’Allemagne, qui concentrent la majorité des demandes d’asile depuis le début des années 2000, peinent à renvoyer les Dublinés. Dans l’Hexagone, seulement 11,5 % ont été transférés dans le pays d’entrée. Outre-Rhin, le taux ne dépasse pas les 15 %. Conséquence : nombre d’entre eux restent « bloqués » dans les camps de migrants à Calais ou dans le nord de Paris.

      Le délai d’attente pour les demandeurs d’asile est aussi jugé trop long. Un réfugié passé par l’Italie, qui vient déposer une demande d’asile en France, peut attendre jusqu’à 18 mois avant d’avoir un retour. « Durant cette période, il se retrouve dans une situation d’incertitude très dommageable pour lui mais aussi pour l’Union européenne. C’est un système perdant-perdant », commente Matthieu Tardis.

      Ce règlement n’est pas adapté aux demandeurs d’asile, surenchérit-on à la Cimade (Comité inter-mouvements auprès des évacués). Dans un rapport, l’organisation qualifie ce système de « machine infernale de l’asile européen ». « Il ne tient pas compte des liens familiaux ni des langues parlées par les réfugiés », précise le responsable asile de l’association, Gérard Sadik.

      Sept ans après avoir vu le jour, le règlement s’est vu porter le coup de grâce par le confinement lié aux conditions sanitaires pour lutter contre le Covid-19. « Durant cette période, aucun transfert n’a eu lieu », assure-t-on à la Cimade.

      Le mécanisme de solidarité peut-il le remplacer ?

      « Il y aura un nouveau mécanisme fort de solidarité », a promis Ursula von der Leyen, sans donné plus de précision. Sur ce point, on sait déjà que les positions divergent, voire s’opposent, entre les Vingt-Sept.

      Le bloc du nord-ouest (Allemagne, France, Autriche, Benelux) reste ancré sur le principe actuel de responsabilité, mais accepte de l’accompagner d’un mécanisme de solidarité. Sur quels critères se base la répartition du nombre de demandeurs d’asile ? Comment les sélectionner ? Aucune décision n’est encore actée. « Ils sont prêts à des compromis car ils veulent montrer que l’Union européenne peut avancer et agir sur la question migratoire », assure Matthieu Tardis.

      En revanche, le groupe dit de Visegrad (Hongrie, Pologne, République tchèque, Slovaquie), peu enclin à l’accueil, rejette catégoriquement tout principe de solidarité. « Ils se disent prêts à envoyer des moyens financiers, du personnel pour le contrôle aux frontières mais refusent de recevoir les demandeurs d’asile », détaille le chercheur de l’Ifri.

      Quant au bloc Méditerranée (Grèce, Italie, Malte , Chypre, Espagne), des questions subsistent sur la proposition du bloc nord-ouest : le mécanisme de solidarité sera-t-il activé de façon permanente ou exceptionnelle ? Quelles populations sont éligibles au droit d’asile ? Et qui est responsable du retour ? « Depuis le retrait de la Ligue du Nord de la coalition dans le gouvernement italien, le dialogue est à nouveau possible », avance Matthieu Tardis.

      Un accord semble toutefois indispensable pour montrer que l’Union européenne n’est pas totalement en faillite sur ce dossier. « Mais le bloc de Visegrad n’a pas forcément en tête cet enjeu », nuance-t-il. Seule la situation sanitaire liée au Covid-19, qui place les pays de l’Est dans une situation économique fragile, pourrait faire évoluer leur position, note le chercheur.

      Et le mécanisme par répartition ?

      Le mécanisme par répartition, dans les tuyaux depuis 2016, revient régulièrement sur la table des négociations. Son principe : la capacité d’accueil du pays dépend de ses poids démographique et économique. Elle serait de 30 % pour l’Allemagne, contre un tiers des demandes aujourd’hui, et 20 % pour la France, qui en recense 18 %. « Ce serait une option gagnante pour ces deux pays, mais pas pour le bloc du Visegrad qui s’y oppose », décrypte Gérard Sadik, le responsable asile de la Cimade.

      Cette doctrine reposerait sur un système informatisé, qui recenserait dans une seule base toutes les données des demandeurs d’asile. Mais l’usage de l’intelligence artificielle au profit de la procédure administrative ne présente pas que des avantages, aux yeux de la Cimade : « L’algorithme ne sera pas en mesure de tenir compte des liens familiaux des demandeurs d’asile », juge Gérard Sadik.

      Quelles chances pour une refonte ?

      L’Union européenne a déjà tenté plusieurs fois de réformer ce serpent de mer. Un texte dit « Dublin IV » était déjà dans les tuyaux depuis 2016, en proposant par exemple que la responsabilité du premier État d’accueil soit définitive, mais il a été enterré face aux dissensions internes.

      Reste à savoir quel est le contenu exact de la nouvelle version qui sera présentée le 23 septembre par Ursula Van der Leyen. À la Cimade, on craint un durcissement de la politique migratoire, et notamment un renforcement du contrôle aux frontières.

      Quoi qu’il en soit, les négociations s’annoncent « compliquées et difficiles » car « les intérêts des pays membres ne sont pas les mêmes », a rappelé le ministre grec adjoint des Migrations, Giorgos Koumoutsakos, jeudi 17 septembre. Et surtout, la nouvelle mouture devra obtenir l’accord du Parlement, mais aussi celui des États. La refonte est encore loin.

      https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/27376/immigration-le-reglement-de-dublin-l-impossible-reforme

      #gouvernance #Ursula_Von_der_Leyen #mécanisme_de_solidarité #responsabilité #groupe_de_Visegrad #solidarité #répartition #mécanisme_par_répartition #capacité_d'accueil #intelligence_artificielle #algorithme #Dublin_IV

    • Germany’s #Seehofer cautiously optimistic on EU asylum reform

      For the first time during the German Presidency, EU interior ministers exchanged views on reforms of the EU asylum system. German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer (CSU) expressed “justified confidence” that a deal can be found. EURACTIV Germany reports.

      The focus of Tuesday’s (7 July) informal video conference of interior ministers was on the expansion of police cooperation and sea rescue, which, according to Seehofer, is one of the “Big Four” topics of the German Council Presidency, integrated into a reform of the #Common_European_Asylum_System (#CEAS).

      Following the meeting, the EU Commissioner for Home Affairs, Ylva Johansson, spoke of an “excellent start to the Presidency,” and Seehofer also praised the “constructive discussions.” In the field of asylum policy, she said that it had become clear that all member states were “highly interested in positive solutions.”

      The interior ministers were unanimous in their desire to further strengthen police cooperation and expand both the mandates and the financial resources of Europol and Frontex.

      Regarding the question of the distribution of refugees, Seehofer said that he had “heard statements that [he] had not heard in years prior.” He said that almost all member states were “prepared to show solidarity in different ways.”

      While about a dozen member states would like to participate in the distribution of those rescued from distress at the EU’s external borders in the event of a “disproportionate burden” on the states, other states signalled that they wanted to make control vessels, financial means or personnel available to prevent smuggling activities and stem migration across the Mediterranean.

      Seehofer’s final act

      It will probably be Seehofer’s last attempt to initiate CEAS reform. He announced in May that he would withdraw completely from politics after the end of the legislative period in autumn 2021.

      Now it seems that he considers CEAS reform as his last great mission, Seehofer said that he intends to address the migration issue from late summer onwards “with all I have at my disposal.” adding that Tuesday’s (7 July) talks had “once again kindled a real fire” in him. To this end, he plans to leave the official business of the Interior Ministry “in day-to-day matters” largely to the State Secretaries.

      Seehofer’s shift of priorities to the European stage comes at a time when he is being sharply criticised in Germany.

      While his initial handling of a controversial newspaper column about the police published in Berlin’s tageszeitung prompted criticism, Seehofer now faces accusations of concealing structural racism in the police. Seehofer had announced over the weekend that, contrary to the recommendation of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), he would not commission a study on racial profiling in the police force after all.

      Seehofer: “One step is not enough”

      In recent months, Seehofer has made several attempts to set up a distribution mechanism for rescued persons in distress. On several occasions he accused the Commission of letting member states down by not solving the asylum question.

      “I have the ambition to make a great leap. One step would be too little in our presidency,” said Seehofer during Tuesday’s press conference. However, much depends on when the Commission will present its long-awaited migration pact, as its proposals are intended to serve as a basis for negotiations on CEAS reform.

      As Johansson said on Tuesday, this is planned for September. Seehofer thus only has just under four months to get the first Council conclusions through. “There will not be enough time for legislation,” he said.

      Until a permanent solution is found, ad hoc solutions will continue. A “sustainable solution” should include better cooperation with the countries of origin and transit, as the member states agreed on Tuesday.

      To this end, “agreements on the repatriation of refugees” are now to be reached with North African countries. A first step towards this will be taken next Monday (13 July), at a joint conference with North African leaders.

      https://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/germany-eyes-breakthrough-in-eu-migration-dispute-this-year

      #Europol #Frontex

    • Relocation, solidarity mandatory for EU migration policy: #Johansson

      In an interview with ANSA and other European media outlets, EU Commissioner for Home Affairs #Ylva_Johansson explained the new migration and asylum pact due to be unveiled on September 23, stressing that nobody will find ideal solutions but rather a well-balanced compromise that will ’’improve the situation’’.

      European Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson has explained in an interview with a group of European journalists, including ANSA, a new pact on asylum and migration to be presented on September 23. She touched on rules for countries of first entry, a new mechanism of mandatory solidarity, fast repatriations and refugee relocation.

      The Swedish commissioner said that no one will find ideal solutions in the European Commission’s new asylum and migration proposal but rather a good compromise that “will improve the situation”.

      She said the debate to change the asylum regulation known as Dublin needs to be played down in order to find an agreement. Johansson said an earlier 2016 reform plan would be withdrawn as it ’’caused the majority’’ of conflicts among countries.

      A new proposal that will replace the current one and amend the existing Dublin regulation will be presented, she explained.

      The current regulation will not be completely abolished but rules regarding frontline countries will change. Under the new proposal, migrants can still be sent back to the country responsible for their asylum request, explained the commissioner, adding that amendments will be made but the country of first entry will ’’remain important’’.

      ’’Voluntary solidarity is not enough," there has to be a “mandatory solidarity mechanism,” Johansson noted.

      Countries will need to help according to their size and possibilities. A member state needs to show solidarity ’’in accordance with the capacity and size’’ of its economy. There will be no easy way out with the possibility of ’’just sending some blankets’’ - efforts must be proportional to the size and capabilities of member states, she said.
      Relocations are a divisive theme

      Relocations will be made in a way that ’’can be possible to accept for all member states’’, the commissioner explained. The issue of mandatory quotas is extremely divisive, she went on to say. ’’The sentence of the European Court of Justice has established that they can be made’’.

      However, the theme is extremely divisive. Many of those who arrive in Europe are not eligible for international protection and must be repatriated, she said, wondering if it is a good idea to relocate those who need to be repatriated.

      “We are looking for a way to bring the necessary aid to countries under pressure.”

      “Relocation is an important part, but also” it must be done “in a way that can be possible to accept for all member states,” she noted.

      Moreover, Johansson said the system will not be too rigid as the union should prepare for different scenarios.
      Faster repatriations

      Repatriations will be a key part of the plan, with faster bureaucratic procedures, she said. The 2016 reform proposal was made following the 2015 migration crisis, when two million people, 90% of whom were refugees, reached the EU irregularly. For this reason, the plan focused on relocations, she explained.

      Now the situation is completely different: last year 2.4 million stay permits were issued, the majority for reasons connected to family, work or education. Just 140,000 people migrated irregularly and only one-third were refugees while two-thirds will need to be repatriated.

      For this reason, stressed the commissioner, the new plan will focus on repatriation. Faster procedures are necessary, she noted. When people stay in a country for years it is very hard to organize repatriations, especially voluntary ones. So the objective is for a negative asylum decision “to come together with a return decision.”

      Also, the permanence in hosting centers should be of short duration. Speaking about a fire at the Moria camp on the Greek island of Lesbos where more than 12,000 asylum seekers have been stranded for years, the commissioner said the situation was the ’’result of lack of European policy on asylum and migration."

      “We shall have no more Morias’’, she noted, calling for well-managed hosting centers along with limits to permanence.

      A win-win collaboration will instead be planned with third countries, she said. ’’The external aspect is very important. We have to work on good partnerships with third countries, supporting them and finding win-win solutions for readmissions and for the fight against traffickers. We have to develop legal pathways to come to the EU, in particular with resettlements, a policy that needs to be strengthened.”

      The commissioner then rejected the idea of opening hosting centers in third countries, an idea for example proposed by Denmark.

      “It is not the direction I intend to take. We will not export the right to asylum.”

      The commissioner said she was very concerned by reports of refoulements. Her objective, she concluded, is to “include in the pact a monitoring mechanism. The right to asylum must be defended.”

      https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/27447/relocation-solidarity-mandatory-for-eu-migration-policy-johansson

      #relocalisation #solidarité_obligatoire #solidarité_volontaire #pays_de_première_entrée #renvois #expulsions #réinstallations #voies_légales

    • Droit d’asile : Bruxelles rate son « #pacte »

      La Commission européenne, assurant vouloir « abolir » le règlement de Dublin et son principe du premier pays d’entrée, doit présenter ce mercredi un « pacte sur l’immigration et l’asile ». Qui ne bouleverserait rien.

      C’est une belle victoire pour Viktor Orbán, le Premier ministre hongrois, et ses partenaires d’Europe centrale et orientale aussi peu enclins que lui à accueillir des étrangers sur leur sol. La Commission européenne renonce définitivement à leur imposer d’accueillir des demandeurs d’asile en cas d’afflux dans un pays de la « ligne de front » (Grèce, Italie, Malte, Espagne). Certes, le volumineux paquet de textes qu’elle propose ce mercredi (10 projets de règlements et trois recommandations, soit plusieurs centaines de pages), pompeusement baptisé « pacte sur l’immigration et l’asile », prévoit qu’ils devront, par « solidarité », assurer les refoulements vers les pays d’origine des déboutés du droit d’asile, mais cela ne devrait pas les gêner outre mesure. Car, sur le fond, la Commission prend acte de la volonté des Vingt-Sept de transformer l’Europe en forteresse.
      Sale boulot

      La crise de 2015 les a durablement traumatisés. A l’époque, la Turquie, par lassitude d’accueillir sur son sol plusieurs millions de réfugiés syriens et des centaines de milliers de migrants économiques dans l’indifférence de la communauté internationale, ouvre ses frontières. La Grèce est vite submergée et plusieurs centaines de milliers de personnes traversent les Balkans afin de trouver refuge, notamment en Allemagne et en Suède, parmi les pays les plus généreux en matière d’asile.

      Passé les premiers moments de panique, les Européens réagissent de plusieurs manières. La Hongrie fait le sale boulot en fermant brutalement sa frontière. L’Allemagne, elle, accepte d’accueillir un million de demandeurs d’asile, mais négocie avec Ankara un accord pour qu’il referme ses frontières, accord ensuite endossé par l’UE qui lui verse en échange 6 milliards d’euros destinés aux camps de réfugiés. Enfin, l’Union adopte un règlement destiné à relocaliser sur une base obligatoire une partie des migrants dans les autres pays européens afin qu’ils instruisent les demandes d’asile, dans le but de soulager la Grèce et l’Italie, pays de premier accueil. Ce dernier volet est un échec, les pays d’Europe de l’Est, qui ont voté contre, refusent d’accueillir le moindre migrant, et leurs partenaires de l’Ouest ne font guère mieux : sur 160 000 personnes qui auraient dû être relocalisées, un objectif rapidement revu à 98 000, moins de 35 000 l’ont été à la fin 2017, date de la fin de ce dispositif.

      Depuis, l’Union a considérablement durci les contrôles, notamment en créant un corps de 10 000 gardes-frontières européens et en renforçant les moyens de Frontex, l’agence chargée de gérer ses frontières extérieures. En février-mars, la tentative d’Ankara de faire pression sur les Européens dans le conflit syrien en rouvrant partiellement ses frontières a fait long feu : la Grèce a employé les grands moyens, y compris violents, pour stopper ce flux sous les applaudissements de ses partenaires… Autant dire que l’ambiance n’est pas à l’ouverture des frontières et à l’accueil des persécutés.
      « Usine à gaz »

      Mais la crise migratoire de 2015 a laissé des « divisions nombreuses et profondes entre les Etats membres - certaines des cicatrices qu’elle a laissées sont toujours visibles aujourd’hui », comme l’a reconnu Ursula von der Leyen, la présidente de la Commission, dans son discours sur l’état de l’Union du 16 septembre. Afin de tourner la page, la Commission propose donc de laisser tomber la réforme de 2016 (dite de Dublin IV) prévoyant de pérenniser la relocalisation autoritaire des migrants, désormais jugée par une haute fonctionnaire de l’exécutif « totalement irréaliste ».

      Mais la réforme qu’elle propose, une véritable « usine à gaz », n’est qu’un « rapiéçage » de l’existant, comme l’explique Yves Pascouau, spécialiste de l’immigration et responsable des programmes européens de l’association Res Publica. Ainsi, alors que Von der Leyen a annoncé sa volonté « d’abolir » le règlement de Dublin III, il n’en est rien : le pays responsable du traitement d’une demande d’asile reste, par principe, comme c’est le cas depuis 1990, le pays de première entrée.

      S’il y a une crise, la Commission pourra déclencher un « mécanisme de solidarité » afin de soulager un pays de la ligne de front : dans ce cas, les Vingt-Sept devront accueillir un certain nombre de migrants (en fonction de leur richesse et de leur population), sauf s’ils préfèrent « parrainer un retour ». En clair, prendre en charge le refoulement des déboutés de l’asile (avec l’aide financière et logistique de l’Union) en sachant que ces personnes resteront à leur charge jusqu’à ce qu’ils y parviennent. Ça, c’est pour faire simple, car il y a plusieurs niveaux de crise, des exceptions, des sanctions, des délais et l’on en passe…

      Autre nouveauté : les demandes d’asile devront être traitées par principe à la frontière, dans des camps de rétention, pour les nationalités dont le taux de reconnaissance du statut de réfugié est inférieur à 20% dans l’Union, et ce, en moins de trois mois, avec refoulement à la clé en cas de refus. « Cette réforme pose un principe clair, explique un eurocrate. Personne ne sera obligé d’accueillir un étranger dont il ne veut pas. »

      Dans cet ensemble très sévère, une bonne nouvelle : les sauvetages en mer ne devraient plus être criminalisés. On peut craindre qu’une fois passés à la moulinette des Etats, qui doivent adopter ce paquet à la majorité qualifiée (55% des Etats représentant 65% de la population), il ne reste que les aspects les plus répressifs. On ne se refait pas.


      https://www.liberation.fr/planete/2020/09/22/droit-d-asile-bruxelles-rate-son-pacte_1800264

      –—

      Graphique ajouté au fil de discussion sur les statistiques de la #relocalisation :
      https://seenthis.net/messages/605713

    • Le pacte européen sur l’asile et les migrations ne tire aucune leçon de la « crise migratoire »

      Ce 23 septembre 2020, la nouvelle Commission européenne a présenté les grandes lignes d’orientation de sa politique migratoire à venir. Alors que cinq ans plutôt, en 2015, se déroulait la mal nommée « crise migratoire » aux frontières européennes, le nouveau Pacte Asile et Migration de l’UE ne tire aucune leçon du passé. Le nouveau pacte de l’Union Européenne nous propose inlassablement les mêmes recettes alors que les preuves de leur inefficacité, leur coût et des violences qu’elles procurent sont nombreuses et irréfutables. Le CNCD-11.11.11, son homologue néerlandophone et les membres du groupe de travail pour la justice migratoire appellent le parlement européen et le gouvernement belge à un changement de cap.

      Le nouveau Pacte repose sur des propositions législatives et des recommandations non contraignantes. Ses priorités sont claires mais pas neuves. Freiner les arrivées, limiter l’accueil par le « tri » des personnes et augmenter les retours. Cette stratégie pourtant maintes fois décriée par les ONG et le milieu académique a certes réussi à diminuer les arrivées en Europe, mais n’a offert aucune solution durable pour les personnes migrantes. Depuis les années 2000, l’externalisation de la gestion des questions migratoires a montré son inefficacité (situation humanitaires dans les hotspots, plus de 20.000 décès en Méditerranée depuis 2014 et processus d’encampement aux frontières de l’UE) et son coût exponentiel (coût élevé du contrôle, de la détention-expulsion et de l’aide au développement détournée). Elle a augmenté le taux de violences sur les routes de l’exil et a enfreint le droit international en toute impunité (non accès au droit d’asile notamment via les refoulements).

      "ll est important que tous les États membres développent des systèmes d’accueil de qualité et que l’UE s’oriente vers une protection plus unifiée"

      La proposition de mettre en place un mécanisme solidaire européen contraignant est à saluer, mais celui-ci doit être au service de l’accueil et non couplé au retour. La possibilité pour les États européens de choisir à la carte soit la relocalisation, le « parrainage » du retour des déboutés ou autre contribution financière n’est pas équitable. La répartition solidaire de l’accueil doit être permanente et ne pas être actionnée uniquement en cas « d’afflux massif » aux frontières d’un État membre comme le recommande la Commission. Il est important que tous les États membres développent des systèmes d’accueil de qualité et que l’UE s’oriente vers une protection plus unifiée. Le changement annoncé du Règlement de Dublin l’est juste de nom, car les premiers pays d’entrée resteront responsables des nouveaux arrivés.

      Le focus doit être mis sur les alternatives à la détention et non sur l’usage systématique de l’enfermement aux frontières, comme le veut la Commission. Le droit de demander l’asile et d’avoir accès à une procédure de qualité doit être accessible à tous et toutes et rester un droit individuel. Or, la proposition de la Commission de détenir (12 semaines maximum) en vue de screener (5 jours de tests divers et de recoupement de données via EURODAC) puis trier les personnes migrantes à la frontière en fonction du taux de reconnaissance de protection accordé en moyenne à leur pays d’origine (en dessous de 20%) ou de leur niveau de vulnérabilité est contraire à la Convention de Genève.

      "La priorité pour les personnes migrantes en situation irrégulière doit être la recherche de solutions durables (comme l’est la régularisation) plutôt que le retour forcé, à tous prix."

      La priorité pour les personnes migrantes en situation irrégulière doit être la recherche de solutions durables (comme l’est la régularisation) plutôt que le retour forcé, à tous prix, comme le préconise la Commission.

      La meilleure façon de lutter contre les violences sur les routes de l’exil reste la mise en place de plus de voies légales et sûres de migration (réinstallation, visas de travail, d’études, le regroupement familial…). Les ONG regrettent que la Commission reporte à 2021 les propositions sur la migration légale. Le pacte s’intéresse à juste titre à la criminalisation des ONG de sauvetage et des citoyens qui fournissent une aide humanitaire aux migrants. Toutefois, les propositions visant à y mettre fin sont insuffisantes. Les ONG se réjouissent de l’annonce par la Commission d’un mécanisme de surveillance des droits humains aux frontières extérieures. Au cours de l’année écoulée, on a signalé de plus en plus souvent des retours violents par la Croatie, la Grèce, Malte et Chypre. Toutefois, il n’est pas encore suffisamment clair si les propositions de la Commission peuvent effectivement traiter et sanctionner les refoulements.

      Au lendemain de l’incendie du hotspot à Moria, symbole par excellence de l’échec des politiques migratoires européennes, l’UE s’enfonce dans un déni total, meurtrier, en vue de concilier les divergences entre ses États membres. Les futures discussions autour du Pacte au sein du parlement UE et du Conseil UE seront cruciales. Les ONG membres du groupe de travail pour la justice migratoire appellent le Parlement européen et le gouvernement belge à promouvoir des ajustements fermes allant vers plus de justice migratoire.

      https://www.cncd.be/Le-pacte-europeen-sur-l-asile-et

    • The New Pact on Migration and Asylum. A Critical ‘First Look’ Analysis

      Where does it come from?

      The New Migration Pact was built on the ashes of the mandatory relocation scheme that the Commission tried to push in 2016. And the least that one can say, is that it shows! The whole migration plan has been decisively shaped by this initial failure. Though the Pact has some merits, the very fact that it takes as its starting point the radical demands made by the most nationalist governments in Europe leads to sacrificing migrants’ rights on the altar of a cohesive and integrated European migration policy.

      Back in 2016, the vigorous manoeuvring of the Commission to find a way out of the European asylum dead-end resulted in a bittersweet victory for the European institution. Though the Commission was able to find a qualified majority of member states willing to support a fair distribution of the asylum seekers among member states through a relocation scheme, this new regulation remained dead letter. Several eastern European states flatly refused to implement the plan, other member states seized this opportunity to defect on their obligations and the whole migration policy quickly unravelled. Since then, Europe is left with a dysfunctional Dublin agreement exacerbating the tensions between member states and 27 loosely connected national asylum regimes. On the latter point, at least, there is a consensus. Everyone agrees that the EU’s migration regime is broken and urgently needs to be fixed.

      Obviously, the Commission was not keen to go through a new round of political humiliation. Having been accused of “bureaucratic hubris” the first time around, the commissioners Schinas and Johansson decided not to repeat the same mistake. They toured the European capitals and listened to every side of the entrenched migration debate before drafting their Migration Pact. The intention is in the right place and it reflects the complexity of having to accommodate 27 distinct democratic debates in one single political space. Nevertheless, if one peers a bit more extensively through the content of the New Plan, it is complicated not to get the feelings that the Visegrad countries are currently the key players shaping the European migration and asylum policies. After all, their staunch opposition to a collective reception scheme sparked the political process and provided the starting point to the general discussion. As a result, it is no surprise that the New Pact tilts firmly towards an ever more restrictive approach to migration, beefs up the coercive powers of both member states and European agencies and raises many concerns with regards to the respect of the migrants’ fundamental rights.
      What is in this New Pact on Migration and Asylum?

      Does the Pact concede too much ground to the demands of the most xenophobic European governments? To answer that question, let us go back to the bizarre metaphor used by the commissioner Schinas. During his press conference, he insisted on comparing the New Pact on Migration and Asylum to a house built on solid foundations (i.e. the lengthy and inclusive consultation process) and made of 3 floors: first, some renewed partnerships with the sending and transit states, second, some more effective border procedures, and third, a revamped mandatory – but flexible ! – solidarity scheme. It is tempting to carry on with the metaphor and to say that this house may appear comfortable from the inside but that it remains tightly shut to anyone knocking on its door from the outside. For, a careful examination reveals that each of the three “floors” (policy packages, actually) lays the emphasis on a repressive approach to migration aimed at deterring would-be asylum seekers from attempting to reach the European shores.
      The “new partnerships” with sending and transit countries, a “change in paradigm”?

      Let us add that there is little that is actually “new” in this New Migration Pact. For instance, the first policy package, that is, the suggestion that the EU should renew its partnerships with sending and transit countries is, as a matter of fact, an old tune in the Brussels bubble. The Commission may boast that it marks a “change of paradigm”, one fails to see how this would be any different from the previous European diplomatic efforts. Since migration and asylum are increasingly considered as toxic topics (for, they would be the main factors behind the rise of nationalism and its corollary, Euroscepticism), the European Union is willing to externalize this issue, seemingly at all costs. The results, however, have been mixed in the past. To the Commission’s own admission, only a third of the migrants whose asylum claims have been rejected are effectively returned. Besides the facts that returns are costly, extremely coercive, and administratively complicated to organize, the main reason for this low rate of successful returns is that sending countries refuse to cooperate in the readmission procedures. Neighbouring countries have excellent reasons not to respond positively to the Union’s demands. For some, remittances sent by their diaspora are an economic lifeline. Others just do not want to appear complicit of repressive European practices on their domestic political scene. Furthermore, many African countries are growing discontent with the forceful way the European Union uses its asymmetrical relation of power in bilateral negotiations to dictate to those sovereign states the migration policies they should adopt, making for instance its development aid conditional on the implementation of stricter border controls. The Commission may rhetorically claim to foster “mutually beneficial” international relation with its neighbouring countries, the emphasis on the externalization of migration control in the EU’s diplomatic agenda nevertheless bears some of the hallmarks of neo-colonialism. As such, it is a source of deep resentment in sending and transit states. It would therefore be a grave mistake for the EU to overlook the fact that some short-term gains in terms of migration management may result in long-term losses with regards to Europe’s image across the world.

      Furthermore, considering the current political situation, one should not primarily be worried about the failed partnerships with neighbouring countries, it is rather the successful ones that ought to give us pause and raise concerns. For, based on the existing evidence, the EU will sign a deal with any state as long as it effectively restrains and contains migration flows towards the European shores. Being an authoritarian state with a documented history of human right violations (Turkey) or an embattled government fighting a civil war (Lybia) does not disqualify you as a partner of the European Union in its effort to manage migration flows. It is not only morally debatable for the EU to delegate its asylum responsibilities to unreliable third countries, it is also doubtful that an increase in diplomatic pressure on neighbouring countries will bring major political results. It will further damage the perception of the EU in neighbouring countries without bringing significant restriction to migration flows.
      Streamlining border procedures? Or eroding migrants’ rights?

      The second policy package is no more inviting. It tackles the issue of the migrants who, in spite of those partnerships and the hurdles thrown their way by sending and transit countries, would nevertheless reach Europe irregularly. On this issue, the Commission faced the daunting task of having to square a political circle, since it had to find some common ground in a debate bitterly divided between conflicting worldviews (roughly, between liberal and nationalist perspectives on the individual freedom of movement) and competing interests (between overburdened Mediterranean member states and Eastern member states adamant that asylum seekers would endanger their national cohesion). The Commission thus looked for the lowest common denominator in terms of migration management preferences amongst the distinct member states. The result is a two-tier border procedure aiming to fast-track and streamline the processing of asylum claims, allowing for more expeditious returns of irregular migrants. The goal is to prevent any bottleneck in the processing of the claims and to avoid the (currently near constant) overcrowding of reception facilities in the frontline states. Once again, there is little that is actually new in this proposal. It amounts to a generalization of the process currently in place in the infamous hotspots scattered on the Greek isles. According to the Pact, screening procedures would be carried out in reception centres created across Europe. A far cry from the slogan “no more Moria” since one may legitimately suspect that those reception centres will, at the first hiccup in the procedure, turn into tomorrow’s asylum camps.

      According to this procedure, newly arrived migrants would be submitted within 5 days to a pre-screening procedure and subsequently triaged into two categories. Migrants with a low chance of seeing their asylum claim recognized (because they would come from a country with a low recognition rate or a country belonging to the list of the safe third countries, for instance) would be redirected towards an accelerated procedure. The end goal would be to return them, if applicable, within twelve weeks. The other migrants would be subjected to the standard assessment of their asylum claim. It goes without saying that this proposal has been swiftly and unanimously condemned by all human rights organizations. It does not take a specialized lawyer to see that this two-tiered procedure could have devastating consequences for the “fast-tracked” asylum seekers left with no legal recourse against the initial decision to submit them to this sped up procedure (rather than the standard one) as well as reduced opportunities to defend their asylum claim or, if need be, to contest their return. No matter how often the Commission repeats that it will preserve all the legal safeguards required to protect migrants’ rights, it remains wildly unconvincing. Furthermore, the Pact may confuse speed and haste. The schedule is tight on paper (five days for the pre-screening, twelve weeks for the assessment of the asylum claim), it may well prove unrealistic to meet those deadlines in real-life conditions. The Commission also overlooks the fact that accelerated procedures tend to be sloppy, thus leading to juridical appeals and further legal wrangling and eventually amounting to processes far longer than expected.
      Integrating the returns, not the reception

      The Commission talked up the new Pact as being “balanced” and “humane”. Since the two first policy packages focus, first, on preventing would-be migrants from leaving their countries and, second, on facilitating and accelerating their returns, one would expect the third policy package to move away from the restriction of movement and to complement those measures with a reception plan tailored to the needs of refugees. And here comes the major disappointment with the New Pact and, perhaps, the clearest indication that the Pact is first and foremost designed to please the migration hardliners. It does include a solidarity scheme meant to alleviate the burden of frontline countries, to distribute more fairly the responsibilities amongst member states and to ensure that refugees are properly hosted. But this solidarity scheme is far from being robust enough to deliver on those promises. Let us unpack it briefly to understand why it is likely to fail. The solidarity scheme is mandatory. All member states will be under the obligation to take part. But there is a catch! Member states’ contribution to this collective effort can take many shapes and forms and it will be up to the member states to decide how they want to participate. They get to choose whether they want to relocate some refugees on their national soil, to provide some financial and/or logistical assistance, or to “sponsor” (it is the actual term used by the Commission) some returns.

      No one expected the Commission to reintroduce a compulsory relocation scheme in its Pact. Eastern European countries had drawn an obvious red line and it would have been either naïve or foolish to taunt them with that kind of policy proposal. But this so-called “flexible mandatory solidarity” relies on such a watered-down understanding of the solidarity principle that it results in a weak and misguided political instrument unsuited to solve the problem at hand. First, the flexible solidarity mechanism is too indeterminate to prove efficient. According to the current proposal, member states would have to shoulder a fair share of the reception burden (calculated on their respective population and GDP) but would be left to decide for themselves which form this contribution would take. The obvious flaw with the policy proposal is that, if all member states decline to relocate some refugees (which is a plausible scenario), Mediterranean states would still be left alone when it comes to dealing with the most immediate consequences of migration flows. They would receive much more financial, operational, and logistical support than it currently is the case – but they would be managing on their own the overcrowded reception centres. The Commission suggests that it would oversee the national pledges in terms of relocation and that it would impose some corrections if the collective pledges fall short of a predefined target. But it remains to be seen whether the Commission will have the political clout to impose some relocations to member states refusing them. One could not be blamed for being highly sceptical.

      Second, it is noteworthy that the Commission fails to integrate the reception of refugees since member states are de facto granted an opt-out on hosting refugees. What is integrated is rather the return policy, once more a repressive instrument. And it is the member states with the worst record in terms of migrants’ rights violations that are the most likely to be tasked with the delicate mission of returning them home. As a commentator was quipping on Twitter, it would be like asking a bully to walk his victim home (what could possibly go wrong?). The attempt to build an intra-European consensus is obviously pursued at the expense of the refugees. The incentive structure built into the flexible solidarity scheme offers an excellent illustration of this. If a member state declines to relocate any refugee and offers instead to ‘sponsor’ some returns, it has to honour that pledge within a limited period of time (the Pact suggests a six month timeframe). If it fails to do so, it becomes responsible for the relocation and the return of those migrants, leading to a situation in which some migrants may end up in a country where they do not want to be and that does not want them to be there. Hardly an optimal outcome…
      Conclusion

      The Pact represents a genuine attempt to design a multi-faceted and comprehensive migration policy, covering most aspects of a complex issue. The dysfunctions of the Schengen area and the question of the legal pathways to Europe have been relegated to a later discussion and one may wonder whether they should not have been included in the Pact to balance out its restrictive inclination. And, in all fairness, the Pact does throw a few bones to the more cosmopolitan-minded European citizens. For instance, it reminds the member states that maritime search and rescue operations are legal and should not be impeded, or it shortens (from five to three years) the waiting period for refugees to benefit from the freedom of movement. But those few welcome additions are vastly outweighed by the fact that migration hardliners dominated the agenda-setting in the early stage of the policy-making exercise and have thus been able to frame decisively the political discussion. The end result is a policy package leaning heavily towards some repressive instruments and particularly careless when it comes to safeguarding migrants’ rights.

      The New Pact was first drafted on the ashes of the mandatory relocation scheme. Back then, the Commission publicly made amends and revised its approach to the issue. Sadly, the New Pact was presented to the European public when the ashes of the Moria camp were still lukewarm. One can only hope that the member states will learn from that mistake too.

      https://blog.novamigra.eu/2020/09/24/the-new-pact-on-migration-and-asylum-a-critical-first-look-analysis

    • #Pacte_européen_sur_la_migration : un “nouveau départ” pour violer les droits humains

      La Commission européenne a publié aujourd’hui son « Nouveau Pacte sur l’Asile et la Migration » qui propose un nouveau cadre règlementaire et législatif. Avec ce plan, l’UE devient de facto un « leader du voyage retour » pour les migrant.e.s et les réfugié.e.s en Méditerranée. EuroMed Droits craint que ce pacte ne détériore encore davantage la situation actuelle pour au moins trois raisons.

      Le pacte se concentre de manière obsessionnelle sur la politique de retours à travers un système de « sponsoring » : des pays européens tels que l’Autriche, la Pologne, la Hongrie ou la République tchèque – qui refusent d’accueillir des réfugié.e.s – pourront « sponsoriser » et organiser la déportation vers les pays de départ de ces réfugié.e.s. Au lieu de favoriser l’intégration, le pacte adopte une politique de retour à tout prix, même lorsque les demandeurs.ses d’asile peuvent être victimes de discrimination, persécution ou torture dans leur pays de retour. A ce jour, il n’existe aucun mécanisme permettant de surveiller ce qui arrive aux migrant.e.s et réfugié.e.s une fois déporté.e.s.

      Le pacte proposé renforce la sous-traitance de la gestion des frontières. En termes concrets, l’UE renforce la coopération avec les pays non-européens afin qu’ils ferment leurs frontières et empêchent les personnes de partir. Cette coopération est sujette à l’imposition de conditions par l’UE. Une telle décision européenne se traduit par une hausse du nombre de refoulements dans la région méditerranéenne et une coopération renforcée avec des pays qui ont un piètre bilan en matière de droits humains et qui ne possèdent pas de cadre efficace pour la protection des droits des personnes migrantes et réfugiées.

      Le pacte vise enfin à étendre les mécanismes de tri des demandeurs.ses d’asile et des migrant.e.s dans les pays d’arrivée. Ce modèle de tri – similaire à celui utilisé dans les zones de transit aéroportuaires – accentue les difficultés de pays tels que l’Espagne, l’Italie, Malte, la Grèce ou Chypre qui accueillent déjà la majorité des migrant.e.s et réfugié.e.s. Placer ces personnes dans des camps revient à mettre en place un système illégal d’incarcération automatique dès l’arrivée. Cela accroîtra la violence psychologique à laquelle les migrant.e.s et réfugié.e.s sont déjà soumis. Selon ce nouveau système, ces personnes seront identifié.e.s sous cinq jours et toute demande d’asile devra être traitée en douze semaines. Cette accélération de la procédure risque d’intensifier la détention et de diviser les arrivant.e.s entre demandeurs.ses d’asile et migrant.e.s économiques. Cela s’effectuerait de manière discriminatoire, sans analyse détaillée de chaque demande d’asile ni possibilité réelle de faire appel. Celles et ceux qui seront éligibles à la protection internationale seront relocalisé.e.s au sein des États membres qui acceptent de les recevoir. Les autres risqueront d’être déportés immédiatement.

      « En choisissant de sous-traiter davantage encore la gestion des frontières et d’accentuer la politique de retours, ce nouveau pacte conclut la transformation de la politique européenne en une approche pleinement sécuritaire. Pire encore, le pacte assimile la politique de “retour sponsorisé” à une forme de solidarité. Au-delà des déclarations officielles, cela démontre la volonté de l’Union européenne de criminaliser et de déshumaniser les migrant.e.s et les réfugié.e.s », a déclaré Wadih Al-Asmar, Président d’EuroMed Droits.

      https://euromedrights.org/fr/publication/pacte-europeen-sur-la-migration-nouveau-depart-pour-violer-les-droits

    • Whose Pact? The Cognitive Dimensions of the New EU Pact on Migration and Asylum

      This Policy Insight examines the new Pact on Migration and Asylum in light of the principles and commitments enshrined in the United Nations Global Compact on Refugees (UN GCR) and the EU Treaties. It finds that from a legal viewpoint the ‘Pact’ is not really a Pact at all, if understood as an agreement concluded between relevant EU institutional parties. Rather, it is the European Commission’s policy guide for the duration of the current 9th legislature.

      The analysis shows that the Pact has intergovernmental aspects, in both name and fundamentals. It does not pursue a genuine Migration and Asylum Union. The Pact encourages an artificial need for consensus building or de facto unanimity among all EU member states’ governments in fields where the EU Treaties call for qualified majority voting (QMV) with the European Parliament as co-legislator. The Pact does not abolish the first irregular entry rule characterising the EU Dublin Regulation. It adopts a notion of interstate solidarity that leads to asymmetric responsibilities, where member states are given the flexibility to evade participating in the relocation of asylum seekers. The Pact also runs the risk of catapulting some contested member states practices’ and priorities about localisation, speed and de-territorialisation into EU policy.

      This Policy Insight argues that the Pact’s priority of setting up an independent monitoring mechanism of border procedures’ compliance with fundamental rights is a welcome step towards the better safeguarding of the rule of law. The EU inter-institutional negotiations on the Pact’s initiatives should be timely and robust in enforcing member states’ obligations under the current EU legal standards relating to asylum and borders, namely the prevention of detention and expedited expulsions, and the effective access by all individuals to dignified treatment and effective remedies. Trust and legitimacy of EU asylum and migration policy can only follow if international (human rights and refugee protection) commitments and EU Treaty principles are put first.

      https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/whose-pact

    • First analysis of the EU’s new asylum proposals

      This week the EU Commission published its new package of proposals on asylum and (non-EU) migration – consisting of proposals for legislation, some ‘soft law’, attempts to relaunch talks on stalled proposals and plans for future measures. The following is an explanation of the new proposals (not attempting to cover every detail) with some first thoughts. Overall, while it is possible that the new package will lead to agreement on revised asylum laws, this will come at the cost of risking reduced human rights standards.

      Background

      Since 1999, the EU has aimed to create a ‘Common European Asylum System’. A first phase of legislation was passed between 2003 and 2005, followed by a second phase between 2010 and 2013. Currently the legislation consists of: a) the Qualification Directive, which defines when people are entitled to refugee status (based on the UN Refugee Convention) or subsidiary protection status, and what rights they have; b) the Dublin III Regulation, which allocates responsibility for an asylum seeker between Member States; c) the Eurodac Regulation, which facilitates the Dublin system by setting up a database of fingerprints of asylum seekers and people who cross the external border without authorisation; d) the Asylum Procedures Directive, which sets out the procedural rules governing asylum applications, such as personal interviews and appeals; e) the Reception Conditions Directive, which sets out standards on the living conditions of asylum-seekers, such as rules on housing and welfare; and f) the Asylum Agency Regulation, which set up an EU agency (EASO) to support Member States’ processing of asylum applications.

      The EU also has legislation on other aspects of migration: (short-term) visas, border controls, irregular migration, and legal migration – much of which has connections with the asylum legislation, and all of which is covered by this week’s package. For visas, the main legislation is the visa list Regulation (setting out which non-EU countries’ citizens are subject to a short-term visa requirement, or exempt from it) and the visa code (defining the criteria to obtain a short-term Schengen visa, allowing travel between all Schengen states). The visa code was amended last year, as discussed here.

      For border controls, the main legislation is the Schengen Borders Code, setting out the rules on crossing external borders and the circumstances in which Schengen states can reinstate controls on internal borders, along with the Frontex Regulation, setting up an EU border agency to assist Member States. On the most recent version of the Frontex Regulation, see discussion here and here.

      For irregular migration, the main legislation is the Return Directive. The Commission proposed to amend it in 2018 – on which, see analysis here and here.

      For legal migration, the main legislation on admission of non-EU workers is the single permit Directive (setting out a common process and rights for workers, but not regulating admission); the Blue Card Directive (on highly paid migrants, discussed here); the seasonal workers’ Directive (discussed here); and the Directive on intra-corporate transferees (discussed here). The EU also has legislation on: non-EU students, researchers and trainees (overview here); non-EU family reunion (see summary of the legislation and case law here) and on long-term resident non-EU citizens (overview – in the context of UK citizens after Brexit – here). In 2016, the Commission proposed to revise the Blue Card Directive (see discussion here).

      The UK, Ireland and Denmark have opted out of most of these laws, except some asylum law applies to the UK and Ireland, and Denmark is covered by the Schengen and Dublin rules. So are the non-EU countries associated with Schengen and Dublin (Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein). There are also a number of further databases of non-EU citizens as well as Eurodac: the EU has never met a non-EU migrant who personal data it didn’t want to store and process.

      The Refugee ‘Crisis’

      The EU’s response to the perceived refugee ‘crisis’ was both short-term and long-term. In the short term, in 2015 the EU adopted temporary laws (discussed here) relocating some asylum seekers in principle from Italy and Greece to other Member States. A legal challenge to one of these laws failed (as discussed here), but in practice Member States accepted few relocations anyway. Earlier this year, the CJEU ruled that several Member States had breached their obligations under the laws (discussed here), but by then it was a moot point.

      Longer term, the Commission proposed overhauls of the law in 2016: a) a Qualification Regulation further harmonising the law on refugee and subsidiary protection status; b) a revised Dublin Regulation, which would have set up a system of relocation of asylum seekers for future crises; c) a revised Eurodac Regulation, to take much more data from asylum seekers and other migrants; d) an Asylum Procedures Regulation, further harmonising the procedural law on asylum applications; e) a revised Reception Conditions Directive; f) a revised Asylum Agency Regulation, giving the agency more powers; and g) a new Resettlement Regulation, setting out a framework of admitting refugees directly from non-EU countries. (See my comments on some of these proposals, from back in 2016)

      However, these proposals proved unsuccessful – which is the main reason for this week’s attempt to relaunch the process. In particular, an EU Council note from February 2019 summarises the diverse problems that befell each proposal. While the EU Council Presidency and the European Parliament reached agreement on the proposals on qualification, reception conditions and resettlement in June 2018, Member States refused to support the Presidency’s deal and the European Parliament refused to renegotiate (see, for instance, the Council documents on the proposals on qualification and resettlement; see also my comments on an earlier stage of the talks, when the Council had agreed its negotiation position on the qualification regulation).

      On the asylum agency, the EP and Council agreed on the revised law in 2017, but the Commission proposed an amendment in 2018 to give the agency more powers; the Council could not agree on this. On Eurodac, the EP and Council only partly agreed on a text. On the procedures Regulation, the Council largely agreed its position, except on border procedures; on Dublin there was never much prospect of agreement because of the controversy over relocating asylum seekers. (For either proposal, a difficult negotiation with the European Parliament lay ahead).

      In other areas too, the legislative process was difficult: the Council and EP gave up negotiating amendments to the Blue Card Directive (see the last attempt at a compromise here, and the Council negotiation mandate here), and the EP has not yet agreed a position on the Returns Directive (the Council has a negotiating position, but again it leaves out the difficult issue of border procedures; there is a draft EP position from February). Having said that, the EU has been able to agree legislation giving more powers to Frontex, as well as new laws on EU migration databases, in the last few years.

      The attempted relaunch

      The Commission’s new Pact on asylum and immigration (see also the roadmap on its implementation, the Q and As, and the staff working paper) does not restart the whole process from scratch. On qualification, reception conditions, resettlement, the asylum agency, the returns Directive and the Blue Card Directive, it invites the Council and Parliament to resume negotiations. But it tries to unblock the talks as a whole by tabling two amended legislative proposals and three new legislative proposals, focussing on the issues of border procedures and relocation of asylum seekers.

      Screening at the border

      This revised proposals start with a new proposal for screening asylum seekers at the border, which would apply to all non-EU citizens who cross an external border without authorisation, who apply for asylum while being checked at the border (without meeting the conditions for legal entry), or who are disembarked after a search and rescue operation. During the screening, these non-EU citizens are not allowed to enter the territory of a Member State, unless it becomes clear that they meet the criteria for entry. The screening at the border should take no longer than 5 days, with an extra 5 days in the event of a huge influx. (It would also be possible to apply the proposed law to those on the territory who evaded border checks; for them the deadline to complete the screening is 3 days).

      Screening has six elements, as further detailed in the proposal: a health check, an identity check, registration in a database, a security check, filling out a debriefing form, and deciding on what happens next. At the end of the screening, the migrant is channelled either into the expulsion process (if no asylum claim has been made, and if the migrant does not meet the conditions for entry) or, if an asylum claim is made, into the asylum process – with an indication of whether the claim should be fast-tracked or not. It’s also possible that an asylum seeker would be relocated to another Member State. The screening is carried out by national officials, possibly with support from EU agencies.

      To ensure human rights protection, there must be independent monitoring to address allegations of non-compliance with human rights. These allegations might concern breaches of EU or international law, national law on detention, access to the asylum procedure, or non-refoulement (the ban on sending people to an unsafe country). Migrants must be informed about the process and relevant EU immigration and data protection law. There is no provision for judicial review of the outcome of the screening process, although there would be review as part of the next step (asylum or return).

      Asylum procedures

      The revised proposal for an asylum procedures Regulation would leave in place most of the Commission’s 2016 proposal to amend the law, adding some specific further proposed amendments, which either link back to the screening proposal or aim to fast-track decisions and expulsions more generally.

      On the first point, the usual rules on informing asylum applicants and registering their application would not apply until after the end of the screening. A border procedure may apply following the screening process, but Member States must apply the border procedure in cases where an asylum seeker used false documents, is a perceived national security threat, or falls within the new ground for fast-tracking cases (on which, see below). The latter obligation is subject to exceptions where a Member State has reported that a non-EU country is not cooperating on readmission; the process for dealing with that issue set out under the 2019 amendments to the visa code will then apply. Also, the border process cannot apply to unaccompanied minors or children under 12, unless they are a supposed national security risk. Further exceptions apply where the asylum seeker is vulnerable or has medical needs, the application is not inadmissible or cannot be fast-tracked, or detention conditions cannot be guaranteed. A Member State might apply the Dublin process to determine which Member State is responsible for the asylum claim during the border process. The whole border process (including any appeal) must last no more than 12 weeks, and can only be used to declare applications inadmissible or apply the new ground for fast-tracking them.

      There would also be a new border expulsion procedure, where an asylum application covered by the border procedure was rejected. This is subject to its own 12-week deadline, starting from the point when the migrant is no longer allowed to remain. Much of the Return Directive would apply – but not the provisions on the time period for voluntary departure, remedies and the grounds for detention. Instead, the border expulsion procedure would have its own stricter rules on these issues.

      As regards general fast-tracking, in order to speed up the expulsion process for unsuccessful applications, a rejection of an asylum application would have to either incorporate an expulsion decision or entail a simultaneous separate expulsion decision. Appeals against expulsion decisions would then be subject to the same rules as appeals against asylum decisions. If the asylum seeker comes from a country with a refugee recognition rate below 20%, his or her application must be fast-tracked (this would even apply to unaccompanied minors) – unless circumstances in that country have changed, or the asylum seeker comes from a group for whom the low recognition rate is not representative (for instance, the recognition rate might be higher for LGBT asylum-seekers from that country). Many more appeals would be subject to a one-week time limit for the rejected asylum seeker to appeal, and there could be only one level of appeal against decisions taken within a border procedure.

      Eurodac

      The revised proposal for Eurodac would build upon the 2016 proposal, which was already far-reaching: extending Eurodac to include not only fingerprints, but also photos and other personal data; reducing the age of those covered by Eurodac from 14 to 6; removing the time limits and the limits on use of the fingerprints taken from persons who had crossed the border irregularly; and creating a new obligation to collect data of all irregular migrants over age 6 (currently fingerprint data for this group cannot be stored, but can simply be checked, as an option, against the data on asylum seekers and irregular border crossers). The 2020 proposal additionally provides for interoperability with other EU migration databases, taking of personal data during the screening process, including more data on the migration status of each person, and expressly applying the law to those disembarked after a search and rescue operation.

      Dublin rules on asylum responsibility

      A new proposal for asylum management would replace the Dublin regulation (meaning that the Commission has withdrawn its 2016 proposal to replace that Regulation). The 2016 proposal would have created a ‘bottleneck’ in the Member State of entry, requiring that State to examine first whether many of the grounds for removing an asylum-seeker to a non-EU country apply before considering whether another Member State might be responsible for the application (because the asylum seeker’s family live there, for instance). It would also have imposed obligations directly on asylum-seekers to cooperate with the process, rather than only regulate relations between Member States. These obligations would have been enforced by punishing asylum seekers who disobeyed: removing their reception conditions (apart from emergency health care); fast-tracking their substantive asylum applications; refusing to consider new evidence from them; and continuing the asylum application process in their absence.

      It would no longer be possible for asylum seekers to provide additional evidence of family links, with a view to being in the same country as a family member. Overturning a CJEU judgment (see further discussion here), unaccompanied minors would no longer have been able to make applications in multiple Member States (in the absence of a family member in any of them). However, the definition of family members would have been widened, to include siblings and families formed in a transit country. Responsibility for an asylum seeker based on the first Member State of irregular entry (a commonly applied criterion) would have applied indefinitely, rather than expire one year after entry as it does under the current rules. The ‘Sangatte clause’ (responsibility after five months of living in a second Member State, if the ‘irregular entry’ criterion no longer applies) would be dropped. The ‘sovereignty clause’, which played a key part in the 2015-16 refugee ‘crisis’ (it lets a Member State take responsibility for any application even if the Dublin rules do not require it, cf Germany accepting responsibility for Syrian asylum seekers) would have been sharply curtailed. Time limits for detention during the transfer process would be reduced. Remedies for asylum seekers would have been curtailed: they would only have seven days to appeal against a transfer; courts would have fifteen days to decide (although they could have stayed on the territory throughout); and the grounds of review would have been curtailed.

      Finally, the 2016 proposal would have tackled the vexed issue of disproportionate allocation of responsibility for asylum seekers by setting up an automated system determining how many asylum seekers each Member State ‘should’ have based on their size and GDP. If a Member State were responsible for excessive numbers of applicants, Member States which were receiving fewer numbers would have to take more to help out. If they refused, they would have to pay €250,000 per applicant.

      The 2020 proposal drops some of the controversial proposals from 2016, including the ‘bottleneck’ in the Member State of entry (the current rule, giving Member States an option to decide if a non-EU country is responsible for the application on narrower grounds than in the 2016 proposal, would still apply). Also, the sovereignty clause would now remain unchanged.

      However, the 2020 proposal also retains parts of the 2016 proposal: the redefinition of ‘family member’ (which could be more significant now that the bottleneck is removed, unless Member States choose to apply the relevant rules on non-EU countries’ responsibility during the border procedure already); obligations for asylum seekers (redrafted slightly); some of the punishments for non-compliant asylum-seekers (the cut-off for considering evidence would stay, as would the loss of benefits except for those necessary to ensure a basic standard of living: see the CJEU case law in CIMADE and Haqbin); dropping the provision on evidence of family links; changing the rules on responsibility for unaccompanied minors; retaining part of the changes to the irregular entry criterion (it would now cease to apply after three years; the Sangatte clause would still be dropped; it would apply after search and rescue but not apply in the event of relocation); curtailing judicial review (the grounds would still be limited; the time limit to appeal would be 14 days; courts would not have a strict deadline to decide; suspensive effect would not apply in all cases); and the reduced time limits for detention.

      The wholly new features of the 2020 proposal are: some vague provisions about crisis management; responsibility for an asylum application for the Member State which issued a visa or residence document which expired in the last three years (the current rule is responsibility if the visa expired less than six months ago, and the residence permit expired less than a year ago); responsibility for an asylum application for a Member State in which a non-EU citizen obtained a diploma; and the possibility for refugees or persons with subsidiary protection status to obtain EU long-term resident status after three years, rather than five.

      However, the most significant feature of the new proposal is likely to be its attempt to solve the underlying issue of disproportionate allocation of asylum seekers. Rather than a mechanical approach to reallocating responsibility, the 2020 proposal now provides for a menu of ‘solidarity contributions’: relocation of asylum seekers; relocation of refugees; ‘return sponsorship’; or support for ‘capacity building’ in the Member State (or a non-EU country) facing migratory pressure. There are separate rules for search and rescue disembarkations, on the one hand, and more general migratory pressures on the other. Once the Commission determines that the latter situation exists, other Member States have to choose from the menu to offer some assistance. Ultimately the Commission will adopt a decision deciding what the contributions will be. Note that ‘return sponsorship’ comes with a ticking clock: if the persons concerned are not expelled within eight months, the sponsoring Member State must accept them on its territory.

      Crisis management

      The issue of managing asylum issues in a crisis has been carved out of the Dublin proposal into a separate proposal, which would repeal an EU law from 2001 that set up a framework for offering ‘temporary protection’ in a crisis. Note that Member States have never used the 2001 law in practice.

      Compared to the 2001 law, the new proposal is integrated into the EU asylum legislation that has been adopted or proposed in the meantime. It similarly applies in the event of a ‘mass influx’ that prevents the effective functioning of the asylum system. It would apply the ‘solidarity’ process set out in the proposal to replace the Dublin rules (ie relocation of asylum seekers and other measures), with certain exceptions and shorter time limits to apply that process.

      The proposal focusses on providing for possible exceptions to the usual asylum rules. In particular, during a crisis, the Commission could authorise a Member State to apply temporary derogations from the rules on border asylum procedures (extending the time limit, using the procedure to fast-track more cases), border return procedures (again extending the time limit, more easily justifying detention), or the time limit to register asylum applicants. Member States could also determine that due to force majeure, it was not possible to observe the normal time limits for registering asylum applications, applying the Dublin process for responsibility for asylum applications, or offering ‘solidarity’ to other Member States.

      Finally, the new proposal, like the 2001 law, would create a potential for a form of separate ‘temporary protection’ status for the persons concerned. A Member State could suspend the consideration of asylum applications from people coming from the country facing a crisis for up to a year, in the meantime giving them status equivalent to ‘subsidiary protection’ status in the EU qualification law. After that point it would have to resume consideration of the applications. It would need the Commission’s approval, whereas the 2001 law left it to the Council to determine a situation of ‘mass influx’ and provided for the possible extension of the special rules for up to three years.

      Other measures

      The Commission has also adopted four soft law measures. These comprise: a Recommendation on asylum crisis management; a Recommendation on resettlement and humanitarian admission; a Recommendation on cooperation between Member States on private search and rescue operations; and guidance on the applicability of EU law on smuggling of migrants – notably concluding that it cannot apply where (as in the case of law of the sea) there is an obligation to rescue.

      On other issues, the Commission plan is to use current legislation – in particular the recent amendment to the visa code, which provides for sticks to make visas more difficult to get for citizens of countries which don’t cooperate on readmission of people, and carrots to make visas easier to get for citizens of countries which do cooperate on readmission. In some areas, such as the Schengen system, there will be further strategies and plans in the near future; it is not clear if this will lead to more proposed legislation.

      However, on legal migration, the plan is to go further than relaunching the amendment of the Blue Card Directive, as the Commission is also planning to propose amendments to the single permit and long-term residence laws referred to above – leading respectively to more harmonisation of the law on admission of non-EU workers and enhanced possibilities for long-term resident non-EU citizens to move between Member States (nb the latter plan is separate from this week’s proposal to amend this law as regards refugees and people with subsidiary protection already). Both these plans are relevant to British citizens moving to the EU after the post-Brexit transition period – and the latter is also relevant to British citizens covered by the withdrawal agreement.

      Comments

      This week’s plan is less a complete restart of EU law in this area than an attempt to relaunch discussions on a blocked set of amendments to that law, which moreover focusses on a limited set of issues. Will it ‘work’? There are two different ways to answer that question.

      First, will it unlock the institutional blockage? Here it should be kept in mind that the European Parliament and the Council had largely agreed on several of the 2016 proposals already; they would have been adopted in 2018 already had not the Council treated all the proposals as a package, and not gone back on agreements which the Council Presidency reached with the European Parliament. It is always open to the Council to get at least some of these proposals adopted quickly by reversing these approaches.

      On the blocked proposals, the Commission has targeted the key issues of border procedures and allocation of asylum-seekers. If the former leads to more quick removals of unsuccessful applicants, the latter issue is no longer so pressing. But it is not clear if the Member States will agree to anything on border procedures, or whether such an agreement will result in more expulsions anyway – because the latter depends on the willingness of non-EU countries, which the EU cannot legislate for (and does not even address in this most recent package). And because it is uncertain whether they will result in more expulsions, Member States will be wary of agreeing to anything which either results in more obligations to accept asylum-seekers on their territory, or leaves them with the same number as before.

      The idea of ‘return sponsorship’ – which reads like a grotesque parody of individuals sponsoring children in developing countries via charities – may not be appealing except to those countries like France, which have the capacity to twist arms in developing countries to accept returns. Member States might be able to agree on a replacement for the temporary protection Directive on the basis that they will never use that replacement either. And Commission threats to use infringement proceedings to enforce the law might not worry Member States who recall that the CJEU ruled on their failure to relocate asylum-seekers after the relocation law had already expired, and that the Court will soon rule on Hungary’s expulsion of the Central European University after it has already left.

      As to whether the proposals will ‘work’ in terms of managing asylum flows fairly and compatibly with human rights, it is striking how much they depend upon curtailing appeal rights, even though appeals are often successful. The proposed limitation of appeal rights will also be maintained in the Dublin system; and while the proposed ‘bottleneck’ of deciding on removals to non-EU countries before applying the Dublin system has been removed, a variation on this process may well apply in the border procedures process instead. There is no new review of the assessment of the safety of non-EU countries – which is questionable in light of the many reports of abuse in Libya. While the EU is not proposing, as the wildest headbangers would want, to turn people back or refuse applications without consideration, the question is whether the fast-track consideration of applications and then appeals will constitute merely a Potemkin village of procedural rights that mean nothing in practice.

      Increased detention is already a feature of the amendments proposed earlier: the reception conditions proposal would add a new ground for detention; the return Directive proposal would inevitably increase detention due to curtailing voluntary departure (as discussed here). Unfortunately the Commission’s claim in its new communication that its 2018 proposal is ‘promoting’ voluntary return is therefore simply false. Trump-style falsehoods have no place in the discussion of EU immigration or asylum law.

      The latest Eurodac proposal would not do much compared to the 2016 proposal – but then, the 2016 proposal would already constitute an enormous increase in the amount of data collected and shared by that system.

      Some elements of the package are more positive. The possibility for refugees and people with subsidiary protection to get EU long-term residence status earlier would be an important step toward making asylum ‘valid throughout the Union’, as referred to in the Treaties. The wider definition of family members, and the retention of the full sovereignty clause, may lead to some fairer results under the Dublin system. Future plans to improve the long-term residents’ Directive are long overdue. The Commission’s sound legal assessment that no one should be prosecuted for acting on their obligations to rescue people in distress at sea is welcome. The quasi-agreed text of the reception conditions Directive explicitly rules out Trump-style separate detention of children.

      No proposals from the EU can solve the underlying political issue: a chunk of public opinion is hostile to more migration, whether in frontline Member States, other Member States, or transit countries outside the EU. The politics is bound to affect what Member States and non-EU countries alike are willing to agree to. And for the same reason, even if a set of amendments to the system is ultimately agreed, there will likely be continuing issues of implementation, especially illegal pushbacks and refusals to accept relocation.

      https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2020/09/first-analysis-of-eus-new-asylum.html?spref=fb

    • Pacte européen sur les migrations et l’asile : Le rendez-vous manqué de l’UE

      Le nouveau pacte européen migrations et asile présenté par la Commission ce 23 septembre, loin de tirer les leçons de l’échec et du coût humain intolérable des politiques menées depuis 30 ans, s’inscrit dans la continuité des logiques déjà largement éprouvées, fondées sur une approche répressive et sécuritaire au service de l’endiguement et des expulsions et au détriment d’une politique d’accueil qui s’attache à garantir et à protéger la dignité et les droits fondamentaux.

      Des « nouveaux » camps européens aux frontières pour filtrer les personnes arrivées sur le territoire européen et expulser le plus grand nombre

      En réaction au drame des incendies qui ont ravagé le camp de Moria sur l’île grecque de Lesbos, la commissaire européenne aux affaires intérieures, Ylva Johansson, affirmait le 17 septembre devant les députés européens qu’« il n’y aurait pas d’autres Moria » mais de « véritables centres d’accueil » aux frontières européennes.

      Si le nouveau pacte prévoie effectivement la création de « nouveaux » camps conjuguée à une « nouvelle » procédure accélérée aux frontières, ces derniers s’apparentent largement à l’approche hotspot mise en œuvre par l’Union européenne (UE) depuis 2015 afin d’organiser la sélection des personnes qu’elle souhaite accueillir et l’expulsion, depuis la frontière, de tous celles qu’elle considère « indésirables ».

      Le pacte prévoie ainsi la mise en place « d’un contrôle préalable à l’entrée sur le territoire pour toutes les personnes qui se présentent aux frontières extérieures ou après un débarquement, à la suite d’une opération de recherche et de sauvetage ». Il s’agira, pour les pays situés à la frontière extérieure de l’UE, de procéder – dans un délai de 5 jours et avec l’appui des agences européennes (l’agence européenne de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes – Frontex et le Bureau européen d’appui en matière d’asile – EASO) – à des contrôles d’identité (prise d’empreintes et enregistrement dans les bases de données européennes) doublés de contrôles sécuritaires et sanitaires afin de procéder à un tri préalable à l’entrée sur le territoire, permettant d’orienter ensuite les personne vers :

      Une procédure d’asile accélérée à la frontière pour celles possédant une nationalité pour laquelle le taux de reconnaissance d’une protection internationale, à l’échelle de l’UE, est inférieure à 20%
      Une procédure d’asile normale pour celles considérées comme éligibles à une protection.
      Une procédure d’expulsion immédiate, depuis la frontière, pour toute celles qui auront été rejetées par ce dispositif de tri, dans un délai de 12 semaines.

      Pendant cette procédure de filtrage à la frontière, les personnes seraient considérées comme n’étant pas encore entrées sur le territoire européen ce qui permettrait aux Etats de déroger aux conventions de droit international qui s’y appliquent.

      Un premier projet pilote est notamment prévu à Lesbos, conjointement avec les autorités grecques, pour installer un nouveau camp sur l’île avec l’appui d’une Task Force européenne, directement placée sous le contrôle de la direction générale des affaires intérieure de la Commission européenne (DG HOME).

      Difficile de voir où se trouve l’innovation dans la proposition présentée par la Commission. Si ce n’est que les États européens souhaitent pousser encore plus loin à la fois la logique de filtrage à ces frontières ainsi que la sous-traitance de leur contrôle. Depuis l’été 2018, l’Union européenne défend la création de « centres contrôlés au sein de l’UE » d’une part et de « plateformes de débarquement dans les pays tiers » d’autre part. L’UE, à travers ce nouveau mécanisme, vise à organiser l’expulsion rapide des migrants qui sont parvenus, souvent au péril de leur vie, à pénétrer sur son territoire. Pour ce faire, la coopération accrue avec les gardes-frontières des États non européens et l’appui opérationnel de l’agence Frontex sont encore et toujours privilégiés.
      Un « nouvel écosystème en matière de retour »

      L’obsession européenne pour l’amélioration du « taux de retour » se retrouve au cœur de ce nouveau pacte, en repoussant toujours plus les limites en matière de coopération extérieure et d’enfermement des personnes étrangères jugées indésirables et en augmentant de façon inédite ses moyens opérationnels.

      Selon l’expression de Margaritis Schinas, commissaire grec en charge de la « promotion du mode de vie européen », la nouvelle procédure accélérée aux frontières s’accompagnera d’« un nouvel écosystème européen en matière de retour ». Il sera piloté par un « nouveau coordinateur de l’UE chargé des retours » ainsi qu’un « réseau de haut niveau coordonnant les actions nationales » avec le soutien de l’agence Frontex, qui devrait devenir « le bras opérationnel de la politique de retour européenne ».

      Rappelons que Frontex a vu ses moyens décuplés ces dernières années, notamment en vue d’expulser plus de personnes migrantes. Celle-ci a encore vu ses moyens renforcés depuis l’entrée en vigueur de son nouveau règlement le 4 décembre 2019 dont la Commission souhaite accélérer la mise en œuvre effective. Au-delà d’une augmentation de ses effectifs et de la possibilité d’acquérir son propre matériel, l’agence bénéficie désormais de pouvoirs étendus pour identifier les personnes « expulsables » du territoire européen, obtenir les documents de voyage nécessaires à la mise en œuvre de leurs expulsions ainsi que pour coordonner des opérations d’expulsion au service des Etats membres.

      La Commission souhaite également faire aboutir, d’ici le second trimestre 2021, le projet de révision de la directive européenne « Retour », qui constitue un recul sans précédent du cadre de protection des droits fondamentaux des personnes migrantes. Voir notre précédente actualité sur le sujet : L’expulsion au cœur des politiques migratoires européennes, 22 mai 2019
      Des « partenariats sur-mesure » avec les pays d’origine et de transit

      La Commission étend encore redoubler d’efforts afin d’inciter les Etats non européens à participer activement à empêcher les départs vers l’Europe ainsi qu’à collaborer davantage en matière de retour et de réadmission en utilisant l’ensemble des instruments politiques à sa disposition. Ces dernières années ont vu se multiplier les instruments européens de coopération formelle (à travers la signature, entre autres, d’accords de réadmission bilatéraux ou multilatéraux) et informelle (à l’instar de la tristement célèbre déclaration entre l’UE et la Turquie de mars 2016) à tel point qu’il est devenu impossible, pour les États ciblés, de coopérer avec l’UE dans un domaine spécifique sans que les objectifs européens en matière migratoire ne soient aussi imposés.

      L’exécutif européen a enfin souligné sa volonté de d’exploiter les possibilités offertes par le nouveau règlement sur les visas Schengen, entré en vigueur en février 2020. Celui-ci prévoie d’évaluer, chaque année, le degré de coopération des Etats non européens en matière de réadmission. Le résultat de cette évaluation permettra d’adopter une décision de facilitation de visa pour les « bon élèves » ou à l’inverse, d’imposer des mesures de restrictions de visas aux « mauvais élèves ». Voir notre précédente actualité sur le sujet : Expulsions contre visas : le droit à la mobilité marchandé, 2 février 2020.

      Conduite au seul prisme des intérêts européens, cette politique renforce le caractère historiquement déséquilibré des relations de « coopération » et entraîne en outre des conséquences désastreuses sur les droits des personnes migrantes, notamment celui de quitter tout pays, y compris le leur. Sous couvert d’aider ces pays à « se développer », les mesures « incitatives » européennes ne restent qu’un moyen de poursuivre ses objectifs et d’imposer sa vision des migrations. En coopérant davantage avec les pays d’origine et de transit, parmi lesquelles des dictatures et autres régimes autoritaires, l’UE renforce l’externalisation de ses politiques migratoires, sous-traitant la gestion des exilées aux Etats extérieurs à l’UE, tout en se déresponsabilisant des violations des droits perpétrées hors de ses frontières.
      Solidarité à la carte, entre relocalisation et expulsion

      Le constat d’échec du système Dublin – machine infernale de l’asile européen – conjugué à la volonté de parvenir à trouver un consensus suite aux profonds désaccords qui avaient mené les négociations sur Dublin IV dans l’impasse, la Commission souhaite remplacer l’actuel règlement de Dublin par un nouveau règlement sur la gestion de l’asile et de l’immigration, liant étroitement les procédures d’asile aux procédures d’expulsion.

      Les quotas de relocalisation contraignants utilisés par le passé, à l’instar du mécanisme de relocalisation mis en place entre 2015 et 2017 qui fut un échec tant du point de vue du nombre de relocalisations (seulement 25 000 relocalisations sur les 160 000 prévues) que du refus de plusieurs Etats d’y participer, semblent être abandonnés.

      Le nouveau pacte propose donc un nouveau mécanisme de solidarité, certes obligatoire mais flexible dans ses modalités. Ainsi les Etats membres devront choisir, selon une clé de répartition définie :

      Soit de participer à l’effort de relocalisation des personnes identifiées comme éligibles à la protection internationale depuis les frontières extérieures pour prendre en charge l’examen de leur demande d’asile.
      Soit de participer au nouveau concept de « parrainage des retours » inventé par la Commission européenne. Concrètement, il s’agit d’être « solidaire autrement », en s’engageant activement dans la politique de retour européenne par la mise en œuvre des expulsions des personnes que l’UE et ses Etats membres souhaitent éloigner du territoire, avec la possibilité de concentrer leurs efforts sur les nationalités pour lesquelles leurs perspectives de faire aboutir l’expulsion est la plus élevée.

      De nouvelles règles pour les « situations de crise et de force majeure »

      Le pacte prévoie d’abroger la directive européenne relative à des normes minimales pour l’octroi d’une protection temporaire en cas d’afflux massif de personnes déplacées, au profit d’un nouveau règlement européen relatif aux « situations de crise et de force majeure ». L’UE et ses Etats membres ont régulièrement essuyé les critiques des acteurs de la société civile pour n’avoir jamais activé la procédure prévue par la directive de 2001, notamment dans le cadre de situation exceptionnelle telle que la crise de l’accueil des personnes arrivées aux frontières sud de l’UE en 2015.

      Le nouveau règlement prévoie notamment qu’en cas de « situation de crise ou de force majeure » les Etats membres pourraient déroger aux règles qui s’appliquent en matière d’asile, en suspendant notamment l’enregistrement des demandes d’asile pendant un durée d’un mois maximum. Cette mesure entérine des pratiques contraires au droit international et européen, à l’instar de ce qu’a fait la Grèce début mars 2020 afin de refouler toutes les personnes qui tenteraient de pénétrer le territoire européen depuis la Turquie voisine. Voir notre précédente actualité sur le sujet : Frontière Grèce-Turquie : de l’approche hotspot au scandale de la guerre aux migrant·e ·s, 3 mars 2020

      Cette proposition représente un recul sans précédent du droit d’asile aux frontières et fait craindre de multiples violations du principe de non refoulement consacré par la Convention de Genève.

      Bien loin d’engager un changement de cap des politiques migratoires européennes, le nouveau pacte européen migrations et asile ne semble n’être qu’un nouveau cadre de plus pour poursuivre une approche des mouvements migratoires qui, de longue date, s’est construite autour de la volonté d’empêcher les arrivées aux frontières et d’organiser un tri parmi les personnes qui auraient réussi à braver les obstacles pour atteindre le territoire européen, entre celles considérées éligibles à la demande d’asile et toutes les autres qui devraient être expulsées.

      De notre point de vue, cela signifie surtout que des milliers de personnes continueront à être privées de liberté et à subir les dispositifs répressifs des Etats membres de l’Union européenne. Les conséquences néfastes sur la dignité humaine et les droits fondamentaux de cette approche sont flagrantes, les personnes exilées et leurs soutiens y sont confrontées tous les jours.

      Encore une fois, des moyens très importants sont consacrés à financer l’érection de barrières physiques, juridiques et technologiques ainsi que la construction de camps sur les routes migratoires tandis qu’ils pourraient utilement être redéployés pour accueillir dignement et permettre un accès inconditionnel au territoire européen pour les personnes bloquées à ses frontières extérieures afin d’examiner avec attention et impartialité leurs situations et assurer le respect effectif des droits de tou∙te∙s.

      Nous appelons à un changement radical des politiques migratoires, pour une Europe qui encourage les solidarités, fondée sur la protection des droits humains et la dignité humaine afin d’assurer la protection des personnes et non pas leur exclusion.

      https://www.lacimade.org/pacte-europeen-sur-les-migrations-et-lasile-le-rendez-vous-manque-de-lue

    • EU’s new migrant ‘pact’ is as squalid as its refugee camps

      Governments need to share responsibility for asylum seekers, beyond merely ejecting the unwanted

      One month after fires swept through Europe’s largest, most squalid refugee camp, the EU’s migration policies present a picture as desolate as the blackened ruins of Moria on the Greek island of Lesbos. The latest effort at overhauling these policies is a European Commission “pact on asylum and migration”, which is not a pact at all. Its proposals sharply divide the EU’s 27 governments.

      In an attempt to appease central and eastern European countries hostile to admitting asylum-seekers, the commission suggests, in an Orwellian turn of phrase, that they should operate “relocation and return sponsorships”, dispatching people refused entry to their places of origin. This sort of task is normally reserved for nightclub bouncers.

      The grim irony is that Hungary and Poland, two countries that would presumably be asked to take charge of such expulsions, are the subject of EU disciplinary proceedings due to alleged violations of the rule of law. It remains a mystery how, if the commission proposal moves forward, the EU will succeed in binding Hungary and Poland into a common asylum policy and bend them into accepting EU definitions of the rule of law.

      Perhaps the best thing to be said of the commission’s plan is that, unlike the UK government, EU policymakers are not toying with hare-brained schemes of sending asylum-seekers to Ascension Island in the south Atlantic. Such options are the imagined privilege of a former imperial power not divested of all its far-flung possessions.

      Yet the commission’s initiative still reeks of wishful thinking. It foresees a process in which authorities swiftly check the identities, security status and health of irregular migrants, before returning them home, placing them in the asylum system or putting them in temporary facilities. This will supposedly decongest EU border zones, as governments will agree how to relocate new arrivals. But it is precisely the lack of such agreement since 2015 that led to Moria’s disgraceful conditions.

      The commission should not be held responsible for governments failing to shoulder their responsibilities. It is also justified in emphasising the need for a strong EU frontier. This is a precondition for free movement inside the bloc, vital for a flourishing single market.

      True, the Schengen system of border-free internal travel is curtailed at present because of the pandemic, not to mention restrictions introduced in some countries after the 2015 refugee and migrant crisis. But no government wants to abandon Schengen. Where they fall out with each other is over the housing of refugees and migrants.

      Europe’s overcrowded, unhygienic refugee camps, and the paralysis that grips EU policies, are all the more shameful in that governments no longer face a border emergency. Some 60,800 irregular migrants crossed into the EU between January and August, 14 per cent less than the same period in 2019, according to the EU border agency.

      By contrast, there were 1.8m illegal border crossings in 2015, a different order of magnitude. Refugees from conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria made desperate voyages across the Mediterranean, with thousands drowning in ramshackle boats. Some countries, led by Germany and Sweden, were extremely generous in opening their doors to refugees. Others were not.

      The roots of today’s problems lie in the measures devised to address that crisis, above all a 2016 accord with Turkey. Irregular migrants were kept on Moria and other Greek islands, designated “hotspots”, in the expectation that failed asylum applicants would be smoothly returned to Turkey, its coffers replenished by billions of euros in EU assistance. In practice, few went back to Turkey and the understaffed, underfunded “hotspots” became places of tension between refugees and locals.

      Unable to agree on a relocation scheme among themselves, EU governments lapsed into a de facto policy of deterrence of irregular migrants. The pandemic provided an excuse for Italy and Malta to close their ports to people rescued at sea. Visiting the Greek-Turkish border in March, Ursula von der Leyen, the commission president, declared: “I thank Greece for being our European aspida [shield].”

      The legitimacy of EU refugee policies depends on adherence to international law, as well the bloc’s own rules. Its practical success requires all governments to share a responsibility for asylum-seekers that goes beyond ejecting unwanted individuals. Otherwise the EU will fall into the familiar trap of cobbling together unsatisfactory half-measures that guarantee more trouble in the future.

      https://www.ft.com/content/c50c6b9c-75a8-40b1-900d-a228faa382dc?segmentid=acee4131-99c2-09d3-a635-873e61754

    • The EU’s pact against migration, Part One

      The EU Commission’s proposal for a ‘New Pact for Migration and Asylum’ offers no prospect of ending the enduring mobility conflict, opposing the movements of illegalised migrants to the EU’s restrictive migration policies.

      The ’New Pact for Migration and Asylum’, announced by the European Commission in July 2019, was finally presented on September 23, 2020. The Pact was eagerly anticipated as it was described as a “fresh start on migration in Europe”, acknowledging not only that Dublin had failed, but also that the negotiations between European member states as to what system might replace it had reached a standstill.

      The fire in Moria that left more than 13.000 people stranded in the streets of Lesvos island offered a glaring symbol of the failure of the current EU policy. The public outcry it caused and expressions of solidarity it crystallised across Europe pressured the Commission to respond through the publication of its Pact.

      Considering the trajectory of EU migration policies over the last decades, the particular position of the Commission within the European power structure and the current political conjuncture of strong anti-migration positions in Europe, we did not expect the Commission’s proposal to address the mobility conflict underlying its migration policy crisis in a constructive way. And indeed, the Pact’s main promise is to manage the diverging positions of member states through a new mechanism of “flexible solidarity” between member states in sharing the “burden” of migrants who have arrived on European territory. Perpetuating the trajectory of the last decades, it however remains premised on keeping most migrants from the global South out at all cost. The “New Pact” then is effectively a pact between European states against migrants. The Pact, which will be examined and possibly adopted by the European Parliament and Council in the coming months, confirms the impasse to which three decades of European migration and asylum policy have led, and an absence of any political imagination worthy of the name.
      The EU’s migration regime’s failed architecture

      The current architecture of the European border regime is based on two main and intertwined pillars: the Schengen Implementing Convention (SIC, or Schengen II) and the Dublin Convention, both signed in 1990, and gradually enforced in the following years.[1]

      Created outside the EC/EU context, they became the central rationalities of the emerging European border and migration regime after their incorporation into EU law through the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997/99). Schengen instituted the EU’s territory as an area of free movement for its citizens and, as a direct consequence, reinforced the exclusion of citizens of the global South and pushed control towards its external borders.

      However this profound transformation of European borders left unchanged the unbalanced systemic relations between Europe and the Global South, within which migrants’ movements are embedded. As a result, this policy shift did not stop migrants from reaching the EU but rather illegalised their mobility, forcing them to resort to precarious migration strategies and generating an easily exploitable labour force that has become a large-scale and permanent feature of EU economies.

      The more than 40,000 migrant deaths recorded at the EU’s borders by NGOs since the end of the 1980s are the lethal outcomes of this enduring mobility conflict opposing the movements of illegalised migrants to the EU’s restrictive migration policies.

      The second pillar of the EU’s migration architecture, the Dublin Convention, addressed asylum seekers and their allocation between member-states. To prevent them from filing applications in several EU countries – derogatively referred to as “asylum shopping” – the 2003 Dublin regulation states that the asylum seekers’ first country of entry into the EU is responsible for processing their claims. Dublin thus created an uneven European geography of (ir)responsibility that allowed the member states not directly situated at the intersection of European borders and routes of migration to abnegate their responsibility to provide shelter and protection, and placed a heavier “burden” on the shoulders of states located at the EU’s external borders.

      This unbalanced architecture, around which the entire Common European Asylum System (CEAS) was constructed, would begin to wobble as soon as the number of people arriving on the EU’s shores rose, leading to crisis-driven policy responses to prevent the migration regime from collapsing under the pressure of migrants’ refusal to be assigned to a country that was not of their choosing, and conflicts between member states.

      As a result, the development of a European border, migration and asylum policy has been driven by crisis and is inherently reactive. This pattern particularly holds for the last decade, when the large-scale movements of migrants to Europe in the wake of the Arab Uprisings in 2011 put the EU migration regime into permanent crisis mode and prompted hasty reforms. As of 2011, Italy allowed Tunisians to move on, leading to the re-introduction of border controls by states such as France, while the same year the 2011 European Court of Human Rights’ judgement brought Dublin deportations to Greece to a halt because of the appalling reception and living conditions there. The increasing refusal by asylum seekers to surrender their fingerprints – the core means of implementing Dublin – as of 2013 further destabilized the migration regime.

      The instability only grew when in April 2015, more then 1,200 people died in two consecutive shipwrecks, forcing the Commission to publish its ‘European Agenda for Migration’ in May 2015. The 2015 agenda announced the creation of the hotspot system in the hope of re-stabilising the European migration regime through a targeted intervention of European agencies at Europe’s borders. Essentially, the hotspot approach offered a deal to EU member states: comprehensive registration in Europeanised structures (the hotspots) by so-called “front-line states” – thus re-imposing Dublin – in exchange for relocation of part of the registered migrants to other EU countries – thereby alleviating front-line states of part of their “burden”.

      This plan however collapsed before it could ever work, as it was immediately followed by the large-scale summer arrivals of 2015 as migrants trekked across Europe’s borders. It was simultaneously boycotted by several member states who refused relocations and continue to lead the charge in fomenting an explicit anti-migration agenda in the EU. While border controls were soon reintroduced, relocations never materialised in a meaningful manner in the years that followed.

      With the Dublin regime effectively paralysed and the EU unable to agree on a new mechanism for the distribution of asylum seekers within Europe, the EU resorted to the decades-old policies that had shaped the European border and migration regime since its inception: keeping migrants out at all cost through border control implemented by member states, European agencies or outsourced to third countries.

      Considering the profound crisis the turbulent movements of migrants had plunged the EU into in the summer of 2015, no measure was deemed excessive in achieving this exclusionary end: neither the tacit acceptance of violent expulsions and push-backs by Spain and Greece, nor the outsourcing of border control to Libyan torturers, nor the shameless collaboration with dictatorial regimes such as Turkey.

      Under the guise of “tackling the root causes of migration”, development aid was diverted and used to impose border externalisation and deportation agreements. But the external dimension of the EU’s migration regime has proven just as unstable as its internal one – as the re-opening of borders by Turkey in March 2020 demonstrates. The movements of illegalised migrants towards the EU could never be entirely contained and those who reached the shores of Europe were increasingly relegated to infrastructures of detention. Even if keeping thousands of migrants stranded in the hell of Moria may not have been part of the initial hotspot plan, it certainly has been the outcome of the EU’s internal blockages and ultimately effective in shoring up the EU’s strategy of deterrence.

      The “New Pact” perpetuating the EU’s failed policy of closure

      Today the “New Pact”, promised for Spring 2020 and apparently forgotten at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, has been revived in a hurry to address the destruction of Moria hotspot. While detailed analysis of the regulations that it proposes are beyond the scope of this article,[2] the broad intentions of the Pact’s rationale are clear.

      Despite all its humane and humanitarian rhetoric and some language critically addressing the manifest absence of the rule of law at the border of Europe, the Commission’s pact is a pact against migration. Taking stock of the continued impasse in terms of internal distribution of migrants, it re-affirms the EU’s central objective of reducing, massively the number of asylum seekers to be admitted to Europe. It promises to do so by continuing to erect chains of externalised border control along migrants’ entire trajectories (what it refers to as the “whole-of-route approach”).

      Those who do arrive should be swiftly screened and sorted in an infrastructure of detention along the borders of Europe. The lucky few who will succeed in fitting their lives into the shrinking boxes of asylum law are to be relocated to other EU countries in function of a mechanism of distribution based on population size and wealth of member states.

      Whether this will indeed undo the imbalances of the Dublin regime remains an open question[3], nevertheless, this relocation key is one of the few positive steps offered by the Pact since it comes closer to migrants’ own “relocation key” but still falls short of granting asylum seekers the freedom to choose their country of protection and residence.[4] The majority of rejected asylum seekers – which may be determined on the basis of an extended understanding of the “safe third country” notion – is to be funnelled towards deportations operated by the EU states refusing relocation. The Commission hopes deportations will be made smoother after a newly appointed “EU Return Coordinator” will have bullied countries of origin into accepting their nationals using the carrot of development aid and the stick of visa sanctions. The Commission seems to believe that with fewer expected arrivals and fewer migrants ending up staying in Europe, and with its mechanism of “flexible solidarity” allowing for a selective participation in relocations or returns depending on the taste of its member states, it can both bridge the gap between member states’ interests and push for a deeper Europeanisation of the policy field in which its own role will become more central.

      Thus, the EU Commission’s attempt to square the circle of member states’ conflicting interests has resulted in a European pact against migration, which perpetuates the promises of the EU’s (anti-)migration policy over the last three decades: externalisation, enhanced borders, accelerated asylum procedures, detention and deportations to prevent and deter migrants from the global South. It seeks to strike yet another deal between European member states, without consulting – and at the expense of – migrants themselves. Because most of the policy means contained in the pact are not new, and have always failed to durably end illegalised migration – instead they have created a large precaritised population at the heart of Europe – we do not see how they would work today. Migrants will continue to arrive, and many will remain stranded in front-line states or other EU states as they await deportation. As such, the outcome of the pact (if it is agreed upon) is likely a perpetuation and generalisation of the hotspot system, the very system whose untenability – glaringly demonstrated by Moria’s fire – prompted the presentation of the New Pact in the first place. Even if the Commission’s “no more Morias” rhetoric would like to persuade us of the opposite,[5] the ruins of Moria point to the past as well as the potential future of the CEAS if the Commission has its way.

      We are dismayed at the loss of yet another opportunity for Europe to fundamentally re-orient its policy of closure, one which is profoundly at odds with the reality of large-scale displacement in an unequal and interconnected world. We are dismayed at the prospect of more suffering and more political crises that can only be the outcome of this continued policy failure. Clearly, an entirely different approach to how Europe engages with the movements of migration is called for. One which actually aims to de-escalate and transform the enduring mobility conflict. One which starts from the reality of the movements of migrants and offers a frame for it to unfold rather than seeks to suppress and deny it.

      Notes and references

      [1] We have offered an extensive analysis of the following argument in previous articles. See in particular : Bernd Kasparek. 2016. “Complementing Schengen: The Dublin System and the European Border and Migration Regime”. In Migration Policy and Practice, edited by Harald Bauder and Christian Matheis, 59–78. Migration, Diasporas and Citizenship. Houndmills & New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Charles Heller and Lorenzo Pezzani. 2016. “Ebbing and Flowing: The EU’s Shifting Practices of (Non-)Assistance and Bordering in a Time of Crisis”. Near Futures Online. No 1. Available here.

      [2] For first analyses see Steve Peers. 2020. “First analysis of the EU’s new asylum proposals”, EU Law Analysis, 25 September 2020; Sergio Carrera. 2020. “Whose Pact? The Cognitive Dimensions of the New EU Pact on Migration and Asylum”, CEPS, September 2020.

      [3] Carrera, ibid.

      [4] For a discussion of migration of migrants’ own relocation key, see Philipp Lutz, David Kaufmann and Anna Stütz. 2020. “Humanitarian Protection as a European Public Good: The Strategic Role of States and Refugees”, Journal of Common Market Studies 2020 Volume 58. Number 3. pp. 757–775. To compare the actual asylum applications across Europe over the last years with different relocations keys, see the tool developed by Etienne Piguet.

      https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/the-eus-pact-against-migration-part-one

      #whole-of-route_approach #relocalisation #clé_de_relocalisation #relocation_key #pays-tiers_sûrs #EU_Return_Coordinator #solidarité_flexible #externalisation #new_pact

    • Towards a European pact with migrants, Part Two

      We call for a new Pact that addresses the reality of migrants’ movements, the systemic conditions leading people to flee their homes as well as the root causes of Europe’s racism.

      In Part One, we analysed the EU’s new Pact against migration. Here, we call for an entirely different approach to how Europe engages with migration, one which offers a legal frame for migration to unfold, and addresses the systemic conditions leading people to flee their homes as well as the root causes of Europe’s racism.Let us imagine for a moment that the EU Commission truly wanted, and was in a position, to reorient the EU’s migration policy in a direction that might actually de-escalate and transform the enduring mobility conflict: what might its pact with migrants look like?

      The EU’s pact with migrants might start from three fundamental premises. First, it would recognize that any policy that is entirely at odds with social practices is bound to generate conflict, and ultimately fail. A migration policy must start from the social reality of migration and provide a frame for it to unfold. Second, the pact would acknowledge that no conflict can be brought to an end unilaterally. Any process of conflict transformation must bring together the conflicting parties, and seek to address their needs, interests and values so that they no longer clash with each other. In particular, migrants from the global South must be included in the definition of the policies that concern them. Third, it would recognise, as Tendayi Achiume has put it, that migrants from the global South are no strangers to Europe.[1] They have long been included in the expansive webs of empire. Migration and borders are embedded in these unequal relations, and no end to the mobility conflict can be achieved without fundamentally transforming them. Based on these premises, the EU’s pact with migrants might contain the following four core measures:
      Global justice and conflict prevention

      Instead of claiming to tackle the “root causes” of migration by diverting and instrumentalising development aid towards border control, the EU’s pact with migrants would end all European political and economic relations that contribute to the crises leading to mass displacement. The EU would end all support to dictatorial regimes, would ban all weapon exports, terminate all destabilising military interventions. It would cancel unfair trade agreements and the debts of countries of the global South. It would end its massive carbon emissions that contribute to the climate crisis. Through these means, the EU would not claim to end migration perceived as a “problem” for Europe, but it would contribute to allowing more people to live a dignified life wherever they are and decrease forced migration, which certainly is a problem for migrants. A true commitment to global justice and conflict prevention and resolution is necessary if Europe wishes to limit the factors that lead too many people onto the harsh paths of exile in their countries and regions, a small proportion of whom reach European shores.
      Tackling the “root causes” of European racism

      While the EU’s so-called “global approach” to migration has in fact been one-sided, focused exclusively on migration as “the problem” rather then the processes that drive the EU’s policies of exclusion, the EU’s pact with migrants would boldly tackle the “root causes” of racism and xenophobia in Europe. Bold policies designed to address the EU’s colonial past and present and the racial imaginaries it has unleashed would be proposed, a positive vision for living in common in diverse societies affirmed, and a more inclusive and fair economic system would be established in Europe to decrease the resentment of European populations which has been skilfully channelled against migrants and racialised people.
      Universal freedom of movement

      By tackling the causes of large-scale displacement and of exclusionary migration policies, the EU would be able to de-escalate the mobility conflict, and could thus propose a policy granting all migrants legal pathways to access and stay in Europe. As an immediate outcome of the institution of right to international mobility, migrants would no longer resort to smugglers and risk their lives crossing the sea – and thus no longer be in need of being rescued. Using safe and legal means of travel would also, in the time of Covid-19 pandemic, allow migrants to adopt all sanitary measures that are necessary to protect migrants and those they encounter. No longer policed through military means, migration could appear as a normal process that does not generate fear. Frontex, the European border agency, would be defunded, and concentrate its limited activities on detecting actual threats to the EU rather then constructing vulnerable populations as “risks”. In a world that would be less unequal and in which people would have the possibly to lead a dignified life wherever they are, universal freedom of movement would not lead to an “invasion” of Europe. Circulatory movement rather then permanent settlement would be frequent. Migrants’ legal status would no longer allow employers to push working conditions down. A European asylum system would continue to exist, to grant protection and support to those in need. The vestiges of the EU’s hotspots and detention centres might be turned into ministries of welcome, which would register and redirect people to the place of their choice. Registration would thus be a mere certification of having taken the first step towards European citizenship, transforming the latter into a truly post-national institution, a far horizon which current EU treaties only hint at.
      Democratizing borders

      Considering that all European migration policies to date have been fundamentally undemocratic – in that they were imposed on a group of people – migrants – who had no say in the legislative and political process defining the laws that govern their movement – the pact would instead be the outcome of considerable consultative process with migrants and the organisations that support them, as well the states of the global South. The pact, following from Étienne Balibar’s suggestion, would in turn propose to permanently democratise borders by instituting “a multilateral, negotiated control of their working by the populations themselves (including, of course, migrant populations),” within “new representative institutions” that “are not merely ‘territorial’ and certainly not purely national.”[2] In such a pact, the original promise of Europe as a post-national project would finally be revived.

      Such a policy orientation may of course appear as nothing more then a fantasy. And yet it appears evident to us that the direction we suggest is the only realistic one. European citizens and policy makers alike must realise that the question is not whether migrants will exercise their freedom to cross borders, but at what human and political cost. As a result, it is far more realistic to address the processes within which the mobility conflict is embedded, than seeking to ban human mobility. As the Black Lives Matter’s slogan “No justice no peace!” resonating in the streets of the world over recent months reminds us, without mobility justice, [3] their can be no end to mobility conflict.
      The challenges ahead for migrant solidarity movements

      Our policy proposals are perfectly realistic in relation to migrants’ movements and the processes shaping them, yet we are well aware that they are not on the agenda of neoliberal and nationalist Europe. If the EU Commission has squandered yet another opportunity to reorient the EU’s migration policy, it is simply that this Europe, governed by these member states and politicians, has lost the capacity to offer bold visions of democracy, freedom and justice for itself and the world. As such, we have little hope for a fundamental reorientation of the EU’s policies. The bleak prospect is of the perpetuation of the mobility conflict, and the human suffering and political crises it generates.

      What are those who seek to support migrants to do in this context?

      We must start by a sobering note addressed to the movement we are part of: the fire of Moria is not only a symptom and symbol of the failures of the EU’s migration policies and member states, but also of our own strategies. After all, since the hotspots were proposed in 2015 we have tirelessly denounced them, and documented the horrendous living conditions they have created. NGOs have litigated against them, but efforts have been turned down by a European Court of Human Rights that appears increasingly reluctant to position itself on migration-related issues and is thereby contributing to the perpetuation of grave violations by states.

      And despite the extraordinary mobilisation of civil society in alliance with municipalities across Europe who have declared themselves ready to welcome migrants, relocations never materialised on any significant scale. After five years of tireless mobilization, the hotspots still stand, with thousands of asylum seekers trapped in them.

      While the conditions leading to the fire are still being clarified, it appears that the migrants held hostage in Moria took it into their own hands to try to get rid of the camp through the desperate act of burning it to the ground. As such, while we denounce the EU’s policies, our movements are urgently in need of re-evaluating their own modes of action, and re-imagining them more effectively.

      We have no lessons to give, as we share these shortcomings. But we believe that some of the directions we have suggested in our utopian Pact with migrants can guide migrant solidarity movements as well , as they may be implemented from the bottom-up in the present and help reopen our political imagination.

      The freedom to move is not, or not only, a distant utopia, that may be instituted by states in some distant future. It can also be seen as a right and freedom that illegalised migrants seize on a day-to-day basis as they cross borders without authorisation, and persist in living where they choose.

      Freedom of movement can serve as a useful compass to direct and evaluate our practices of contestation and support. Litigation remains an important tool to counter the multiple forms of violence and violations that migrants face along their trajectories, even as we acknowledge that national and international courts are far from immune to the anti-migrant atmosphere within states. Forging infrastructures of support for migrants in the course of their mobility (such as the WatchTheMed Alarm Phone and the civilian rescue fleet) – and their stay (such as the many citizen platforms for housing )– is and will continue to be essential.

      While states seek to implement what they call an “integrated border management” that seeks to manage migrants’ unruly mobilities before, at, and after borders, we can think of our own networks as forming a fragmented yet interconnected “integrated border solidarity” along the migrants’ entire trajectory. The criminalisation of our acts of solidarity by states is proof that we are effective in disrupting the violence of borders.

      Solidarity cities have formed important nodes in these chains, as municipalities do have the capacity to enable migrants to live in dignity in urban spaces, and limit the reach of their security forces for example. Their dissonant voices of welcome have been important in demonstrating that segments of the European population, which are far from negligible, refuse to be complicit with the EU’s policies of closure and are ready to embody an open relation of solidarity with migrants and beyond. However we must also acknowledge that the prerogative of granting access to European states remains in the hands of central administrations, not in those of municipalities, and thus the readiness to welcome migrants has not allowed the latter to actually seek sanctuary.

      While humanitarian and humanist calls for welcome are important, we too need to locate migration and borders in a broader political and economic context – that of the past and present of empire – so that they can be understood as questions of (in)justice. Echoing the words of the late Edouard Glissant, as activists focusing on illegalised migration we should never forget that “to have to force one’s way across borders as a result of one’s misery is as scandalous as what founds that misery”.[4] As a result of this framing, many more alliances can be forged today between migrant solidarity movements and the global justice and climate justice movements, as well as anti-racist, anti-fascist, feminist and decolonial movements. Through such alliances, we may be better equipped to support migrants throughout their entire trajectories, and transform the conditions that constrain them today.

      Ultimately, to navigate its way out of its own impasses, it seems to us that migrant solidarity movements must address four major questions.

      First, what migration policy do we want? The predictable limits of the EU’s pact against migration may be an opportunity to forge our own alternative agenda.

      Second, how can we not only oppose the implementation of restrictive policies but shape the policy process itself so as to transform the field on which we struggle? Opposing the EU’s anti-migrant pact over the coming months may allow us to conduct new experiments.

      Third, as long as policies that deny basic principles of equality, freedom, justice, and our very common humanity, are still in place, how can we lead actions that disrupt them effectively? For example, what are the forms of nongovernmental evacuations that might support migrants in accessing Europe, and moving across its internal borders?

      Fourth, how can struggles around migration and borders be part of the forging of a more equal, free, just and sustainable world for all?

      The next months during which the EU’s Pact against migration will be discussed in front of the European Parliament and Council will see an uphill battle for all those who still believe in the possibility of a Europe of openness and solidarity. While we have no illusions as to the policy outcome, this is an opportunity we must seize, not only to claim that another Europe and another world is possible, but to start building them from below.

      Notes and references

      [1] Tendayi Achiume. 2019, “The Postcolonial Case for Rethinking Borders.” Dissent 66.3: pp.27-32.

      [2] Etienne Balibar. 2004. We, the People of Europe? Reflections on Transnational Citizenship. Princeton: University Press, p. 108 and 117.

      [3] Mimi Sheller. 2018. Mobility Justice: The Politics of Movement in an Age of Extremes. London: Verso.

      [4] Edouard Glissant. 2006. “Il n’est frontière qu’on n’outrepasse”. Le Monde diplomatique, October 2006.

      https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/towards-pact-migrants-part-two

    • Pacte européen sur la migration et l’asile : Afin de garantir un nouveau départ et d’éviter de reproduire les erreurs passées, certains éléments à risque doivent être reconsidérés et les aspects positifs étendus.

      L’engagement en faveur d’une approche plus humaine de la protection et l’accent mis sur les aspects positifs et bénéfiques de la migration avec lesquels la Commission européenne a lancé le Pacte sur la migration et l’asile sont les bienvenus. Cependant, les propositions formulées reflètent très peu cette rhétorique et ces ambitions. Au lieu de rompre avec les erreurs de la précédente approche de l’Union européenne (UE) et d’offrir un nouveau départ, le Pacte continue de se focaliser sur l’externalisation, la dissuasion, la rétention et le retour.

      Cette première analyse des propositions, réalisée par la société civile, a été guidée par les questions suivantes :

      Les propositions formulées sont-elles en mesure de garantir, en droit et en pratique, le respect des normes internationales et européennes ?
      Participeront-elles à un partage plus juste des responsabilités en matière d’asile au niveau de l’UE et de l’international ?
      Seront-elles susceptibles de fonctionner en pratique ?

      Au lieu d’un partage automatique des responsabilités, le Pacte introduit un système de Dublin, qui n’en porte pas le nom, plus complexe et un mécanisme de « parrainage au retour »

      Le Pacte sur la migration et l’asile a manqué l’occasion de réformer en profondeur le système de Dublin : le principe de responsabilité du premier pays d’arrivée pour examiner les demandes d’asile est, en pratique, maintenu. De plus, le Pacte propose un système complexe introduisant diverses formes de solidarité.

      Certains ajouts positifs dans les critères de détermination de l’Etat membre responsable de la demande d’asile sont à relever, par exemple, l’élargissement de la définition des membres de famille afin d’inclure les frères et sœurs, ainsi qu’un large éventail de membres de famille dans le cas des mineurs non accompagnés et la délivrance d’un diplôme ou d’une autre qualification par un Etat membre. Cependant, au regard de la pratique actuelle des Etats membres, il sera difficile de s’éloigner du principe du premier pays d’entrée comme l’option de départ en faveur des nouvelles considérations prioritaires, notamment le regroupement familial.

      Dans le cas d’un nombre élevé de personnes arrivées sur le territoire (« pression migratoire ») ou débarquées suite à des opérations de recherche et de sauvetage, la solidarité entre Etats membres est requise. Les processus qui en découlent comprennent une série d’évaluations, d’engagements et de rapports devant être rédigés par les États membres. Si la réponse collective est insuffisante, la Commission européenne peut prendre des mesures correctives. Au lieu de promouvoir un mécanisme de soutien pour un partage prévisible des responsabilités, ces dispositions tendent plutôt à créer des formes de négociations entre États membres qui nous sont toutes devenues trop familières. La complexité des propositions soulève des doutes quant à leur application réelle en pratique.

      Les États membres sont autorisés à choisir le « parrainage de retour » à la place de la relocalisation de personnes sur leur territoire, ce qui indique une attention égale portée au retour et à la protection. Au lieu d’apporter un soutien aux Etats membres en charge d’un plus grand nombre de demandes de protection, cette proposition soulève de nombreuses préoccupations juridiques et relatives au respect des droits de l’homme, en particulier si le transfert vers l’Etat dit « parrain » se fait après l’expiration du délai de 8 mois. Qui sera en charge de veiller au traitement des demandeurs d’asile déboutés à leur arrivée dans des Etats qui n’acceptent pas la relocalisation ?

      Le Pacte propose d’étendre l’utilisation de la procédure à la frontière, y compris un recours accru à la rétention

      A défaut de rééquilibrer la responsabilité entre les États membres de l’UE, la proposition de règlement sur les procédures communes exacerbe la pression sur les États situés aux frontières extérieures de l’UE et sur les pays des Balkans occidentaux. La Commission propose de rendre, dans certains cas, les procédures d’asile et de retour à la frontière obligatoires. Cela s’appliquerait notamment aux ressortissants de pays dont le taux moyen de protection de l’UE est inférieur à 20%. Ces procédures seraient facultatives lorsque les Etats membres appliquent les concepts de pays tiers sûr ou pays d’origine sûr. Toutefois, la Commission a précédemment proposé que ceux-ci deviennent obligatoires pour l’ensemble des Etats membres. Les associations réitèrent leurs inquiétudes quant à l’utilisation de ces deux concepts qui ont été largement débattus entre 2016 et 2019. Leur application obligatoire ne doit plus être proposée.

      La proposition de procédure à la frontière repose sur deux hypothèses erronées – notamment sur le fait que la majorité des personnes arrivant en Europe n’est pas éligible à un statut de protection et que l’examen des demandes de protection peut être effectué facilement et rapidement. Ni l’une ni l’autre ne sont correctes. En effet, en prenant en considération à la fois les décisions de première et de seconde instance dans toute l’UE il apparaît que la plupart des demandeurs d’asile dans l’UE au cours des trois dernières années ont obtenu un statut de protection. En outre, le Pacte ne doit pas persévérer dans cette approche erronée selon laquelle les procédures d’asile peuvent être conduites rapidement à travers la réduction de garanties et l’introduction d’un système de tri. La durée moyenne de la procédure d’asile aux Pays-Bas, souvent qualifiée d’ « élève modèle » pour cette pratique, dépasse un an et peut atteindre deux années jusqu’à ce qu’une décision soit prise.

      La proposition engendrerait deux niveaux de standards dans les procédures d’asile, largement déterminés par le pays d’origine de la personne concernée. Cela porte atteinte au droit individuel à l’asile et signifierait qu’un nombre accru de personnes seront soumises à une procédure de deuxième catégorie. Proposer aux Etats membres d’émettre une décision d’asile et d’éloignement de manière simultanée, sans introduire de garanties visant à ce que les principes de non-refoulement, d’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant, et de protection de la vie privée et familiale ne soient examinés, porte atteinte aux obligations qui découlent du droit international. La proposition formulée par la Commission supprime également l’effet suspensif automatique du recours, c’est-à-dire le droit de rester sur le territoire dans l’attente d’une décision finale rendue dans le cadre d’une procédure à la frontière.

      L’idée selon laquelle les personnes soumises à des procédures à la frontière sont considérées comme n’étant pas formellement entrées sur le territoire de l’État membre est trompeuse et contredit la récente jurisprudence de l’UE, sans pour autant modifier les droits de l’individu en vertu du droit européen et international.

      La proposition prive également les personnes de la possibilité d’accéder à des permis de séjour pour des motifs autres que l’asile et impliquera très probablement une privation de liberté pouvant atteindre jusqu’à 6 mois aux frontières de l’UE, c’est-à-dire un maximum de douze semaines dans le cadre de la procédure d’asile à la frontière et douze semaines supplémentaires en cas de procédure de retour à la frontière. En outre, les réformes suppriment le principe selon lequel la rétention ne doit être appliquée qu’en dernier recours dans le cadre des procédures aux frontières. En s’appuyant sur des restrictions plus systématiques des mouvements dans le cadre des procédures à la frontière, la proposition restreindra l’accès de l’individu aux services de base fournis par des acteurs qui ne pourront peut-être pas opérer à la frontière, y compris pour l’assistance et la représentation juridiques. Avec cette approche, on peut s’attendre aux mêmes échecs rencontrés dans la mise en œuvre des « hotspot » sur les îles grecques.

      La reconnaissance de l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant comme élément primordial dans toutes les procédures pour les États membres est positive. Cependant, la Commission diminue les garanties de protection des enfants en n’exemptant que les mineurs non accompagnés ou âgés de moins de douze ans des procédures aux frontières. Ceci est en contradiction avec la définition internationale de l’enfant qui concerne toutes les personnes jusqu’à l’âge de dix-huit ans, telle qu’inscrite dans la Convention relative aux droits de l’enfant ratifiée par tous les États membres de l’UE.

      Dans les situations de crise, les États membres sont autorisés à déroger à d’importantes garanties qui soumettront davantage de personnes à des procédures d’asile de qualité inférieure

      La crainte d’iniquité procédurale est d’autant plus visible dans les situations où un État membre peut prétendre être confronté à une « situation exceptionnelle d’afflux massif » ou au risque d’une telle situation.

      Dans ces cas, le champ d’application de la procédure obligatoire aux frontières est considérablement étendu à toutes les personnes en provenance de pays dont le taux moyen de protection de l’UE est inférieur à 75%. La procédure d’asile à la frontière et la procédure de retour à la frontière peuvent être prolongées de huit semaines supplémentaires, soit cinq mois chacune, ce qui porte à dix mois la durée maximale de privation de liberté. En outre, les États membres peuvent suspendre l’enregistrement des demandes d’asile pendant quatre semaines et jusqu’à un maximum de trois mois. Par conséquent, si aucune demande n’est enregistrée pendant plusieurs semaines, les personnes sont susceptibles d’être exposées à un risque accru de rétention et de refoulement, et leurs droits relatifs à un accueil digne et à des services de base peuvent être gravement affectés.

      Cette mesure permet aux États membres de déroger à leur responsabilité de garantir un accès à l’asile et un examen efficace et équitable de l’ensemble des demandes d’asile, ce qui augmente ainsi le risque de refoulement. Dans certains cas extrêmes, notamment lorsque les États membres agissent en violation flagrante et persistante des obligations du droit de l’UE, le processus de demande d’autorisation à la Commission européenne pourrait être considéré comme une amélioration, étant donné qu’actuellement la loi est ignorée, sans consultation et ce malgré les critiques de la Commission européenne. Toutefois, cela ne peut être le point de départ de l’évaluation de cette proposition de la législation européenne. L’impact à grande échelle de cette dérogation offre la possibilité à ce qu’une grande majorité des personnes arrivant dans l’UE soient soumises à une procédure de second ordre.

      Pré-filtrage à la frontière : risques et opportunités

      La Commission propose un processus de « pré-filtrage à l’entrée » pour toutes les personnes qui arrivent de manière irrégulière aux frontières de l’UE, y compris à la suite d’un débarquement dans le cadre des opérations de recherche et de sauvetage. Le processus de pré-filtrage comprend des contrôles de sécurité, de santé et de vulnérabilité, ainsi que l’enregistrement des empreintes digitales, mais il conduit également à des décisions impactant l’accès à l’asile, notamment en déterminant si une personne doit être sujette à une procédure d’asile accélérée à la frontière, de relocalisation ou de retour. Ce processus peut durer jusqu’à 10 jours et doit être effectué au plus près possible de la frontière. Le lieu où les personnes seront placées et l’accès aux conditions matérielles d’accueil demeurent flous. Le filtrage peut également être appliqué aux personnes se trouvant sur le territoire d’un État membre, ce qui pourrait conduire à une augmentation de pratiques discriminatoires. Des questions se posent également concernant les droits des personnes soumises au filtrage, tels que l’accès à l’information, , l’accès à un avocat et au droit de contester la décision prise dans ce contexte ; les motifs de refus d’entrée ; la confidentialité et la protection des données collectées. Etant donné que les États membres peuvent facilement se décharger de leurs responsabilités en matière de dépistage médical et de vulnérabilité, il n’est pas certain que certains besoins seront effectivement détectés et pris en considération.

      Une initiative à saluer est la proposition d’instaurer un mécanisme indépendant des droits fondamentaux à la frontière. Afin qu’il garantisse une véritable responsabilité face aux violations des droits à la frontière, y compris contre les éloignements et les refoulements récurrents dans un grand nombre d’États membres, ce mécanisme doit être étendu au-delà de la procédure de pré-filtrage, être indépendant des autorités nationales et impliquer des organisations telles que les associations non gouvernementales.

      La proposition fait de la question du retour et de l’expulsion une priorité

      L’objectif principal du Pacte est clair : augmenter de façon significative le nombre de personnes renvoyées ou expulsées de l’UE. La création du poste de Coordinateur en charge des retours au sein de la Commission européenne et d’un directeur exécutif adjoint aux retours au sein de Frontex en sont la preuve, tandis qu’aucune nomination n’est prévue au sujet de la protection de garanties ou de la relocalisation. Le retour est considéré comme un élément admis dans la politique migratoire et le soutien pour des retours dignes, en privilégiant les retours volontaires, l’accès à une assistance au retour et l’aide à la réintégration, sont essentiels. Cependant, l’investissement dans le retour n’est pas une réponse adaptée au non-respect systématique des normes d’asile dans les États membres de l’UE.

      Rien de nouveau sur l’action extérieure : des propositions irréalistes qui risquent de continuer d’affaiblir les droits de l’homme

      La tension entre l’engagement rhétorique pour des partenariats mutuellement bénéfiques et la focalisation visant à placer la migration au cœur des relations entre l’UE et les pays tiers se poursuit. Les tentatives d’externaliser la responsabilité de l’asile et de détourner l’aide au développement, les mécanismes de visa et d’autres outils pour inciter les pays tiers à coopérer sur la gestion migratoire et les accords de réadmission sont maintenues. Cela ne représente pas seulement un risque allant à l’encontre de l’engagement de l’UE pour ses principes de développement, mais cela affaiblit également sa posture internationale en générant de la méfiance et de l’hostilité depuis et à l’encontre des pays tiers. De plus, l’usage d’accords informels et la coopération sécuritaire sur la gestion migratoire avec des pays tels que la Libye ou la Turquie risquent de favoriser les violations des droits de l’homme, d’encourager les gouvernements répressifs et de créer une plus grande instabilité.

      Un manque d’ambition pour des voies légales et sûres vers l’Europe

      L’opportunité pour l’UE d’indiquer qu’elle est prête à contribuer au partage des responsabilités pour la protection au niveau international dans un esprit de partenariat avec les pays qui accueillent la plus grande majorité des réfugiés est manquée. Au lieu de proposer un objectif ambitieux de réinstallation de réfugiés, la Commission européenne a seulement invité les Etats membres à faire plus et a converti les engagements de 2020 en un mécanisme biennal, ce qui résulte en la perte d’une année de réinstallation européenne.

      La reconnaissance du besoin de faciliter la migration de main-d’œuvre à travers différents niveaux de compétences est à saluer, mais l’importance de cette migration dans les économies et les sociétés européennes ne se reflète pas dans les ressources, les propositions et les actions allouées.

      Le soutien aux activités de recherche et de sauvetage et aux actions de solidarité doit être renforcé

      La tragédie humanitaire dans la mer Méditerranée nécessite encore une réponse y compris à travers un soutien financier et des capacités de recherches et de sauvetage. Cet enjeu ainsi que celui du débarquement sont pris en compte dans toutes les propositions, reconnaissant ainsi la crise humanitaire actuelle. Cependant, au lieu de répondre aux comportements et aux dispositions règlementaires des gouvernements qui obstruent les activités de secours et le travail des défendeurs des droits, la Commission européenne suggère que les standards de sécurité sur les navires et les niveaux de communication avec les acteurs privés doivent être surveillés. Les acteurs privés sont également requis d’adhérer non seulement aux régimes légaux, mais aussi aux politiques et pratiques relatives à « la gestion migratoire » qui peuvent potentiellement interférer avec les obligations de recherches et de sauvetage.

      Bien que la publication de lignes directrices pour prévenir la criminalisation de l’action humanitaire soit la bienvenue, celles-ci se limitent aux actes mandatés par la loi avec une attention spécifique aux opérations de sauvetage et de secours. Cette approche risque d’omettre les activités humanitaires telles que la distribution de nourriture, d’abris, ou d’information sur le territoire ou assurés par des organisations non mandatées par le cadre légal qui sont également sujettes à ladite criminalisation et à des restrictions.

      Des signes encourageants pour l’inclusion

      Les changements proposés pour permettre aux réfugiés d’accéder à une résidence de long-terme après trois ans et le renforcement du droit de se déplacer et de travailler dans d’autres Etats membres sont positifs. De plus, la révision du Plan d’action pour l’inclusion et l’intégration et la mise en place d’un groupe d’experts pour collecter l’avis des migrants afin de façonner la politique européenne sont les bienvenues.

      La voie à suivre

      La présentation des propositions de la Commission est le commencement de ce qui promet d’être une autre longue période conflictuelle de négociations sur les politiques européennes d’asile et de migration. Alors que ces négociations sont en cours, il est important de rappeler qu’il existe déjà un régime d’asile européen et que les Etats membres ont des obligations dans le cadre du droit européen et international.

      Cela requiert une action immédiate de la part des décideurs politiques européens, y compris de la part des Etats membres, de :

      Mettre en œuvre les standards existants en lien avec les conditions matérielles d’accueil et les procédures d’asile, d’enquêter sur leur non-respect et de prendre les mesures disciplinaires nécessaires ;
      Sauver des vies en mer, et de garantir des capacités de sauvetage et de secours, permettant un débarquement et une relocalisation rapide ;
      Continuer de s’accorder sur des arrangements ad-hoc de solidarité pour alléger la pression sur les Etats membres aux frontières extérieures de l’UE et encourager les Etats membres à avoir recours à la relocalisation.

      Concernant les prochaines négociations sur le Pacte, nous recommandons aux co-législateurs de :

      Rejeter l’application obligatoire de la procédure d’asile ou de retour à la frontière : ces procédures aux standards abaissés réduisent les garanties des demandeurs d’asile et augmentent le recours à la rétention. Elles exacerbent le manque de solidarité actuel sur l’asile dans l’UE en plaçant plus de responsabilité sur les Etats membres aux frontières extérieures. L’expérience des hotspots et d’autres initiatives similaires démontrent que l’ajout de procédures ou d’étapes dans l’asile peut créer des charges administratives et des coûts significatifs, et entraîner une plus grande inefficacité ;
      Se diriger vers la fin de la privation de liberté de migrants, et interdire la rétention de mineurs conformément à la Convention internationale des droits de l’enfant, et de dédier suffisamment de ressources pour des solutions non privatives de libertés appropriées pour les mineurs et leurs familles ;
      Réajuster les propositions de réforme afin de se concentrer sur le maintien et l’amélioration des standards des droits de l’homme et de l’asile en Europe, plutôt que sur le retour ;
      Œuvrer à ce que les propositions réforment fondamentalement la façon dont la responsabilité des demandeurs d’asile en UE est organisée, en adressant les problèmes liés au principe de pays de première entrée, afin de créer un véritable mécanisme de solidarité ;
      Limiter les possibilités pour les Etats membres de déroger à leurs responsabilités d’enregistrer les demandes d’asile ou d’examiner les demandes, afin d’éviter de créer des incitations à opérer en mode gestion de crise et à diminuer les standards de l’asile ;
      Augmenter les garanties pendant la procédure de pré-filtrage pour assurer le droit à l’information, l’accès à une aide et une représentation juridique, la détection et la prise en charge des vulnérabilités et des besoins de santé, et une réponse aux préoccupations liées à l’enregistrement et à la protection des données ;
      Garantir que le mécanisme de suivi des droits fondamentaux aux frontières dispose d’une portée large afin de couvrir toutes les violations des droits fondamentaux à la frontière, qu’il soit véritablement indépendant des autorités nationales et dispose de ressources adéquates et qu’il contribue à la responsabilisation ;
      S’opposer aux tentatives d’utiliser l’aide au développement, au commerce, aux investissements, aux mécanismes de visas, à la coopération sécuritaire et autres politiques et financements pour faire pression sur les pays tiers dans leur coopération étroitement définie par des objectifs européens de contrôle migratoire ;
      Evaluer l’impact à long-terme des politiques migratoires d’externalisation sur la paix, le respect des droits et le développement durable et garantir que la politique extérieure migratoire ne contribue pas à la violation de droits de l’homme et prenne en compte les enjeux de conflits ;
      Développer significativement les voies légales et sûres vers l’UE en mettant en œuvre rapidement les engagements actuels de réinstallation, en proposant de nouveaux objectifs ambitieux et en augmentant les opportunités de voies d’accès à la protection ainsi qu’à la migration de main-d’œuvre et universitaire en UE ;
      Renforcer les exceptions à la criminalisation lorsqu’il s’agit d’actions humanitaires et autres activités indépendantes de la société civile et enlever les obstacles auxquels font face les acteurs de la société civile fournissant une assistance vitale et humanitaire sur terre et en mer ;
      Mettre en place une opération de recherche et de sauvetage en mer Méditerranée financée et coordonnée par l’UE ;
      S’appuyer sur les propositions prometteuses pour soutenir l’inclusion à travers l’accès à la résidence à long-terme et les droits associés et la mise en œuvre du Plan d’action sur l’intégration et l’inclusion au niveau européen, national et local.

      https://www.forumrefugies.org/s-informer/positions/europe/774-pacte-europeen-sur-la-migration-et-l-asile-afin-de-garantir-un-no

    • Nouveau Pacte européen  : les migrant.e.s et réfugié.e.s traité.e.s comme des « # colis à trier  »

      Le jour même de la Conférence des Ministres européens de l’Intérieur, EuroMed Droits présente son analyse détaillée du nouveau Pacte européen sur l’asile et la migration, publié le 23 septembre dernier (https://euromedrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Analysis-of-Asylum-and-Migration-Pact_Final_Clickable.pdf).

      On peut résumer les plus de 500 pages de documents comme suit  : le nouveau Pacte européen sur l’asile et la migration déshumanise les migrant.e.s et les réfugié.e.s, les traitant comme des «  #colis à trier  » et les empêchant de se déplacer en Europe. Ce Pacte soulève de nombreuses questions en matière de respect des droits humains, dont certaines sont à souligner en particulier  :

      L’UE détourne le concept de solidarité. Le Pacte vise clairement à «  rétablir la confiance mutuelle entre les États membres  », donnant ainsi la priorité à la #cohésion:interne de l’UE au détriment des droits des migrant.e.s et des réfugié.e.s. La proposition laisse le choix aux États membres de contribuer – en les mettant sur un pied d’égalité – à la #réinstallation, au #rapatriement, au soutien à l’accueil ou à l’#externalisation des frontières. La #solidarité envers les migrant.e.s et les réfugié.e.s et leurs droits fondamentaux sont totalement ignorés.

      Le pacte promeut une gestion «  sécuritaire  » de la migration. Selon la nouvelle proposition, les migrant.e.s et les réfugié.e.s seront placé.e.s en #détention et privé.e.s de liberté à leur arrivée. La procédure envisagée pour accélérer la procédure de demande d’asile ne pourra se faire qu’au détriment des lois sur l’asile et des droits des demandeur.se.s. Il est fort probable que la #procédure se déroulera de manière arbitraire et discriminatoire, en fonction de la nationalité du/de la demandeur.se, de son taux de reconnaissance et du fait que le pays dont il/elle provient est «  sûr  », ce qui est un concept douteux.

      L’idée clé qui sous-tend cette vision est simple  : externaliser autant que possible la gestion des frontières en coopérant avec des pays tiers. L’objectif est de faciliter le retour et la réadmission des migrant.e.s dans le pays d’où ils/elles sont parti.es. Pour ce faire, l’Agence européenne de garde-frontières et de garde-côtes (Frontex) verrait ses pouvoirs renforcés et un poste de coordinateur.trice européen.ne pour les retours serait créé. Le pacte risque de facto de fournir un cadre juridique aux pratiques illégales telles que les refoulements, les détentions arbitraires et les mesures visant à réduire davantage la capacité en matière d’asile. Des pratiques déjà en place dans certains États membres.

      Le Pacte présente quelques aspects «  positifs  », par exemple en matière de protection des enfants ou de regroupement familial, qui serait facilité. Mais ces bonnes intentions, qui doivent être mises en pratique, sont noyées dans un océan de mesures répressives et sécuritaires.

      EuroMed Droits appelle les Etats membres de l’UE à réfléchir en termes de mise en œuvre pratique (ou non) de ces mesures. Non seulement elles violent les droits humains, mais elles sont impraticables sur le terrain  : la responsabilité de l’évaluation des demandes d’asile reste au premier pays d’arrivée, sans vraiment remettre en cause le Règlement de Dublin. Cela signifie que des pays comme l’Italie, Malte, l’Espagne, la Grèce et Chypre continueront à subir une «  pression  » excessive, ce qui les encouragera à poursuivre leurs politiques de refoulement et d’expulsion. Enfin, le Pacte ne répond pas à la problématique urgente des «  hotspots  » et des camps de réfugié.e.s comme en Italie ou en Grèce et dans les zones de transit à l’instar de la Hongrie. Au contraire, cela renforce ce modèle dangereux en le présentant comme un exemple à exporter dans toute l’Europe, alors que des exemples récents ont démontré l’impossibilité de gérer ces camps de manière humaine.

      https://euromedrights.org/fr/publication/nouveau-pacte-europeen%e2%80%af-les-migrant-e-s-et-refugie-e-s-traite

      #paquets_de_la_poste #paquets #poste #tri #pays_sûrs

  • Refugee protection at risk

    Two of the words that we should try to avoid when writing about refugees are “unprecedented” and “crisis.” They are used far too often and with far too little thought by many people working in the humanitarian sector. Even so, and without using those words, there is evidence to suggest that the risks confronting refugees are perhaps greater today than at any other time in the past three decades.

    First, as the UN Secretary-General has pointed out on many occasions, we are currently witnessing a failure of global governance. When Antonio Guterres took office in 2017, he promised to launch what he called “a surge in diplomacy for peace.” But over the past three years, the UN Security Council has become increasingly dysfunctional and deadlocked, and as a result is unable to play its intended role of preventing the armed conflicts that force people to leave their homes and seek refuge elsewhere. Nor can the Security Council bring such conflicts to an end, thereby allowing refugees to return to their country of origin.

    It is alarming to note, for example, that four of the five Permanent Members of that body, which has a mandate to uphold international peace and security, have been militarily involved in the Syrian armed conflict, a war that has displaced more people than any other in recent years. Similarly, and largely as a result of the blocking tactics employed by Russia and the US, the Secretary-General struggled to get Security Council backing for a global ceasefire that would support the international community’s efforts to fight the Coronavirus pandemic

    Second, the humanitarian principles that are supposed to regulate the behavior of states and other parties to armed conflicts, thereby minimizing the harm done to civilian populations, are under attack from a variety of different actors. In countries such as Burkina Faso, Iraq, Nigeria and Somalia, those principles have been flouted by extremist groups who make deliberate use of death and destruction to displace populations and extend the areas under their control.

    In states such as Myanmar and Syria, the armed forces have acted without any kind of constraint, persecuting and expelling anyone who is deemed to be insufficiently loyal to the regime or who come from an unwanted part of society. And in Central America, violent gangs and ruthless cartels are acting with growing impunity, making life so hazardous for other citizens that they feel obliged to move and look for safety elsewhere.

    Third, there is mounting evidence to suggest that governments are prepared to disregard international refugee law and have a respect a declining commitment to the principle of asylum. It is now common practice for states to refuse entry to refugees, whether by building new walls, deploying military and militia forces, or intercepting and returning asylum seekers who are travelling by sea.

    In the Global North, the refugee policies of the industrialized increasingly take the form of ‘externalization’, whereby the task of obstructing the movement of refugees is outsourced to transit states in the Global South. The EU has been especially active in the use of this strategy, forging dodgy deals with countries such as Libya, Niger, Sudan and Turkey. Similarly, the US has increasingly sought to contain northward-bound refugees in Mexico, and to return asylum seekers there should they succeed in reaching America’s southern border.

    In developing countries themselves, where some 85 per cent of the world’s refugees are to be found, governments are increasingly prepared to flout the principle that refugee repatriation should only take place in a voluntary manner. While they rarely use overt force to induce premature returns, they have many other tools at their disposal: confining refugees to inhospitable camps, limiting the food that they receive, denying them access to the internet, and placing restrictions on humanitarian organizations that are trying to meet their needs.

    Fourth, the COVID-19 pandemic of the past nine months constitutes a very direct threat to the lives of refugees, and at the same time seems certain to divert scarce resources from other humanitarian programmes, including those that support displaced people. The Coronavirus has also provided a very convenient alibi for governments that wish to close their borders to people who are seeking safety on their territory.

    Responding to this problem, UNHCR has provided governments with recommendations as to how they might uphold the principle of asylum while managing their borders effectively and minimizing any health risks associated with the cross-border movement of people. But it does not seem likely that states will be ready to adopt such an approach, and will prefer instead to introduce more restrictive refugee and migration policies.

    Even if the virus is brought under some kind of control, it may prove difficult to convince states to remove the restrictions that they have introduced during the COVD-19 emergency. And the likelihood of that outcome is reinforced by the fear that the climate crisis will in the years to come prompt very large numbers of people to look for a future beyond the borders of their own state.

    Fifth, the state-based international refugee regime does not appear well placed to resist these negative trends. At the broadest level, the very notions of multilateralism, international cooperation and the rule of law are being challenged by a variety of powerful states in different parts of the world: Brazil, China, Russia, Turkey and the USA, to name just five. Such countries also share a common disdain for human rights and the protection of minorities – indigenous people, Uyghur Muslims, members of the LGBT community, the Kurds and African-Americans respectively.

    The USA, which has traditionally acted as a mainstay of the international refugee regime, has in recent years set a particularly negative example to the rest of the world by slashing its refugee resettlement quota, by making it increasingly difficult for asylum seekers to claim refugee status on American territory, by entirely defunding the UN’s Palestinian refugee agency and by refusing to endorse the Global Compact on Refugees. Indeed, while many commentators predicted that the election of President Trump would not be good news for refugees, the speed at which he has dismantled America’s commitment to the refugee regime has taken many by surprise.

    In this toxic international environment, UNHCR appears to have become an increasingly self-protective organization, as indicated by the enormous amount of effort it devotes to marketing, branding and celebrity endorsement. For reasons that remain somewhat unclear, rather than stressing its internationally recognized mandate for refugee protection and solutions, UNHCR increasingly presents itself as an all-purpose humanitarian agency, delivering emergency assistance to many different groups of needy people, both outside and within their own country. Perhaps this relief-oriented approach is thought to win the favour of the organization’s key donors, an impression reinforced by the cautious tone of the advocacy that UNHCR undertakes in relation to the restrictive asylum policies of the EU and USA.

    UNHCR has, to its credit, made a concerted effort to revitalize the international refugee regime, most notably through the Global Compact on Refugees, the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework and the Global Refugee Forum. But will these initiatives really have the ‘game-changing’ impact that UNHCR has prematurely attributed to them?

    The Global Compact on Refugees, for example, has a number of important limitations. It is non-binding and does not impose any specific obligations on the countries that have endorsed it, especially in the domain of responsibility-sharing. The Compact makes numerous references to the need for long-term and developmental approaches to the refugee problem that also bring benefits to host states and communities. But it is much more reticent on fundamental protection principles such as the right to seek asylum and the notion of non-refoulement. The Compact also makes hardly any reference to the issue of internal displacement, despite the fact that there are twice as many IDPs as there are refugees under UNHCR’s mandate.

    So far, the picture painted by this article has been unremittingly bleak. But just as one can identify five very negative trends in relation to refugee protection, a similar number of positive developments also warrant recognition.

    First, the refugee policies pursued by states are not uniformly bad. Countries such as Canada, Germany and Uganda, for example, have all contributed, in their own way, to the task of providing refugees with the security that they need and the rights to which they are entitled. In their initial stages at least, the countries of South America and the Middle East responded very generously to the massive movements of refugees out of Venezuela and Syria.

    And while some analysts, including the current author, have felt that there was a very real risk of large-scale refugee expulsions from countries such as Bangladesh, Kenya and Lebanon, those fears have so far proved to be unfounded. While there is certainly a need for abusive states to be named and shamed, recognition should also be given to those that seek to uphold the principles of refugee protection.

    Second, the humanitarian response to refugee situations has become steadily more effective and equitable. Twenty years ago, it was the norm for refugees to be confined to camps, dependent on the distribution of food and other emergency relief items and unable to establish their own livelihoods. Today, it is far more common for refugees to be found in cities, towns or informal settlements, earning their own living and/or receiving support in the more useful, dignified and efficient form of cash transfers. Much greater attention is now given to the issues of age, gender and diversity in refugee contexts, and there is a growing recognition of the role that locally-based and refugee-led organizations can play in humanitarian programmes.

    Third, after decades of discussion, recent years have witnessed a much greater engagement with refugee and displacement issues by development and financial actors, especially the World Bank. While there are certainly some risks associated with this engagement (namely a lack of attention to protection issues and an excessive focus on market-led solutions) a more developmental approach promises to allow better long-term planning for refugee populations, while also addressing more systematically the needs of host populations.

    Fourth, there has been a surge of civil society interest in the refugee issue, compensating to some extent for the failings of states and the large international humanitarian agencies. Volunteer groups, for example, have played a critical role in responding to the refugee situation in the Mediterranean. The Refugees Welcome movement, a largely spontaneous and unstructured phenomenon, has captured the attention and allegiance of many people, especially but not exclusively the younger generation.

    And as has been seen in the UK this year, when governments attempt to demonize refugees, question their need for protection and violate their rights, there are many concerned citizens, community associations, solidarity groups and faith-based organizations that are ready to make their voice heard. Indeed, while the national asylum policies pursued by the UK and other countries have been deeply disappointing, local activism on behalf of refugees has never been stronger.

    Finally, recent events in the Middle East, the Mediterranean and Europe have raised the question as to whether refugees could be spared the trauma and hardship of making dangerous journeys from one country and continent to another by providing them with safe and legal routes. These might include initiatives such as Canada’s community-sponsored refugee resettlement programme, the ‘humanitarian corridors’ programme established by the Italian churches, family reunion projects of the type championed in the UK and France by Lord Alf Dubs, and the notion of labour mobility programmes for skilled refugee such as that promoted by the NGO Talent Beyond Boundaries.

    Such initiatives do not provide a panacea to the refugee issue, and in their early stages at least, might not provide a solution for large numbers of displaced people. But in a world where refugee protection is at such serious risk, they deserve our full support.

    http://www.against-inhumanity.org/2020/09/08/refugee-protection-at-risk

    #réfugiés #asile #migrations #protection #Jeff_Crisp #crise #crise_migratoire #crise_des_réfugiés #gouvernance #gouvernance_globale #paix #Nations_unies #ONU #conflits #guerres #conseil_de_sécurité #principes_humanitaires #géopolitique #externalisation #sanctuarisation #rapatriement #covid-19 #coronavirus #frontières #fermeture_des_frontières #liberté_de_mouvement #liberté_de_circulation #droits_humains #Global_Compact_on_Refugees #Comprehensive_Refugee_Response_Framework #Global_Refugee_Forum #camps_de_réfugiés #urban_refugees #réfugiés_urbains #banque_mondiale #société_civile #refugees_welcome #solidarité #voies_légales #corridors_humanitaires #Talent_Beyond_Boundaries #Alf_Dubs

    via @isskein
    ping @karine4 @thomas_lacroix @_kg_ @rhoumour

    –—
    Ajouté à la métaliste sur le global compact :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/739556

  • #University_corridors and the role of academia in opening safe and legal pathways for refugees to Europe

    In this blog I discuss the potential contribution of EU universities to opening safe and legal pathways for refugees to Europe. I describe the example of a recent project in Italy called ‘University Corridors for Refugees’ and argue that the expansion and scaling up of this initiative can save lives and partially remedy the inequality of opportunity that many refugees face.

    What can universities do for refugees?

    Since the ‘long summer of migration’ in 2015, universities across the EU started various refugee-related initiatives. Many contributed in the conventional way through research on topics like reception and integration. Some developed more practice-oriented solutions and opened their doors to forced migrants. Recognized refugees were given access to full-time study programs and asylum seekers were allowed to enroll in single university courses. In the majority of cases this was accompanied by softening rigorous intake procedures and removing financial barriers. One example here is the Incluusion program of Utrecht University, which in the last years has provided free access to a wide range of courses for hundreds of students with a refugee background. While attempts for large-scale and coordinated cross-national initiatives were not absent, solutions usually emerged bottom-up, driven by the active engagement of university management, academic staff and student communities.

    These attempts, however, have an important limitation – they have been focused on the access to higher education for forced migrants who have already made their journey to the EU. A recent estimation by Amnesty International showed that about 80% of all refugees live in developing regions, while one third of the global refugee population resides in the world’s poorest countries. Even the most brilliant refugee students among these approximately 20 million people face disproportionate and unjustified burdens in their attempts to pursue higher education at EU universities. Rather than limited to lack of finances, as many would correctly suggest, these burdens often involve bureaucratic issues, which eventually deprive refugees from the equality of opportunity they deserve based on their own efforts, knowledge and skills.

    How could EU universities, or at least those who have already demonstrated their commitment to assisting refugees, provide a remedy to this problem? My argument is that they can do so by extending their engagement beyond the EU borders and by opening university corridors for refugee students residing in third countries. Initially, universities can be the protagonists in creating coalitions of local civil society and private sector actors ready to provide material and social support to refugee students who want to continue their education in Europe. Subsequently, they can collaborate with international organizations and national authorities for the removal of bureaucratic obstacles that disproportionately affect refugees.

    The evidence upon which I build my argument comes from a recent initiative called University Corridors for Refugees. It started as a small pilot project at the University of Bologna in 2019, and within just a year expanded to ten other higher education institutions across Italy. In brief, it is a wide partnership between public institutions, civil society and private sector actors that supports refugees to pursue a post-graduate degree in Italy in the following way. Each of the participating universities prepares a call for applications for a range of Master’s programmes for refugees residing in Ethiopia. UNHCR, with the assistance of NGOs, helps disseminate the calls among refugees who have recently graduated at Ethiopian universities and who live either in camps or in urban areas across the country. After a merit-based selection procedure conducted by the host universities, the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation issues a study visa to the successful applicants. Once they have arrived on campus, the refugee students are welcomed and supported by a network of local partners. NGOs, regional/local authorities and churches provide study equipment, a public transport subscription, language classes and integration assistance. Universities award a tuition fee waiver and support the beneficiaries of the project with accommodation, while tutors selected among the local students help the newcomers adapt to the new environment. Finally, private sector partners facilitate the access to internships and training programs during their studies, with the potential for permanent employment after graduation. While the University of Bologna has already welcomed its first refugee students arriving through the University Corridors, the rest of the Italian universities participating in the project expect their successful candidates to join them in the following months.

    Opening university corridors for refugees is not a novel idea. In fact, the Student Refugee Program in Canada has been operating for more than 40 years and has helped more than 2000 refugee students pursue higher education in nearly 100 Canadian universities. The Canadian model, however, makes part of the country’s private-sponsorship-program, which means that the arriving refugee students are at the same time permanently resettled. On the contrary, the Italian model described above allows refugees to continue their education in Italy on a study visa. In any case, and especially given the participation of private sector actors in the University Corridors project, it is very likely that the fresh refugee graduates will be able to transfer their visas into work permits and therefore remain in the country after their studies. In this way, the participating universities de facto contribute to opening safe and legal pathways for refugees to Europe.
    The birth of University Corridors for Refugees

    Why is the University Corridors for Refugees project so important and why should it be expanded and scaled up? My answer here is twofold. Firstly, because university corridors can potentially save lives. Secondly, because they can also, at least partially, remedy the inequality of opportunity that even the most devoted, hardworking and gifted refugee students face. The best way to demonstrate the added value of opening more university corridors to Europe is by sharing the little-known story behind the birth of the project in Italy.

    In 2004, a young Italian PhD student named Stefania visited Ethiopia for a course in tropical medicine. One day, while traveling to the Blue Nile Falls, she met a twelve year old local Ethiopian boy, who eventually helped her cross the river. The two exchanged contacts and stayed in touch, while the family of Stefania decided to start sponsoring the education of the boy. This helped him complete high school and then enroll into a graduate program at the University of Addis Ababa.

    At the university the Ethiopian boy met his two best friends. Both of them were refugees, who had recently fled the dictatorship in nearby Eritrea in quest for realizing their dream – to study journalism. Ethiopia’s open policy towards refugees allowed the two young men to follow courses along with their new Ethiopian friend. All three of them excelled in their studies and graduated together in 2014.

    By that time, the young Italian PhD student had become an assistant professor at the University of Bologna. With her support, her Ethiopian friend prepared his documents and applied for a Master’s programme at the same institution. Eventually, he got accepted. Despite all bureaucratic obstacles faced, he received his study visa and arrived on time for the start of the semester. Exactly ten years after the boy had helped Stefania cross the Blue Nile, she returned the favor by helping him to safely and legally cross the Mediterranean and continue his education.

    His two Eritrean refugee friends, however, were not so fortunate. They did not lag behind in terms of knowledge or skills and they were perfectly qualified for enrolling into a post-graduate program at an Italian university too. What they lacked was a valid passport. The only travel document they could obtain by the Ethiopian authorities was the Geneva passport, which is issued to recognized refugees. However, the Italian authorities repeatedly refused granting them study visas in these circumstances. It should be noted, that the Geneva passport is a valid travel document issued by all countries that have signed the Refugee Convention. In theory, therefore, there is no legal obstacle preventing refugees who have such passports to apply for and eventually obtain a visa to travel to Europe. After a long period of negotiations and with the immense efforts of Stefania and the intervention of UNHCR, one of the two Eritrean refugees was issued a study visa and flew to Italy where he started his Masters. By that time, the other refugee graduate had already chosen to take an alternative journey. He had already moved to Sudan on his way to Libya and then Italy. Fortunately, and again with the assistance of UNHCR, the Italian embassy in Khartoum provided him the necessary study visa and in September 2016 he arrived in Bologna. Following the steps of his two friends he obtained a merit-based scholarship, passed all his exams and graduated exactly two years later.

    In the meanwhile, the persistence and personal engagement of Stefania had created the foundations of a wide network that supported the two Eritrean refugee students all the way from Ethiopia to their graduation at the University of Bologna. Local NGOs and individuals provided financial, material and social support. A crowdfunding campaign and a small concert helped cover the tuition fees. UNHCR, as already noted, took care of the legal issues and the communication with the Italian authorities.

    Inspired by the positive experience, the university management decided to build upon this personal initiative and launched the UNI-CO-RE (University Corridors for Refugees) pilot project. The already existing partnership was further expanded and strengthened. The Catholic church and an international NGO supported the selected students during the preparation of their documents in Ethiopia, covering also the cost of their flight to Italy. The University of Bologna provided full tuition fee waivers and scholarships (again with the support of the Catholic church), while the Regional Agency for the Right to Higher Education in Emilia-Romagna offered accommodation in a student house. Local civil society organizations took over the integration of the beneficiaries, providing also psychological support. In addition, two associations of managers operating in the industrial, trade and service sectors agreed to provide internships and eventually employment to prospective refugee students. Ultimately, after a selection procedure with merit-based criteria, five more Eritrean refugees arrived in 2019 in Bologna to pursue their Master’s degrees in Engineering and Economics, while one more joined LUISS University in Rome. Few months later, with the support of UNHCR and the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation the project was extended to 10 more universities and 20 new refugee students are expected to arrive in Italy in the autumn semester of 2020.
    No need to passively wait

    Returning to the question on the importance of expanding the university corridors, one can now ask what would have happened if Stefania’s efforts had not resulted in removing the barriers that the two refugee students faced in their attempts to continue their education in Europe? It would be a speculation to claim that the Eritrean refugee who had started his journey to Libya would end up in the depths of the sea. It is a fact though that since 2014 more than 20,000 migrants died trying to cross the Mediterranean. Some probably remember the boy from Mali, who drowned on April 18, 2015 with his school report card sewn into his pocket. His story became widely known when an Italian newspaper published a cartoon depicting the boy under water, showing his report to fish and mollusks who replied “Wow…All tens! What a rare pearl!”. Few years after his death five schools in Rome put stumbling stones in memory of the boy stating “To the young man from Mali, who died with a report card on his heart. This school would have welcomed him and other people who drowned while trying to cross the sea." Schools in other Italian cities also developed similar initiatives.

    As I have argued above, some solutions already exist and there is no need to passively wait for similar unnecessary tragedies to occur. Universities across Europe have a unique chance to provide at least a partial remedy to the problem, by opening university corridors for refugees. They can demonstrate their leadership, unite efforts with local civil society, private sector partners and international organizations, and work together towards the removal of the various barriers depriving refugee students from equal opportunities. Importantly, the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation eventually recognized the added value of university corridors and became one of the leading partners in the project. This shows that national authorities can be responsive to bottom-up solutions that improve migration governance in general and facilitate safe and legal pathways to Europe in particular. In the same way in which the persistence of a single person gave birth to the university corridors in Italy, the protagonism of European universities can help expand the initiative and build new bridges for refugee students that will provide them the chance to access higher education.

    https://www.uu.nl/en/opinion/blog-university-corridors-and-the-role-of-academia-in-opening-safe-and-legal-path

    #université #réfugiés #asile #migrations #solidarité #voies_légales #corridors

    Ajouté à cette métaliste générale sur les villes-refuge:
    https://seenthis.net/messages/759145#message766829

  • Why ’stronger borders’ don’t work

    Thousands of people die annually trying to cross borders. It’s often argued stronger borders and more checks would deter people from making dangerous crossings. But how accurate is this? Maya Goodfellow explores what the current border regime means for people seeking asylum

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/video/2020/jan/21/why-stronger-borders-dont-work
    #fermeture_des_frontières #asile #migrations #réfugiés #walls_don't_work #dissuasion #frontières #problème #solution #vidéo #externalisation #vulnérabilité #danger #péril #militarisation_des_frontières #ressources_pédagogiques #pull_factor #facteur_pull #stéréotypes #préjugés #pull-factor #audition #voies_légales #réinstallation

    Cette carte


    #cartographie #visualisation #frontières_intérieures #Schengen (fin de -)
    ping @karine4 @isskein

  • Question concernant les #statistiques reçue via la mailing-list Migreurop, le 29.11.2019 et que je mets ici pour archivage, car la question des #chiffres autour des #migrations, de l’#asile, des #réfugiés et des #frontières revient souvent...

    La question concerne le pourcentage d’#entrées_irrégulières des personnes ayant obtenu une protection en Europe .

    Je n’arrive pas à trouver d’infos fiables sur le sujet.
    Ici en France nos politiques rivalisent de chiffres hasardeux...
    Il y a quelques mois une étude visant à promouvoir la mise en place de visas humanitaires avancait le chiffre de 90% de réfugiés étant entrés irrégulièrement en Europe.
    https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/621823/EPRS_STU(2018)621823_EN.pdf
    "Currently, up to 90% of the total population of subsequently recognised refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection reach the territory of Member States irregularly."

    Comme source de cette info, ils indiquent ce document :
    https://www.fluechtlingshilfe.ch/assets/asylrecht/rechtsgrundlagen/exploring-avenues-for-protected-entry-in-europe.pdf
    ...qui date de 2012, et c’est une « estimation », sans citer de sources.
    "According to estimates, approximately 90% of all asylum seekers enter Europe in an irregular manner, since legal entry has become more and more difficult and in most cases impossible. »

    Est-ce quelqu’un saurait ou il est possible de trouver cette info, c’est à dire le pourcentage d’entrée irrégulière ou via un visa, parmi les demandeurs d’asile d’une part, et ceux qui obtiennent un statut de réfugié, en Europe ?

    ping @simplicissimus @reka

    • Je n’ai pas su répondre à cette question, mais il y a un commentaire à faire par rapport à ce que les deux citations mettent en avant (pas la même chose, à mon avis, même si les deux donnent le même chiffre... ce qui montre qu’il y a un problème). Et des information à donner en complément, d’autres statistiques (et leur #manipulation) dans d’autres contextes, mais toujours sur la question du passage irrégulier des frontières...

      Voici ma réponse :

      J’envoie à toi et aux autres abonné·es de la liste le graphique ci-dessous :


      tiré du livre « Méditerranée : des frontières à la dérive »

      https://lepassagerclandestin.fr/catalogue/bibliotheque-des-frontieres/mediterranee-des-frontieres-a-la-derive.html

      On y voit que les « interception des migrants à la frontière » (donc sans visa, qui entre « irrégulièrement ») représentent 1 à 3% des entrées sur le territoire européen...

      ça ne répond pas à ta question, mais c’est intéressant de l’avoir en tête... pour montrer que la très très très grande majorité des personnes non-européennes entrent de manière régulière sur le territoire, avec des visas.

      Mais là, il ne s’agit pas de ce que tu cherches.

      Ce qui est sûr c’est que tes deux citations se contredisent :
      1. « Currently, up to 90% of the total population of subsequently recognised refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection reach the territory of Member States irregularly. »
      –-> % des personnes entrées irrégulièrement sur les personnes reconnues réfugiées ou qui ont obtenu une protection subsidiaire, après être entrées sur le territoire européen.

      Ce qui n’est pas la même chose de dire que

      2. « According to estimates, approximately 90% of all asylum seekers enter Europe in an irregular manner »
      –-> car là la base de calcul sont les demandeurs d’asile, ce qui comportent d’y intégrer aussi des personnes qui seront après examen de la demande déboutées de l’asile.

      Une des deux affirmations est donc fausse, car étant la base différente, on ne peut pas avoir le même pourcentage...

      –------------

      Je pense que je n’ai jamais vu passer les chiffres des entrées irrégulières sur la base de ceux qui après sont reconnus réfugiés... Mais je suis preneuse si jamais des personnes de la liste ont cette info, en effet.

      Je vous rappelle par contre ci-dessous d’autres contextes dans lesquels on a pu démontré que les entrées (irrégulières) ont été gonflées :
      ... les chiffres publiés par Frontex des entrées irrégulières dans les Balkans : https://theconversation.com/seeing-double-how-the-eu-miscounts-migrants-arriving-at-its-borders
      ... et la Suisse gonflait ceux des passages à la frontière depuis l’Italie : https://asile.ch/2016/08/12/parlant-de-personnes-lieu-de-cas-medias-surestiment-nombre-de-passages-a-front
      ... et puis ceux des passages entre la Grèce et l’Albanie : https://journals.openedition.org/espacepolitique/2675

      Tout cela, avec plus de documents, vous le trouvez dans ce fil de discussion sur seenthis.net :
      https://seenthis.net/messages/705957

      Je n’ai pas vraiment répondu à ta question, mais cette réponse peut peut-être être utile à des personnes sur la liste qui se posent des questions sur les statistiques des entrées sur le territoire européen...

    • A priori, seul l’OFPRA, et lui seul, serait en mesure de fournir ce chiffre et il ne le fait pas.
      https://www.ofpra.gouv.fr/fr/l-ofpra/nos-publications/rapports-d-activite

      Par ailleurs, il me semble que le chiffre de 90% d’illégaux parmi les bénéficiaires de protection signifierait qu’une (très ?) forte proportion des immigrants irréguliers demanderaient la protection. Mais je n’y connais pas grand chose.

      Je trouve quelques éléments autour de l’estimation, par construction problématique, des entrées irrégulières dans les échanges rapportés par le rapport sénatorial de 2006 (oui, ça fait loin…)
      https://www.senat.fr/rap/r05-300-1/r05-300-111.html

    • @simplicissimus :

      Par ailleurs, il me semble que le chiffre de 90% d’illégaux parmi les bénéficiaires de protection signifierait qu’une (très ?) forte proportion des immigrants irréguliers demanderaient la protection. Mais je n’y connais pas grand chose.

      –-> ça absolument, oui, car malheureusement les #voies_légales sont bouchées (politique de #visas très restrictive pour des questions liées à l’asile mais aussi pour le travail, les études, etc.), du coup, les personnes prennent la route quand même et la seule manière pour laquelle on peut traverser la frontière SANS les « bons » documents. Les frontières fermées, d’une certaine manière, pousse les personnes à passer les frontières irrégulièrement et la seule manière de ne pas être refoulé c’est en demandant l’asile (en théorie, car en pratique les Etats bafouent souvent ce droit et refoulent quand même).
      J’espère avoir été claire...

      #merci en tout cas pour le lien du Sénat...

    • Le document signalé par @simplicissimus, in extenso (pour archivage, ça date de 2006 :

      Immigration clandestine : une réalité inacceptable, une réponse ferme, juste et humaine (rapport)

      B. DES CHIFFRES SUJETS À CAUTION

      Rares sont les personnes entendues par la commission d’enquête qui se sont aventurées à fournir une évaluation chiffrée de l’immigration irrégulière. Les chiffres communiqués semblent vraisemblables mais restent sujets à caution compte tenu des lacunes du dispositif d’évaluation statistique.
      1. Les chiffres nationaux

      En juin 1998, dans son rapport au nom de la commission d’enquête du Sénat sur les régularisations d’étrangers en situation irrégulière présidée par notre ancien collègue M. Paul Masson, notre collègue M. José Balarello écrivait qu’« une estimation du nombre des clandestins entre 350.000 et 400.000 ne paraît pas éloignée de la réalité20(). »

      Selon M. Nicolas Sarkozy, ministre d’Etat, ministre de l’intérieur et de l’aménagement du territoire, entre 200.000 et 400.000 étrangers en situation irrégulière seraient aujourd’hui présents sur le territoire national et entre 80.000 et 100.000 migrants illégaux supplémentaires y entreraient chaque année.

      La direction des affaires juridiques et des libertés publiques du ministère explique que cette estimation des « flux » « résulte notamment du nombre de demandeurs d’asile, diminué du nombre de personnes ayant obtenu le statut de réfugié, du nombre de personnes ayant été régularisées et du nombre d’arrêtés de reconduite à la frontière pris et exécutés à l’encontre des demandeurs d’asile déboutés. » Quant à celle du « stock », « elle prend pour base minimale le nombre (150.000) d’étrangers en situation irrégulière qui bénéficient de l’aide médicale d’Etat. Sur cette base, et en y ajustant un pourcentage du flux annuel (pour tenir compte, d’une part, des régularisations « au fil de l’eau » et, d’autre part, des départs volontaires), on peut raisonnablement estimer ce stock à environ 400.000 personnes. »

      La controverse, par auditions devant la commission d’enquête interposées, entre le ministre d’Etat et M. François Héran, directeur de l’Institut national des études démographiques, montre combien la question est sensible et complexe.

      Le premier a reproché à l’INED d’avoir, en janvier 2004, sous-évalué le flux annuel d’immigration illégale, en l’estimant à 13.000 par an sur la base d’une analyse de la régularisation pratiquée en 1997-1998.

      Le second a observé que ces déclarations reposaient sur plusieurs méprises : d’abord, la migration illégale nette évoquée valait pour la décennie 1989-1998 ; ensuite l’INED a proposé une évaluation des flux nets ou encore du solde migratoire, c’est-à-dire du nombre d’immigrants irréguliers qui demeurent sur notre sol une fois défalquées les sorties, alors que M. Nicolas Sarkozy a évoqué les seuls flux bruts d’entrées irrégulières.

      Il a en outre jugé incompatibles les chiffres avancés par le ministre d’Etat : dans la mesure où les régularisations menées en France et en Europe montrent que la durée de séjour des immigrants illégaux s’étale sur au moins une dizaine d’années, l’arrivée de 90.000 immigrants irréguliers supplémentaires en moyenne par an devrait porter le « stock » d’immigrants illégaux présents sur notre territoire à environ 800.000 personnes ; si l’on considère en revanche que 300.000 immigrants irréguliers séjournent sur notre territoire, alors le flux annuel d’entrées se situe entre 30.000 et 40.000 personnes, évaluation tout à fait compatible avec celle de l’INED.

      La divergence porte donc davantage sur l’évaluation des flux que sur celle du stock qui, si elle reste sujette à caution, semble vraisemblable.

      Par ailleurs -et c’est l’un des rares chiffres qu’elle a accepté de communiquer à la commission d’enquête- Mme Jacqueline Costa-Lascoux, membre du Haut conseil à l’intégration et directrice de l’Observatoire statistique de l’immigration et de l’intégration, a fait état d’estimations selon lesquelles le nombre d’enfants scolarisés dont les parents sont en situation irrégulière serait compris entre 15.000 et 20.000. Mme Armelle Gardien, représentante du Réseau éducation sans frontières, a pour sa part estimé à plus de 10.000 le nombre des jeunes étrangers sans papiers scolarisés, tout en soulignant la difficulté de disposer d’évaluations fiables.

      Enfin, environ 3.000 mineurs étrangers isolés sont pris en charge par les services de l’Etat (protection judiciaire de la jeunesse) ou des départements (aide sociale à l’enfance).

      Dans un rapport21() paru au moins de janvier 2005, l’inspection générale des affaires sociales note, sur la base d’une enquête auprès des départements à laquelle 64 conseils généraux ont répondu qu’« environ 3.100 mineurs auraient été admis à l’aide sociale à l’enfance en 2003 ; 2.300 sur les neuf premiers mois de 2004. Près de 2.500 mineurs étaient présents au 30 septembre 2004 dans les mêmes départements. (...). Des origines et des trajectoires de migration diverses sont perceptibles, qui laissent néanmoins apparaître des dominantes. 5 nationalités dominent les flux depuis plusieurs années : Roumanie, Chine, Maroc, Albanie, Congo, avec une apparition plus récente de l’Angola. L’enquête commanditée par la direction des populations et des migrations en 2001 distinguait cinq grands types qui demeurent pertinents : les exilés (souvent africains) ; les mandatés (chinois, indiens...) ; les exploités -catégorie qui peut recouper les précédentes- (Europe de l’Est et Balkans) ; les fugueurs (Afrique du Nord) ; les errants. »

      Le rapport relève également que « la réalité de l’isolement n’est pas toujours aisée à établir, dans la mesure où ces jeunes sont parfois venus rejoindre un parent plus ou moins éloigné » mais que « le caractère relatif de cet isolement ne minimise pas le danger auquel ces jeunes sont exposés car les adultes auxquels ils ont été confiés sont inégalement désireux de les accueillir et les conditions d’accueil se dégradent parfois rapidement sans compter les situations extrêmes d’exploitation (esclavage domestique ou prostitution par exemple). »

      20 Rapport n° 470 (Sénat, 1997-1998), page 22.

      21 Mission d’analyse et de proposition sur les conditions d’accueil des mineurs étrangers isolés en France - Rapport n° 2005 010, présenté par Jean Blocquaux, Anne Burstin et Dominique Giorgi, membres de l’inspection générale des affaires sociales - janvier 2005.

      https://www.senat.fr/rap/r05-300-1/r05-300-111.html

      Source : Rapport de commission d’enquête n° 300 (2005-2006) de MM. #Georges_OTHILY et #François-Noël_BUFFET, fait au nom de la commission d’enquête, déposé le 6 avril 2006

    • Intéressant de voir le vocabulaire, qui n’a guère changé depuis, autour de #fermeté et #humanité
      voir notamment cet article de Véronique Albanel :
      Humanité et fermeté

      https://www.cairn.info/revue-etudes-2018-4-page-4.htm

      En #France, mais aussi en #Belgique...
      #Asile et #immigration en #Belgique (I) : la Méthode #De_Block, ou la #fermeté_déshumanisante

      Au plus haut dans les sondages et cajolée par les médias, la Secrétaire d’Etat à l’Asile et à l’Immigration #Maggie_De_Block voit sa gestion restrictive des flux migratoires couronnée de succès politique. Son secret ? Une #communication habile sur un dosage présenté comme équilibré entre #fermeté et #humanité. Une formule dont les deux éléments présentent tous les traits d’un #oxymore aux conséquences humaines désastreuses.

      https://seenthis.net/messages/213382

      #terminologie #vocabulaire #mots

    • C’est vrai qu’il s’agit de celles et ceux qui se sont fait intercepter et qu’ils n’ont plus guère d’options…

      Reste, comme toujours, à estimer celles et ceux qui sont passés à travers les mailles des filets…

      a parte, je vais pouvoir tester ces jours-ci la gare de Champel flambant neuve, inaugurée ce week-end…

    • Vous le savez, on est plusieurs à se poser pas mal de questions sur les statistiques françaises sur l’asile.
      Les chiffres officiels de la DGEF sont souvent très différents des statisques officielles européenne d’#Eurostat.
      C’est assez « pratique » pour le gouvernement, qui justifie sa politique migratoire selon les chiffres qui l’arrange…

      Gérard Sadik, de la Cimade, l’a évoqué il y a déjà plusieurs mois : la France ne comptabilisait pas les #dublinés.
      Afin de vérifier, j’avais contacté les journalistes du service « CheckNews » du journal Libération, fin novembre.
      Ils ont enquêté, et diffusé leurs résultats aujourd’hui :
      https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/2020/01/20/demandes-d-asile-eurostat-epingle-la-france-pour-avoir-tronque-des-statis

      L’article est réservé aux abonnés, je copie/colle en fin de message l’article complet, mais à ne pas rediffuser publiquement par respect pour leur travail.

      En résumé ils confirment que la France ne respecte pas les consignes statistiques européennes... en ne prenant pas en compte les demandeurs d’asile dublinés, notre pays fausse les comparaisons.
      Bilan : il est très difficile d’avoir une vision précise des statistiques sur l’asile, à cause de l’incompétence française.
      Ce qui n’empêche pas le gouvernement français de s’appuyer sur ces chiffres tronqués pour justifier le durcissement de sa politique…

      Le Ministère de l’intérieur doit justement diffuser demain les premiers chiffres de 2019… qui ne seront donc vraisemblablement pas conformes !

      Message de David Torondel reçu via la mailing-list Migreurop, le 20.01.2020.

    • Selon nos informations, Eurostat a récemment pris contact avec les autorités françaises, en raison de statistiques tronquées fournies par Paris quant au nombre de demandeurs d’asile. L’office statistique européen s’est en effet rendu compte que la France, depuis plusieurs années, ne comptabilisait pas dans ses chiffres les demandeurs sous procédure de Dublin (personnes demandant l’asile mais qui doivent en théorie être prises en charge par le pays dans lequel elles sont entrées dans l’UE). Ce qui a pour effet de minorer chaque mois de plusieurs milliers de demandeurs, et de biaiser toute comparaison. Ce qui est pourtant l’objet d’Eurostat.

      #paywall

  • I migranti della #Open_Arms chiedono asilo dalla nave

    L’8 agosto per la prima volta nella storia dei soccorsi in mare, 89 migranti dei 121 soccorsi in due diverse operazioni dalla nave spagnola Open Arms nelle acque internazionali al largo della Libia hanno espresso la volontà di fare richiesta di asilo in Europa, mentre sono ancora a bordo della nave umanitaria. L’organizzazione non governativa spagnola Proactiva Open Arms ha consegnato queste richieste all’Alto commissariato delle Nazioni Unite per i rifugiati (Unhcr) e alla Centrale operativa della guardia costiera di Roma, in una mossa senza precedenti che potrebbe portare per vie legali al superamento del divieto di sbarco imposto dalle autorità italiane, dopo la conversione in legge del cosiddetto decreto sicurezza bis, che criminalizza il soccorso in mare e impedisce alle navi umanitarie di ricevere un porto di sbarco.

    I profughi – che provengono da Eritrea, Etiopia, Somalia e Costa d’Avorio – sono bloccati da otto giorni al largo di Lampedusa e non hanno ricevuto l’autorizzazione a sbarcare né in Italia né a Malta, nonostante i numerosi appelli della capomissione Anabel Montes Mier che ha denunciato una situazione critica a bordo. Il 9 agosto sono stati portati rifornimenti e a bordo è salito anche l’attore Richard Gere.
    Nel frattempo la nave norvegese Ocean Viking delle ong Medici senza frontiere e di Sos Méditerranée ha soccorso 85 persone, tra cui quattro bambini, a sessanta miglia dalle coste libiche. “Alcune donne hanno raccontato storie di violenza e di stupri, avevano sul corpo i segni di queste inenarrabili violenze”, ha raccontato Valentina Brinis, responsabile dei progetti di Proactiva Open Arms.

    “A bordo si è creato un clima tale per cui le persone si sono aperte e hanno raccontato le loro storie, ci siamo resi conto così che si trattava di persone che avevano bisogno di protezione in base alle leggi internazionali come la Convenzione di Ginevra del 1951”, continua Brinis. Per questo gli operatori legali e gli avvocati dell’organizzazione hanno raccolto le richieste di asilo da parte dei migranti e le hanno presentate all’Unhcr e all’Mrcc di Roma.

    Per la prima volta su una nave umanitaria i migranti hanno sottoscritto un documento in cui chiedono di poter fare domanda di asilo: questo procedimento apre una serie di questioni di diritto internazionale. “Di solito queste persone erano considerate soltanto naufraghi, invece sono in realtà dei richiedenti asilo. Questo significa che se fossero riportati indietro in Libia si tratterebbe di una violazione del principio di non respingimento sancito dalla Convenzione di Ginevra, ma anche dalla Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo”, afferma l’operatrice, che insieme all’avvocato Arturo Salerni ha presentato le richieste. L’ong sottolinea che la richiesta dovrebbe sollecitare l’assegnazione di un porto sicuro di sbarco per persone che ne hanno diritto e che sono particolarmente vulnerabili.

    Ma il ministero dell’interno italiano ha risposto con una nota dicendo “che la Open Arms è spagnola” e in base alle convenzioni internazionali “è dovere dello stato di bandiera prendersi cura di coloro che si trovano a bordo, dopo essere stati raccolti o trasportati in acque internazionali: gli esperti del ministero dell’Interno stanno valutando la possibilità di richiamare pertanto la Spagna - anche in ambito giurisdizionale - al rispetto degli obblighi internazionali facendosi carico delle 89 persone”.

    L’organizzazione ribadisce di non essere interessata ad arrivare per forza in Italia, ma di voler chiedere con insistenza un porto sicuro di sbarco per i richiedenti asilo a bordo, tra loro 32 minori. “L’organizzazione aveva depositato un ricorso al tribunale di Palermo, competente su questa materia”, spiega l’ong. Anche il garante per i diritti delle persone private della libertà personale Mauro Palma ha sollecitato un intervento delle autorità italiane. Secondo Palma “la situazione in atto può e deve essere vista come ambito di competenza giurisdizionale del nostro paese, nonostante la sua presenza in acque internazionali”, in virtù del divieto d’ingresso nelle acque nazionali notificato dalle autorità italiane il primo agosto, per effetto del decreto sicurezza bis.

    “L’interdizione all’ingresso costituisce esercizio della sovranità e implica che ai migranti soccorsi e a bordo della nave debbano essere riconosciuti tutti i diritti e le garanzie (divieto di non respingimento, diritti dei minori stranieri non accompagnati, diritto di protezione internazionale) che spettano alle persone nei confronti delle quali l’Italia esercita la propria giurisdizione”, ha scritto Palma in una nota.

    A partire da queste premesse il garante ha denunciato “il duplice rischio di violazione del principio di non respingimento e del divieto di espulsioni collettive” da parte dell’Italia. E inoltre ha sottolineato che il divieto di ingresso può essere visto “come azione di respingimento collettivo delle persone soccorse, se esercitato senza un preventivo esame delle condizioni individuali delle stesse”.


    https://www.internazionale.it/bloc-notes/annalisa-camilli/2019/08/09/open-arms-richiedenti-asilo
    #sauvetage #ONG #Méditerranée #asile #migrations #réfugiés #droit_d'asile #demande_d'asile #UNHCR #HCR #alternative (à la fermeture des ports) #alternatives #voies_légales

    Je vais commencer, avec cet article, une nouvelle liste autour de la question des sauvetages en Méditerranée. La métaliste ici :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/706177#message767790

  • En #Guinée, l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations contrôle des frontières et les âmes

    En Guinée, l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations incite les jeunes à ne pas tenter de gagner l’Europe. Une #campagne de #communication financée par l’#Union_européenne et soutenue par des #artistes locaux bat son plein.

    « #Ne_pars_pas », c’est le #slogan choisi par l’OIM (Organisation internationale pour les migrations) pour inciter la #jeunesse guinéenne à ne pas se risquer sur les routes de l’exil et à rester chez elle. Financée en majeure partie par l’Union Européenne, cette campagne de #sensibilisation a pris les contours d’une vaste entreprise de communication d’influence où les mondes des #arts et de la #culture ont été cooptés pour porter le message. Humoristes, auteurs de bandes dessinées et autres rappeurs sont payés pour clamer, écrire ou chanter des éléments de langage définis par l’OIM qui agit pour le compte de l’Union européenne.

    La chanson « Falé » du très populaire groupe de rap #Degg_J_Force_3 a été écrite en partie par la directrice de l’OIM en Guinée et par son équipe de communicants. Son clip a été financé à hauteur de 15 000 euros par l’Union européenne. Plus de dix ans après la sortie du titre « Ouvrez les frontières » de l’Ivoirien Tiken Jah Fakoly, les artistes guinéens se veulent volontiers moralistes. #Moussa_Mbaye, un des deux chanteurs du groupe Degg J force 3, qui interprète « Falé » justifie sa démarche : « Nous pensons fermement que la jeunesse africaine a la possibilité de réussir dans son pays ».

    L’OIM s’appuie également sur le réseau des migrants dits « #retournés_volontaires » qu’elle a rapatriés de Libye, du Maroc ou du Niger. À travers l’#Association_guinéenne_de_lutte_contre_l'immigration_illégale qu’elle finance, les migrants « #retournés_volontaires » racontent aux candidats potentiels au départ les dangers de la traversée du Sahara, les tortures en Libye, etc.

    Il faut #rester_au_pays plutôt que de mourir en Méditerranée ou alors utiliser les #voies_légales, comme l’OIM invite à le faire. Mais ces voies légales n’ont jamais été aussi inaccessibles à une jeunesse guinéenne coincée dans un pays miné par le chômage, la misère, la corruption et dont le système éducatif ne lui offre aucun débouché professionnel.

    https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/grand-reportage/lorganisation-internationale-pour-les-migrations-en-guinee-controle-de
    #contrôles_frontaliers #asile #migrations #frontières #OIM #IOM #Organisation_internationale_CONTRE_les_migrations (comme dit très bien Olivier Clochard dans le message où il a signalé cette information) #propagande #art #retours_volontaires #jeunes #externalisation #externalisation_des_contrôles_frontaliers #dissuasion

    Pour voir et écouter le #clip officiel :
    #Falé
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vebkDz7-Tg

    ping @_kg_ @isskein

  • Dimenticati ai confini d’Europa

    L’obiettivo della ricerca è dare voce alle esperienze dei migranti e dei rifugiati, per rendere chiaro il nesso tra quello che hanno vissuto e le politiche europee che i governi hanno adottato.
    Il report si basa su 117 interviste qualitative realizzate nell’enclave spagnola di Melilla, in Sicilia, a Malta, in Grecia, in Romania, in Croazia e in Serbia. Ciò che emerge chiaramente è che il momento dell’ingresso in Europa, sia che esso avvenga attraverso il mare o attraverso una foresta sul confine terrestre, non è che un frammento di un viaggio molto più lungo ed estremamente traumatico. Le rotte che dall’Africa occidentale e orientale portano fino alla Libia sono notoriamente pericolose, specialmente per le donne, spesso vittime di abusi sessuali o costrette a prostituirsi per pagare i trafficanti.

    Il report mostra che alle frontiere dell’Unione Europea, e talora anche a quelle interne, c’è una vera e propria emergenza dal punto di vista della tutela dei diritti umani. L’assenza di vie legali di accesso per le persone bisognose di protezione le costringe ad affidarsi ai trafficanti su rotte che si fanno sempre più lunghe e pericolose. I tentativi dell’UE e degli Stati Membri di chiudere le principali rotte non proteggono la vita delle persone, come a volte si sostiene, ma nella maggior parte dei casi riescono a far sì che la loro sofferenza abbia sempre meno testimoni.


    http://centroastalli.it/dimenticati-ai-confini-deuropa-2
    #Europe #frontières #asile #migrations #droits_humains #rapport #réfugiés #Sicile #Italie #Malte #Grèce #Roumanie #Croatie #Serbie #UE #EU #femmes #Libye #violence #violences_sexuelles #parcours_migratoires #abus_sexuels #viol #prostitution #voies_légales #invisibilisation #invisibilité #fermeture_des_frontières #refoulement #push-back #violent_borders #Dublin #règlement_dublin #accès_aux_droits #accueil #détention #mouvements_secondaires

    Pour télécharger le rapport :
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TT9vefCRv2SEqbfsaEyucSIle5U1dNxh/view

    ping @isskein

    • Migranti, il Centro Astalli: “È emergenza diritti umani alle frontiere d’Europa”

      Assenza di vie di accesso legale ai migranti forzati, respingimenti arbitrari, detenzioni, impossibilità di accedere al diritto d’asilo: è il quadro disegnato da una nuova ricerca della sede italiana del Servizio dei gesuiti per i rifugiati.

      S’intitola “Dimenticati ai confini d’Europa” il report messo a punto dal Centro Astalli, la sede italiana del Servizio dei gesuiti per i rifugiati, che descrive, attraverso le storie dei rifugiati, le sempre più numerose violazioni di diritti fondamentali che si susseguono lungo le frontiere di diversi Paesi europei. La ricerca, presentata oggi a Roma, si basa su 117 interviste qualitative realizzate nell’enclave spagnola di Melilla, in Sicilia, a Malta, in Grecia, in Romania, in Croazia e in Serbia.

      Il report, si spiega nella ricerca, «mostra che alle frontiere dell’Unione europea, e talora anche a quelle interne, c’è una vera e propria emergenza dal punto di vista della tutela dei diritti umani». Secondo padre Camillo Ripamonti, presidente del Centro Astalli, la ricerca mette bene in luce come l’incapacità di gestire il fenomeno migratorio solitamente attribuita all’Ue, nasca anche dalla «volontà di tanti singoli Stati che non vogliono assumersi le proprie responsabilità» di fronte all’arrivo di persone bisognose di protezione alle loro frontiere, al contrario è necessario che l’Europa torni ad essere «il continente dei diritti, non dobbiamo perdere il senso della nostra umanità». «Si tratta di una sfida importante - ha detto Ripamonti - anche in vista delle prossime elezioni europee».

      A sua volta, padre Jose Ignacio Garcia, direttore del Jesuit Refugee Service Europa, ha rilevato come «gli Stati membri dell’Ue continuano ad investire le loro energie e risorse nel cercare di impedire a migranti e rifugiati di raggiungere l’Europa o, nel migliore dei casi, vorrebbero confinarli in ‘centri controllati’ ai confini esterni». «La riforma della legislazione comune in materia d’asilo, molto probabilmente – ha aggiunto - non verrà realizzata prima delle prossime elezioni europee. I politici europei sembrano pensare che se impediamo ai rifugiati di raggiungere le nostre coste, non abbiamo bisogno di un sistema comune d’asilo in Europa».

      La fotografia delle frontiere europee che esce dalla ricerca è inquietante: violazioni di ogni sorta, violenze, detenzioni arbitrarie, respingimenti disumani, aggiramento delle leggi dei singoli Paesi e del diritto internazionale. Un quadro fosco che ha pesanti ricadute sulla vita dei rifugiati già provati da difficoltà a soprusi subiti nel lungo viaggio. «Il Greek Council for Refugees – spiega la ricerca - ha denunciato, nel febbraio del 2018, un numero rilevante di casi di respingimenti illegali dalla regione del fiume Evros, al confine terrestre con la Turchia. Secondo questa organizzazione, migranti vulnerabili come donne incinte, famiglie con bambini e vittime di tortura sono stati forzatamente rimandati in Turchia, stipati in sovraffollate barche attraverso il fiume Evros, dopo essere stati arbitrariamente detenuti in stazioni di polizia in condizioni igieniche precarie». Secondo le testimonianze raccolte in Croazia e Serbia, diversi sono stati gli episodi di violenze fisiche contro rifugiati e di respingimenti immediati da parte della polizia di frontiera.

      E in effetti nel nuovo rapporto del Centro Astalli, più dei soli dati numerici e dei carenti quadri normativi ben descritti, a colpire sono i racconti degli intervistati lungo le diverse frontiere d’Europa. Un ragazzo marocchino, in Sicilia, per esempio ha raccontato «di come i trafficanti gli abbiano rubato i soldi e il cellulare e lo abbiamo tenuto prigioniero in un edificio vuoto con altre centinaia di persone per mesi». «Durante il viaggio – è ancora la sua storia – i trafficanti corrompevano gli ufficiali di polizia e trattavano brutalmente i migranti». Nel corso di un tentativo di attraversamento del Mediterraneo ricorda poi di aver sentito un trafficante dire a un altro: «Qualsiasi cosa succeda non mi interessa, li puoi anche lasciar morire».

      Ancora, una ragazza somala di 19 anni, arrivata incinta in Libia, ha raccontato di come il trafficante la minacciasse di toglierle il bambino appena nato e venderlo perché non aveva la cifra richiesta per la traversata. Alla fine il trafficante ha costretto tutti i suoi compagni di viaggio a pagare per lei ma ci sono voluti comunque diversi mesi prima che riuscissero a mettere insieme la somma richiesta. Storie che sembrano provenire da un altro mondo e sono invece cronache quotidiane lungo i confini di diversi Paesi europei.

      Infine, padre Ripamonti, in merito allo sgombero del centro Baobab di Roma che ospitava diverse centinaia di migranti, ha osservato che «la politica degli sgomberi senza alternative è inaccettabile». Il Centro Astalli «esprime inoltre preoccupazione anche per le crescenti difficoltà di accesso alla protezione in Italia: in un momento in cui molti migranti restano intrappolati in Libia in condizioni disumane e il soccorso in mare è meno efficace rispetto al passato, il nostro Paese ha scelto di adottare nuove misure che rendono più difficile la presentazione della domanda di asilo in frontiera, introducono il trattenimento ai fini dell’identificazione, abbassano gli standard dei centri di prima accoglienza».

      https://www.lastampa.it/2018/11/13/vaticaninsider/immigrazione-il-centro-astalli-c-unemergenza-diritti-umani-alle-frontiere-deuropa-v3qbnNIYRSzCCQSfsPFBHM/pagina.html

  • #Stefano_Allievi: I confini non sono muri ma luoghi di passaggio

    «Potersi muovere è un fattore imprescindibile dello sviluppo economico e culturale. Si muovono le idee, il denaro, le merci. Gli uomini e le donne quando si muovono imparano delle cose, quando si separano dai loro luoghi d’origine vivono nuove esperienze. E spesso possono anche decidere di riportarle al loro Paese se torneranno». Incontriamo Stefano Allievi, sociologo dell’Università di Padova, all’indomani dell’uscita di 5 cose che tutti dovremmo sapere sull’immigrazione (e una da fare). Un libricino di 64 pagine edito da Laterza, dal costo di soli 3 euro, che risponde con parole semplici ed esempi chiari alle domande e ai dubbi più frequenti sul tema del secolo, che la politica, a livello nazionale ed europeo, non riesce a (o non vuole) risolvere.

    Da dove bisogna partire per parlare di immigrazione senza tare ideologiche o di altro tipo?
    Ci sono ambiti legati al tema dei migranti su cui non si riflette mai abbastanza. Quando parliamo di demografia si tende a enfatizzare soprattutto quella dell’Africa. “Fanno tanti figli, la loro popolazione si raddoppierà, la Nigeria sostituirà gli Usa come terzo Paese più popoloso al mondo”, e questo suscita terrore: “Non possiamo accogliere tutti”. E si perde di vista quello che comporta il calo demografico in atto in Europa. Dove per la prima volta nella storia si è invertita la piramide demografica per cause naturali, cioè non per effetto di una guerra, e i giovani sono molto meno degli anziani. Nelle regioni del nord per ogni under 15 ci sono due over 65. Già oggi, non in futuro. In Africa, invece, metà della popolazione ha meno di 15 anni.

    https://left.it/2018/10/12/stefano-allievi-i-confini-non-sono-muri-ma-luoghi-di-passaggio
    #frontières #passage #murs

    • Stefano Allievi, 5 cose che tutti dovremmo sapere sull’immigrazione (e una cosa da fare)

      Per ragionare sulle cause delle migrazioni potremmo limitarci a citare, in ordine sparso, alcune parole: guerre, fame, dittature, persecuzioni (per motivi etnici, religiosi, razziali, politici), ingiustizie subìte, diseguaglianze, calamità naturali (incluse quelle dovute al cambiamento climatico), crescita demografica non accompagnata da crescita economica. A cui va aggiunto il puro e semplice sfruttamento delle risorse (alimentari, minerarie, ecc.), fatto quasi sempre per conto terzi: anche quando gli sfruttatori sono i governi – spesso militari – dei rispettivi paesi, i terzi sono, di solito, aziende dei paesi sviluppati; e come dice un saggio proverbio africano, “se uno percuote un alveare per portare via il miele, le api lo inseguono”. Quella che precede è la lista, per difetto, dei cosiddetti push factors, o fattori di spinta. Ci accontenteremo di fare un cenno solo alle diseguaglianze di reddito e alla demografia.

      Le differenze di reddito non spiegano tutto, delle migrazioni. Esistono da sempre. E nonostante questo la maggior parte delle persone preferisce rimanere vicino alla sua famiglia, tra la sua gente, la sua cultura, con chi parla la sua lingua. Ma pesano. Il PIL pro capite (il prodotto interno lordo – ovvero la ricchezza del paese – suddiviso per il numero degli abitanti), è in Italia di 30.507 dollari l’anno.

      Quello medio dell’Unione Europea è di 39.317 dollari, quello dell’Africa subsahariana è di 3.837 dollari, e in alcuni dei paesi da cui provengono coloro che tentano di sbarcare in Italia viaggia al di sotto dei mille dollari l’anno (411 in Niger, 469 in Gambia, 795 in Etiopia, 830 in Mali, 852 in Ciad). Ora, se le diseguaglianze di reddito bastassero a spiegare le migrazioni, l’Africa sarebbe già da decenni in Europa, l’Europa negli Stati Uniti (dove il PIL pro capite è di oltre 57.000 dollari, quasi 20.000 in più che in Europa), e gli Stati Uniti a loro volta in Lussemburgo (dove è di 103.000, il più alto del mondo). E non bastano le barriere alle immigrazioni per spiegare perché non sia così: in Europa c’è la libera circolazione della manodopera, e il reddito della Germania è oltre il doppio di quello della Grecia (e i servizi e il welfare molto migliori), eppure i greci – nonostante la drammatica crisi che hanno vissuto in questi anni – in maggioranza non sono andati in Germania, e sono rimasti a casa loro (né gli altri europei sono finiti tutti in Lussemburgo, peraltro). Ma serve a spiegare perché le migrazioni siano in aumento. Del resto, chiedetevelo da soli: quanti di voi sarebbero disposti ad emigrare sapendo che, a parità di lavoro, il vostro reddito potenziale potrebbe essere di dieci o addirittura cinquanta volte tanto? In molti non stareste neanche lì a chiedervi se il costo della vita altrove è più alto... Eppure oggi – grazie ai media globali e alla rete – la ricchezza degli altri la possiamo letteralmente “vedere”, più di quanto capitasse ai nostri nonni.

      Poi c’è la demografia. La popolazione del mondo cresce: molto, e in maniera squilibrata.

      In Europa, ad esempio (Italia inclusa), diminuisce, e stiamo ogni giorno più larghi. In Africa invece cresce tumultuosamente: entro il 2050 sarà il doppio di oggi. La Nigeria, per dire, oggi settimo paese del mondo per popolazione, prima del 2050 scalzerà gli Stati Uniti dal loro tradizionale terzo posto: e già oggi i 10 Stati più giovani del mondo, con un’età media intorno ai vent’anni, sono tutti africani. La sproporzione si vede bene sul piano storico: all’inizio del

      Novecento era europeo un abitante del mondo su quattro; nel 2050 lo sarà uno su quattordici.

      Facciamo meno figli, e viviamo più a lungo, di conseguenza la popolazione invecchia, e gli anziani sono più dei giovani – i demografi la chiamano inversione della piramide della popolazione, è la prima volta che accade nella storia per motivi naturali, e ha effetti drammatici.

      Non è solo questione di risorse, di chi pagherà le pensioni e le cure mediche, sempre più care man mano che cresce l’età della popolazione – uno squilibrio che mette sulle spalle delle giovani generazioni un fardello enorme. È anche questione del tipo di paese che si va configurando: non è dagli anziani che ci aspettiamo – e che storicamente proviene – la creatività, l’innovazione, l’apertura mentale, il desiderio di scoprire nuovi orizzonti... E nemmeno il mettersi in gioco economicamente con l’invenzione di imprese, il lancio di start up, l’assunzione di manodopera. Dunque una società più anziana è anche una società depressiva e recessiva – consuma più di quello che produce, oltre che essere più triste e passiva: diciamolo, è più vicina alla morte, e vive nella sua ombra. Per invertire lo scenario occorre avere, come sempre nella storia dell’umanità, più popolazione giovane.

      Certo, potrebbe essere popolazione autoctona. Ma, semplicemente, non c’è. Per motivi legati agli stili di vita e alle trasformazioni culturali – e, per i ceti meno abbienti, anche ai costi – l’aumento del benessere ha finora portato con sé la riduzione della natalità. A spingere le migrazioni ci sono anche, oltre ai fattori di espulsione, i fattori di attrazione, i pull factors: il differenziale economico e salariale l’abbiamo già citato. Ma conta anche l’immaginario che abbiamo sugli altri paesi, che crediamo più liberi, e più ricchi di opportunità, non solo di denaro. Libertà di muoversi, di sfuggire al controllo sociale della famiglia e della comunità, di studiare quello che si vuole (e di poterlo fare perché aiutati dallo Stato, anche se si è poveri), di fare esperienze (tutte quelle legate alla condizione giovanile, incluse quelle sessuali, in società più aperte da questo punto di vista), di viaggiare, di trovare più opportunità di lavoro (per il semplice fatto che la società è più complessa e il mercato del lavoro più ampio e articolato: non ci sono solo quei tre o quattro mestieri a cui si è inevitabilmente destinati...), di essere valutati rispetto al proprio merito e non alla propria origine, di sfuggire alla corruzione dei governi e delle burocrazie, che può essere oppressiva e soffocante, fino al semplice desiderio di sposare chi si vuole, e di sperimentare le proprie capacità cercando nuove occasioni, diversificate quanto lo sono le forme del desiderio. E poi, magari – li sottovalutiamo, questi fattori, noi che li diamo per scontati –, di avere scuole e ospedali migliori e quasi gratuiti, l’acqua corrente in casa, gli elettrodomestici, i videogiochi, quattro soldi in tasca, negozi pieni di merci, le vacanze... L’Europa non se ne è accorta, ma è diventata l’America dell’Africa (e di altre aree del mondo): o per lo meno, un’America più vicina e meno irraggiungibile dell’altra, che resta ancora la più ambita. Per molti, nel mondo, la nostra è una terra dei sogni. Il fatto che non ce ne accorgiamo ci dà la misura di quanto l’Europa non sia all’altezza del proprio ruolo.

      Ecco perché non sarà facile fermare le migrazioni. Ammesso che sia auspicabile. E, a proposito: sareste d’accordo a fermare anche quelle in uscita? Perché è giusto capire in quale direzione stiamo contribuendo a far andare il mondo: è probabile infatti che saremo ripagati con la stessa moneta, se le frontiere, anziché luoghi di attraversamento, diventano muri. Ce ne stiamo già accorgendo.
      Ecco perché, anche, è necessario lavorare sulle cause delle migrazioni, sugli equilibri e gli squilibri globali, sulle ingiustizie planetarie. In una logica di scambio.


      https://www.laterza.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2154:stefano-allievi-5-cose&cat
      #livre #préjugés #migrations #asile #réfugiés

  • Can Lawful Migration Channels Suppress Unlawful Migration ? How US Experience Can Inform European Dilemmas

    We find:

    Lawful migration channels are often suggested as a tool to reduce unlawful migration, but often without much evidence that they work.

    There is evidence that lawful channels for migration between Mexico and the United States have suppressed unlawful migration, but only when combined with robust enforcement efforts.

    Massive demographic pressures for migration between Africa and Europe will continue to resemble past pressures between Mexico and United States. The evidence from the US suggests that regular migration channels could be one critical tool for Europe, alongside enforcement, to suppress irregular migration.

    https://www.cgdev.org/blog/can-lawful-migration-channels-suppress-unlawful-migration-how-us-experience-c


    #voies_légales #visa #asile #migrations #réfugiés #statistiques #chiffres #frontières #USA #Mexique (mais évidemment, cela vaut aussi pour l’Europe...)
    #ressources_pédagogiques (pour montrer que le nombre de traversées « illégales » de la frontière dépend du nombre de visa délivrés : relation inversement proportionnelle)
    cc @reka @isskein

    • Can Regular Migration Channels Reduce Irregular Migration? Lessons for Europe from the United States

      KEY TAKEAWAYS
      • Lawful migration channels are often suggested as a tool to reduce unlawful migration, but often
      without much evidence that they work.
      • There is evidence that lawful channels for migration between Mexico and the United States have
      suppressed unlawful migration, but only when combined with robust enforcement efforts.
      • Massive demographic pressures for migration between Africa and Europe will continue to resemble
      past pressures between Mexico and United States. The evidence from the US suggests that lawful
      channels could be a critical tool for Europe, alongside enforcement to suppress unlawful migration.

      https://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/can-regular-migration-channels-reduce-irregular-migration.pdf
      #visas

  • RTS, Babel | Bilan sur les couloirs humanitaires des Eglises italiennes
    https://asile.ch/2017/11/27/rts-babel-bilan-couloirs-humanitaires-eglises-italiennes

    Les Eglises italiennes tirent le bilan de leurs couloirs humanitaires entre Beyrouth et Rome. L’opération, qui a duré deux ans et qui a profité à quelque mille migrants, a acheminé des Syriens vers l’Italie pour qu’ils y déposent une demande d’asile et y reconstruisent une vie loin des conflits.

  • #asile : ce visa qui sauverait la famille syrienne d’Azad et Rokan
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/270417/asile-ce-visa-qui-sauverait-la-famille-syrienne-d-azad-et-rokan

    La famille réunie au restaurant Grand station d’Alep avant la guerre. La photo a été transformée par Rokan afin d’éviter que la famille restée en #Syrie ne subisse des représailles. De nombreux Syriens #réfugiés en #turquie se rendent au consulat français d’Istanbul dans l’espoir d’obtenir un visa qui leur permettrait de venir en France en toute sécurité. Seuls quelques-uns obtiennent le précieux sésame. Mediapart raconte le périple d’une famille kurde de Syrie, qui a fui #Alep puis Kobané, et qui attend désespérément un geste du quai d’Orsay.

    #International #Konaé

  • Verso il primo corridoio umanitario dall’Etiopia

    Porterà in Italia 500 profughi eritrei, somali e sud sudanesi. Un progetto finanziato con i fondi Cei dell’8x1000, attraverso Caritas e Migrantes, e in collaborazione con la Comunità di Sant’Egidio

    https://www.avvenire.it/attualita/pagine/il-primo-corridoio-umanitario-dall-etiopia-caritas-sant-egidio
    #corridor_humanitaire #voies_légales #Ethiopie #Italie #réfugiés #asile #migrations #réfugiés_somaliens #réfugiés_érythréens #réfugiés_sud-soudanais

  • cath.ch | Sant’Egidio veut offrir une alternative aux “voyages de la mort” en Méditerranée
    https://asile.ch/2017/04/09/cath-ch-santegidio-veut-offrir-alternative-aux-voyages-de-mort-mediterranee

    https://asile.ch/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/logo_cathch.jpeg

    A l’instar des “couloirs humanitaires” pour un accueil des réfugiés les plus vulnérables venant de Syrie et d’Irak, lancés en Italie en décembre 2015 et en mars dernier en France, la Communauté Sant’Egidio, à Lausanne, promeut l’idée d’un avion des Eglises suisses pour les réfugiés syriens. Il s’agit d’offrir une alternative aux “voyages de la […]

    • Vescovi svizzeri sostengono la petizione per la creazione di canali umanitari

      Ieri l’ente umanitario delle Chiese evangeliche in Svizzera HEKS e l’Organizzazione svizzera di aiuto ai rifugiati OSAR ha consegnato al Governo la petizione per la creazione di canali umanitari verso la Svizzera, come riferisce il portale Facebook di HEKS, immortalando il momento con un video.

      In un comunicato, la Presidenza dei Vescovi svizzeri (Charles Morerod, Felix Gmür e Urban Federer), fa sapere di essere pienamente a sostegno dell’iniziativa. “Siamo testimoni al presente di un’immensa tragedia che tocca i rifugiati”, si legge nel comunicato. “Più di 65 milioni di persone nel mondo sono in fuga da guerre, persecuzioni, fame e miseria. Davanti a questa situazione, l’Europa e la Svizzera non devono chiudere i loro occhi. Bisogna andare all’aiuto delle persone più vulnerabili, che non hanno i mezzi per proseguire il loro cammino, ritrovandosi nei campi per rifugiati a sud dell’Europa”. “È per questo che sosteniamo la domanda di stabilire delle vie legali e sicure per i rifugiati particolarmente vulnerabili”

      Da parte loro, le Chiese sono già attive a diversi livelli, secondo l’esortazione di Papa Francesco a accogliere, proteggere, promuovere e integrare i migranti e i rifugiati“, come il Ponteifce aveva avuto modo di dire il 14 gennaio per la Giornata del migrante e del rifugiato.

      https://www.catt.ch/newsi/anche-i-vescovi-svizzeri-sostengono-la-creazione-di-canali-umanitari-verso-la-s

  • France opens its first humanitarian corridors to Middle Eastern refugees

    The French government launched a program in March to open its first humanitarian corridor to Syrian and Iraqi refugees. Five Christian charity organizations signed an agreement to transfer 500 Syrian and Iraqi refugees to France over the next 18 months in cooperation with the French government. The goal is to transfer migrants directly by plane from Lebanon to France and reduce the deadly human traffic of the Mediterranean Sea route.

    http://en.infomigrants.net/post/159037082580/france-opens-its-first-humanitarian-corridors-to-middle

    #couloirs_humanitaires #corridors_humanitaires #France #asile #voies_légales #migrations #réfugiés

  • HCR | Les risques augmentent pour les réfugiés et migrants tentant de se rendre en Europe

    Après la “fermeture” de la route des Balkans et la déclaration commune UE-Turquie de mars 2016, le nombre de personnes atteignant la Grèce via la Méditerranée a rapidement chuté. Depuis, la Méditerranée centrale, entre l’Afrique du Nord et l’Italie, est devenue la voie d’accès principale à l’Europe. Concernant les tendances observées pour les arrivées en Italie, les principales nationalités qui arrivaient en Grèce ne se sont pas reportées en nombre significatif sur l’itinéraire de la Méditerranée centrale.

    Au total, quelque 181’436 personnes sont arrivées en Italie par la mer en 2016, dont 90% par bateau en provenance de la Libye. Parmi ces arrivants en Italie en 2016, il y a des personnes qui requièrent une protection internationale, ainsi que des migrants en quête d’une vie meilleure et des victimes de la traite d’êtres humains. Les Nigérians (21%) et les Érythréens (11%) sont les deux groupes de nationalités les plus importants parmi les arrivants. Une autre particularité marquante est le nombre croissant d’enfants non accompagnés et séparés qui font le voyage : plus de 25’000 en 2016. Ils représentaient 14% des nouveaux arrivants en Italie et leur nombre a plus que doublé par rapport à l’année précédente.

    La traversée vers l’Italie est particulièrement dangereuse et le nombre de décès recensés en mer Méditerranée en 2016 a dépassé celui de toutes les années précédentes. Sur les 5096 réfugiés et migrants portés disparus ou morts en mer l’année dernière, 90% avaient fait la traversée vers l’Italie par la mer, ce qui représente un décès pour 40 personnes effectuant la traversée.

    Le rapport montre également qu’au cours de la dernière partie de 2016, davantage de personnes ont rejoint l’Europe via l’ouest de la Méditerranée, soit en traversant ce bras de mer depuis le Maroc et l’Algérie vers l’Espagne, soit en entrant dans les enclaves espagnoles de Melilla et de Ceuta.

    Les départs depuis la Turquie via l’est de la Méditerranée se sont poursuivis dès avril, mais en nombres nettement inférieurs. La plupart d’entre eux ont effectué la traversée vers la Grèce, mais certains ont également traversé les frontières terrestres vers la Grèce et la Bulgarie, ou encore vers Chypre par la mer. Ceux qui empruntent cette voie sont nombreux à avoir besoin de protection. En 2016, 87% des personnes arrivées en Grèce par la mer étaient issues des dix principaux pays générateurs de réfugiés.

    Il en est de même pour ceux ayant continué à emprunter la route de l’ouest des Balkans. En Serbie par exemple, 82% des arrivants viennent d’Afghanistan, d’Iraq et de Syrie et la moitié d’entre eux sont des enfants, dont 20% sont non accompagnés, et leur nombre a cependant baissé depuis avril 2016. Comme l’indique le rapport, par suite du renforcement des restrictions aux frontières, ils sont nombreux à faire appel à des passeurs, s’exposant ainsi aux risques élevés qui sont à l’origine de plusieurs décès en 2016.

    Selon l’étude du HCR, des dizaines de milliers de personnes ont apparemment été refoulées par les autorités aux frontières de l’Europe, notamment en Bulgarie, Croatie, Grèce, Hongrie, Serbie, Espagne, et dans l’Ex-République yougoslave de Macédoine ; de nombreux rapports évoquent des cas de violences et d’abus ayant pour but de dissuader toute autre tentative d’entrée.

    Le HCR a par ailleurs reçu des informations très préoccupantes sur des cas d’enlèvement de réfugiés et de migrants, sur leur détention contre leur gré pendant plusieurs jours, sur des cas d’abus physiques et sexuels ainsi que des cas de torture et d’extorsion perpétrés par des passeurs et des bandes de criminels à plusieurs endroits le long des principaux itinéraires.

    « Ce rapport montre clairement que l’absence de voies d’accès régulières et sures pousse les réfugiés et les migrants à prendre d’énormes risques pour essayer de se rendre en Europe, y compris pour ceux qui veulent simplement rejoindre des membres de leur famille », a déclaré Vincent Cochetel, Directeur du bureau Europe du HCR.


    https://asile.ch/2017/03/12/hcr-risques-augmentent-refugies-migrants-tentant-de-se-rendre-europe
    #risques #asile #migrations #mortalité #Italie #Grèce #réfugiés #Melilla

    #abus_sexuels, Ceuta, #décès, #frontières, #Grèce, #Italie, #Méditerranée, #mineur_non_accompagné, #passeur#, #refoulement, #routes_migratoires, #Serbie, #traite, #voies_légales #itinéraires_migratoires #rapport

  • FMR | Sécurité, sauvetage en mer et voies légales
    http://asile.ch/2016/05/16/fmr-securite-sauvetage-en-mer-et-voies-legales

    Pour se montrer à la hauteur de ses valeurs, l’UE doit intensifier les opérations de recherche et de sauvetage en Méditerranée et multiplier les moyens légaux d’accéder à une protection sur son sol afin qu’il ne soit plus nécessaire d’entreprendre des trajets périlleux à travers la Méditerranée.

  • Commission européenne : options de réforme du régime d’asile européen commun et de développement de voies sûres et légales d’entrée
    http://asile.ch/2016/04/08/la-commission-presente-des-options-de-reforme-du-regime-dasile-europeen-commun

    La Commission européenne lance aujourd’hui le processus de réforme du régime d’asile européen commun (RAEC), en présentant : des options en vue d’un système équitable et durable de répartition des demandeurs d’asile entre les États membres ; une plus grande harmonisation des procédures et des normes en matière d’asile afin de créer des conditions identiques dans l’ensemble […]

  • #Cecilia_Wikström : il faut des « voies d’entrée sûres et légales » pour les #réfugiés
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/180216/cecilia-wikstroem-il-faut-des-voies-dentree-sures-et-legales-pour-les-refu

    La #Suède est le pays le plus généreux d’Europe, devant l’Allemagne, dans l’accueil des réfugiés depuis l’été dernier. Alors que l’UE continue de bricoler, entretien avec Cecilia Wikström, eurodéputée suédoise libérale, qui estime qu’« on peut développer des solutions légales pour venir en #europe sans risquer sa vie en Méditerranée ».

    #International #asile #migrants #Parlement_européen #UE

  • L’Italia apre i corridoi umanitari per i profughi

    A partire da gennaio l’Italia aprirà i primi corridoi umanitari per profughi provenienti dall’altra sponda del Mediterraneo. Il progetto – concepito e realizzato dalla #Comunità_di_Sant’Egidio e dalla Federazione delle chiese evangeliche in Italia – prevede il rilascio di mille visti ad altrettanti richiedenti asilo per venire in Italia e presentare domanda senza doversi sobbarcare il pericoloso e costoso viaggio in mare.

    http://www.internazionale.it/opinione/stefano-liberti/2015/12/17/italia-profughi-corridoi-umanitari
    #corridor_humanitaire #Italie #asile #migrations #réfugiés #voies_légales #Eglise #solidarité
    cc @albertocampiphoto