There were demonstration in 80 French towns yesterday to oppose the 'delit de solidarité' laws which means that anyone who provides ‘help’ to undocumented migrants can be prosecuted. The demonstrations were called by a coalition of associations including Emmaüs, La Cimade, Secours Catholique and France Terre d’Asile
As well as fixing the shameful target of 27,000 deportations for 2009, the French government has also fixed targets or quotas of 5,000 arrests of people who ‘help’ undocumented migrants.
Currently the law prescribes a punishment of five years in prison and €30,000 for “anyone who, by direct or indirect help, facilitates or tries to facilitate the entry, the circulation or the unlawful residence of a foreigner in France.” This law is particularly relevant to those who help migrants in and around Calais.
While the French government has denied that anyone has been prosecuted for the ‘delit de solidarité' and claim that these laws are aimed at ‘passeurs’ (people smugglers). Yet there is a deliberate obscurity in the law that allows many people who have shown solidarity for sans papiers to be arrested and accused of the ‘delit’ (a 'middle level' crime in France) of helping people in an irregular situation.
Some French people, especially in Calais, have been fined for helping migrants, providing them with a roof or for trying to defend migrants against Police harrassment and violence. The recent Marie-Noëlle Guès, Monique Pouille and Jean-Claude Lenoir cases are prime examples, where there simple act of being present at police actions led to charges of ‘outrage’ (disrespect) against Police officers.
There have also been attempts by the police to suggest to the press that some of those arrested in Calais have been involved in people smuggling and so to criminalize the local people attempts to support migrants.
The Police now do not hesitate to enter peoples homes to search for undocumented migrants and the practice is becoming more widespread. In Marseille last month police raided a charity for homeless people looking for undocumented migrants and arrested the manager.
The demonstrations come on top of a call to abolish the 'délit de solidarité' proposed by the Socialists, which will be debated at the National Assembly at the end of the month.
Thursday, 9 April 2009
Criminalised For Daring To Film The Police
Marie-Noëlle Guès is well known to the police in Calais as 'the journalist'. Outside of school hours (she is a teacher) she has been a regular on the streets of Calais since 2004, filming and monitoring the actions of the CRS and Border police against the migrants in the area.
In October 2007 she came across 2 Eritreans who had just been released from the Coquelles detention centre. They asked her to translate a document they had just been issued with. It turned out to be a deportation notice and she offered to go with them to the Lille Administrative Tribunal to help them challenge the order.
They subsequently stopped to talk to a number of other migrants, when a van-load of CRS turned up to 'check papers' and generally harass the migrants. Marie-Noëlle then tried to film the pursuit and arrest of some migrants who tried to flee the scene but was asked to move on by the police. She continued to surreptitiously film as she challenged the CRS's right to both prevent her from filming and to arrest the 2 Eritreans who had only been released from custody 4 hours before.
Eventually the police realised that Marie-Noëlle was still filming and violently arrested her. Handcuffing her and putting her in the back of their van, one radioed HQ that they had "arrested the journalist". She was held in custody for 24 hours and charged with contempt and 'rebellion'.
At her trial on 23 April 2008, the prosecution presented testimony from the CRS and the owner of the café the arrest occurred outside and asked for a 3 month prison sentence, but Marie-Noëlle was acquitted. The CRS and state prosecutor appealed the decision.
At the appeal hearing on 2 April 2009, the judge refused to view the film taken during the incident, which refutes the café-owner's version of events, and convicted Marie-Noëlle. Her sentence was to pay €4 per day for 90 days (€360) or a day in prison for each €4 unpaid, plus €100 per 'outraged' and 'attacked' CRS officer, €3-400 in prosecution legal costs.
Donations can be sent to a support fund at:
la Mouette Enragée
B.P 403
62 2206 Boulogne-Sur-Mer Cedex
France
The video taken by Marie-Noëlle at the incident can be seen at: wat.tv
In October 2007 she came across 2 Eritreans who had just been released from the Coquelles detention centre. They asked her to translate a document they had just been issued with. It turned out to be a deportation notice and she offered to go with them to the Lille Administrative Tribunal to help them challenge the order.
They subsequently stopped to talk to a number of other migrants, when a van-load of CRS turned up to 'check papers' and generally harass the migrants. Marie-Noëlle then tried to film the pursuit and arrest of some migrants who tried to flee the scene but was asked to move on by the police. She continued to surreptitiously film as she challenged the CRS's right to both prevent her from filming and to arrest the 2 Eritreans who had only been released from custody 4 hours before.
Eventually the police realised that Marie-Noëlle was still filming and violently arrested her. Handcuffing her and putting her in the back of their van, one radioed HQ that they had "arrested the journalist". She was held in custody for 24 hours and charged with contempt and 'rebellion'.
At her trial on 23 April 2008, the prosecution presented testimony from the CRS and the owner of the café the arrest occurred outside and asked for a 3 month prison sentence, but Marie-Noëlle was acquitted. The CRS and state prosecutor appealed the decision.
At the appeal hearing on 2 April 2009, the judge refused to view the film taken during the incident, which refutes the café-owner's version of events, and convicted Marie-Noëlle. Her sentence was to pay €4 per day for 90 days (€360) or a day in prison for each €4 unpaid, plus €100 per 'outraged' and 'attacked' CRS officer, €3-400 in prosecution legal costs.
Donations can be sent to a support fund at:
la Mouette Enragée
B.P 403
62 2206 Boulogne-Sur-Mer Cedex
France
The video taken by Marie-Noëlle at the incident can be seen at: wat.tv
Monday, 6 April 2009
18 Deaths A Year In U.S. Immigration Prisons
More than 90 prisoners held in immigrant detention centres have died in the past five years, the New York Times reports today, as revealed in an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) document labelled "List of Detainee Deaths since October 2003." The record was obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request, part of an ongoing investigation of deaths in immigrant prisons.
According to the Times, 32 of the 92 deaths occurred at jails run by private companies, including "at least 18" at facilities run by the notorious Corrections Corporation of America, the largest private prison company in the country.
The list of detainee deaths, available here, charts prisoners' names, dates of birth, the facilities where they were held or died, and whether or not an autopsy was performed. The "Cause of Death" field lists everything from AIDS to heart disease, suggesting that many of the prisoners likely suffered from medical neglect. A number committed suicide; "hanging" is listed as the cause of death for six prisoners.
Thursday, 2 April 2009
Europe's Externalised Immigration Controls Results In Mass Drowning
Over 500 migrants are likely to have drowned crossing the Mediterranean from Libya as two boats sank and a third is still missing. The Libyan authorities put responsibility on strong winds rather than on the border regime they are implementing on behalf of Italy and European governments and paid for by the taxpayers of Italy and of the European Union.
"On 29 March 2009, 30 km from the Libyan coast, there was one of the largest shipwrecks in the history of immigration into Europe: out of three boats that set off from Libya, two sank and the third disappeared.
"Provisional figures refer to 23 survivors, 21 corpses recovered and over 500 disappeared people, undoubtedly swallowed up by the Channel of Sicily. As always happens for this sort of events, information is opaque and often contradictory. At first, the Libyan press agency limited itself to announcing that a majority of the migrants were Egyptian and that the three vessels had set off from the port of Sid Belal Janzur, with a total of 257 people on board. As for the International Organisation for Migrations (IOM), two days later, on 31 March, it announced that the number of victims from the three boats was estimated at 300. In Italy (the passengers’ destination), the press switched between repetition of the news from Libya and reports that the 257 people referred to were all on one of the three boats: which, if it were revealed to be true, would throw up a far more appalling estimate of the total number of people who have disappeared.
"Beyond these hideous estimates, the statements from Libya are shocking, as they explain away this tragedy as the consequence of a very strong wind that was prevalent at the time. Rather, should responsibility for this slaughter not be attributed to the European Union, which promises 20 million Euros to the Libyan state in exchange for its co-operation in the fight against "irregular" immigration ? Or to Italy, which has been signing various "friendship agreements" that include migration clauses with this dictatorship since 2000 ? And also to Libya, which, like its neighbours in the Maghreb, use migrants as an exchange currency to obtain a privileged position in international negotiations ?
"It is feared that the authorities’ reaction to this new tragedy will, once again, be to exploit these dramatic events without regard for the real causes that push migrants to take on deadly risks to reach Europe, in order to justify a hardening of controls.
"On this portion of the maritime borders, the effects of the Italian policy to externalise patrolling operations along the Libyan coasts are also to be feared, as they will only result in an increase in the number of tragedies at sea and of the instances in which people who are returned are placed at risk in the country not governed by the rule of law that is Libya."
[from Migreurop press release]
"On 29 March 2009, 30 km from the Libyan coast, there was one of the largest shipwrecks in the history of immigration into Europe: out of three boats that set off from Libya, two sank and the third disappeared.
"Provisional figures refer to 23 survivors, 21 corpses recovered and over 500 disappeared people, undoubtedly swallowed up by the Channel of Sicily. As always happens for this sort of events, information is opaque and often contradictory. At first, the Libyan press agency limited itself to announcing that a majority of the migrants were Egyptian and that the three vessels had set off from the port of Sid Belal Janzur, with a total of 257 people on board. As for the International Organisation for Migrations (IOM), two days later, on 31 March, it announced that the number of victims from the three boats was estimated at 300. In Italy (the passengers’ destination), the press switched between repetition of the news from Libya and reports that the 257 people referred to were all on one of the three boats: which, if it were revealed to be true, would throw up a far more appalling estimate of the total number of people who have disappeared.
"Beyond these hideous estimates, the statements from Libya are shocking, as they explain away this tragedy as the consequence of a very strong wind that was prevalent at the time. Rather, should responsibility for this slaughter not be attributed to the European Union, which promises 20 million Euros to the Libyan state in exchange for its co-operation in the fight against "irregular" immigration ? Or to Italy, which has been signing various "friendship agreements" that include migration clauses with this dictatorship since 2000 ? And also to Libya, which, like its neighbours in the Maghreb, use migrants as an exchange currency to obtain a privileged position in international negotiations ?
"It is feared that the authorities’ reaction to this new tragedy will, once again, be to exploit these dramatic events without regard for the real causes that push migrants to take on deadly risks to reach Europe, in order to justify a hardening of controls.
"On this portion of the maritime borders, the effects of the Italian policy to externalise patrolling operations along the Libyan coasts are also to be feared, as they will only result in an increase in the number of tragedies at sea and of the instances in which people who are returned are placed at risk in the country not governed by the rule of law that is Libya."
[from Migreurop press release]
Tuesday, 31 March 2009
Department of Health Guidance Ruled Unlawful...
...But 'Failed' Asylum Seekers Are Still Not Entitled To Free NHS Treatment.
The Court of Appeal has ruled that Department of Health guidance which forbids hospitals from providing temporary healthcare to destitute migrants with chronic illnesses is unlawful.
The court case brought by a Palestinian man, Mr. A, with chronic liver disease, who had had his asylum claim refused and, prevented from travelling back to the West Bank by Israeli travel restrictions despite having agreed to return, was refused treatment by West Middlesex University Hospital.
Dept. of Health guidance states that hospitals should not provide treatment to such patients unless they pay for it in advance, ignoring the fact that many of these patients are destitute, many cannot return home, so they are not treated until they require life-saving treatment.
The hospital eventually agreed to treat Mr. A after he started an urgent High Court action. However, he continued the case, arguing that the guidance was unlawful and it was preventing thousands of other refused asylum-seekers from accessing urgent treatment. The High Court ruled that refused asylum-seekers could be entitled to free treatment if they had been here long enough and were following the rules, but the government appealed the decision.
The Court of Appeal, whilst rejecting the High Court’s ruling that refused asylum-seekers could be classed as being legally resident in the country, upheld the decision that the guidance was unlawful as it did not make it clear enough that hospitals must consider providing treatment where a patient cannot return home and cannot pay for the treatment in advance.
However, this still leaves a situation where there is no automatic right to health care for failed' asylum seekers who are unable to return to their country of origin and that it up to individual hospitals to make decisions about treatment on a case by case basis. (See: 1, 2)
The Court of Appeal has ruled that Department of Health guidance which forbids hospitals from providing temporary healthcare to destitute migrants with chronic illnesses is unlawful.
The court case brought by a Palestinian man, Mr. A, with chronic liver disease, who had had his asylum claim refused and, prevented from travelling back to the West Bank by Israeli travel restrictions despite having agreed to return, was refused treatment by West Middlesex University Hospital.
Dept. of Health guidance states that hospitals should not provide treatment to such patients unless they pay for it in advance, ignoring the fact that many of these patients are destitute, many cannot return home, so they are not treated until they require life-saving treatment.
The hospital eventually agreed to treat Mr. A after he started an urgent High Court action. However, he continued the case, arguing that the guidance was unlawful and it was preventing thousands of other refused asylum-seekers from accessing urgent treatment. The High Court ruled that refused asylum-seekers could be entitled to free treatment if they had been here long enough and were following the rules, but the government appealed the decision.
The Court of Appeal, whilst rejecting the High Court’s ruling that refused asylum-seekers could be classed as being legally resident in the country, upheld the decision that the guidance was unlawful as it did not make it clear enough that hospitals must consider providing treatment where a patient cannot return home and cannot pay for the treatment in advance.
However, this still leaves a situation where there is no automatic right to health care for failed' asylum seekers who are unable to return to their country of origin and that it up to individual hospitals to make decisions about treatment on a case by case basis. (See: 1, 2)
Tinsley House Blockaders Sentenced
Seven of the anti-deportation campaigners who blockaded Tinsley House immigration detention centre at Gatwick airport earlier this month (see 18 March post) pleaded guilty to the charge of 'aggravated trespass' at Crawley Magistrates Court yesterday. Six of them locked and glued themselves to the gate of Tinsley House on 17th March in an attempt to prevent Iraqi refugees being taken to Stansted airport to be forcibly deported on a special charter flight to northern Iraq later that day. All seven were released on conditional discharge and ordered to pay the court fees. Two other protesters, who were also arrested on the action, pleaded not guilty and are due in court again soon.
Sunday, 22 March 2009
Guantanamo-Sur-Mer?
If a news story in yesterday's Independent is to be believed, it now appears that the new detention centre 'planned' for Calais and currently under discussion by the French & UK governments, will be sited within the UK 'control zone' within the port area. This proposal attempts to exploit the ambiguous legal status of the 'control zone', allowing the UK & French authorities to bypass both their own and the EU's legal strictures that currently prevent them from expelling detained migrants as easily as they would wish.[1]
In February 2004 Home Office immigration controls moved to the so-called 'juxtaposed control zones' within the Calais, Boulogne and Dunkerque dock areas established under the 2003 Le Touquet treaty. Since then immigration officers have operated on 'French soil' and are allowed, under the reciprocal provisions of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum [NIA] Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) Order 2003, to search ships and vehicles and detain 'illegal' immigrants.
When the Home Office was reorganised and the UK Border Agency created, a second version of the legislation was passed, the NIA Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) Order 2006, which "authorise persons other than immigration officers to search a ship, aircraft or vehicle or other thing for the purpose of satisfying himself whether there are individuals whom an immigration officer might wish to examine for the purposes of considering whether the person should enter the UK."[2]
Now this may create a little bit of Blighty in France but UK control ends at the fence around the port.[3] And there is still the small problem of where the deportaion flights for the detainees, from what would potentially be the UK's very own Guantanamo, would fly from. Calais Marck Airport is far too small to take international flights and that means that the deportees would either have to be transported by boat to England, for a flight from there, or they would have to travel via French soil to a French Airport, which would cause legal problems for the French and defeat the whole object of the exercise. Of course they could always put them on a slow boat to Aghanistan or Iraq!
Another interesting recent development have been the reports from migrant support workers in Calais of what appear to be either UK police or UKBA officers on patrol with the French Border Police. If true, this is significant in that it indicates that the UK influence on French soil seems to be expanding even further and beyond the legal limits of the Calais port fence.
[1] France had already fallen foul of the European Declaration on Human Rights when they tried to hold a mass deportation back to Afghanistan last November, and most migrants detained in the North West of France have no papers and their countries of origin cannot accurately be ascertained.
[2] This Act also enables these "persons other than immigration officer", the UKBA's equivalent of Police Community Support Officers, to detain people up to a maximum of three hours in order to escort them to an immigration officer. It also provides for the taking and retention of fingerprints under Sections 141 and 143 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
[3] Not strictly true as the UKBA operate visa controls at Paris, Brussels, Lille and Calais Frethun rail stations, as well as on Eurostar trains.
In February 2004 Home Office immigration controls moved to the so-called 'juxtaposed control zones' within the Calais, Boulogne and Dunkerque dock areas established under the 2003 Le Touquet treaty. Since then immigration officers have operated on 'French soil' and are allowed, under the reciprocal provisions of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum [NIA] Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) Order 2003, to search ships and vehicles and detain 'illegal' immigrants.
When the Home Office was reorganised and the UK Border Agency created, a second version of the legislation was passed, the NIA Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) Order 2006, which "authorise persons other than immigration officers to search a ship, aircraft or vehicle or other thing for the purpose of satisfying himself whether there are individuals whom an immigration officer might wish to examine for the purposes of considering whether the person should enter the UK."[2]
Now this may create a little bit of Blighty in France but UK control ends at the fence around the port.[3] And there is still the small problem of where the deportaion flights for the detainees, from what would potentially be the UK's very own Guantanamo, would fly from. Calais Marck Airport is far too small to take international flights and that means that the deportees would either have to be transported by boat to England, for a flight from there, or they would have to travel via French soil to a French Airport, which would cause legal problems for the French and defeat the whole object of the exercise. Of course they could always put them on a slow boat to Aghanistan or Iraq!
Another interesting recent development have been the reports from migrant support workers in Calais of what appear to be either UK police or UKBA officers on patrol with the French Border Police. If true, this is significant in that it indicates that the UK influence on French soil seems to be expanding even further and beyond the legal limits of the Calais port fence.
[1] France had already fallen foul of the European Declaration on Human Rights when they tried to hold a mass deportation back to Afghanistan last November, and most migrants detained in the North West of France have no papers and their countries of origin cannot accurately be ascertained.
[2] This Act also enables these "persons other than immigration officer", the UKBA's equivalent of Police Community Support Officers, to detain people up to a maximum of three hours in order to escort them to an immigration officer. It also provides for the taking and retention of fingerprints under Sections 141 and 143 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
[3] Not strictly true as the UKBA operate visa controls at Paris, Brussels, Lille and Calais Frethun rail stations, as well as on Eurostar trains.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)