September, 27 2010, 10:23am EDT
France: Reject Anti-Roma Bill
Parliament Should Scrap Problematic Provisions in Draft Immigration Law
PARIS
The French parliament should reject measures in an omnibus immigration bill that appear to target Roma and weaken migrants rights, Human Rights Watch said today. The National Assembly is due to begin debating the government-sponsored bill on September 28, 2010.
The bill, whose ostensible purpose is to transpose three European Union directives, contains last-minute government amendments that would widen the grounds for expelling EU citizens to include abusing France's welfare system, profiting from begging by others, and abusive occupation of land. The timing and focus of the amendments, and statements by government ministers, strongly suggest that the measure is aimed at the Roma.
"It is shocking that the French government is pushing for measures that clearly target Roma at a time when the European Commission is threatening legal action over France's expulsion of Roma this summer," said Judith Sunderland, senior researcher on Western Europe at Human Rights Watch. "It smacks of a populist move at the expense of the most discriminated against and vulnerable people in Europe today."
The bill also provides for:
- Creating ad hoc, floating transit zones for detaining groups of recent arrivals;
- Withdrawing acquired citizenship upon conviction for certain crimes;
- Reducing the rights of detained migrants; and
- Tougher rules for asylum seekers applying at the border, without introducing suspensive appeals in the "priority" asylum procedure.
As drafted, the bill would make it possible to expel EU citizens whose stay in France constitutes "an abuse of rights," such as those who renew three-month stays for the purpose of staying in France even though they do not fulfill the requirements for long-term stay, and those who stay in France with the purpose of benefitting from the welfare system, particularly emergency housing. The measure would be applicable to EU citizens in France for less than three months.
Immigration Minister Eric Besson announced the last-minute amendments during an August 30 press conference in which Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux made a point of singling out an increase in crimes committed by Romanians in Paris over the last year and a half. Claiming the government was not stigmatizing any particular group, Hortefeux said "any citizen can see [the reality]...of women and children spending entire days begging in appalling conditions in order to take their haul to the people who are exploiting them."
Under EU freedom of movement regulations, EU citizens may stay in another EU country for up to three months without conditions. Long-term stay requires that individuals are employed, self-employed, or have sufficient means to support themselves without becoming a burden on the host country's welfare system. But the main 2004 EU directive on freedom of movement explicitly states that expulsion should not be the "automatic consequence of...recourse to the social assistance system of the host Member State."
The bill would also expand powers to expel foreigners deemed to pose a threat to public order, including those liable to prosecution for certain crimes, including drug trafficking, human trafficking, profiting from prostitution by others, exploitation of begging, certain kinds of aggravated theft, and abusive occupation of land under the terms of a 2000 law regulating sites for gens de voyage (the French community known as "travelers").
The EU law on freedom of movement allows removal of EU citizens who represent a "genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society." This high threshold has been confirmed by the European Court of Justice. In late August, a court in Lille rejected the French government's argument that living in an unauthorized settlement justified expulsion on public security grounds.
"Calling organized begging and setting up makeshift homes on public or private land serious threat to public order just plays on fear and prejudice against Roma," Sunderland said. "Parliament should scrap these provisions."
The immigration bill will be debated against the backdrop of a highly publicized campaign over the summer to dismantle informal Roma settlements and expel from France Roma from Romania and Bulgaria. According to government figures, 1,700 Romanians and Bulgarians will have been expelled between July 28 and the end of September. In keeping with a plan to dismantle 300 unauthorized camps by the end of the year, authorities had evicted Roma from at least 128 camps by the end of August. Throughout last year, only 580 citizens of all other EU countries combined were expelled, according to official statistics.
The European Commission is expected to decide soon whether France violated EU laws on freedom of movement and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. There are serious concerns that the removals, many of which the government claims were "voluntary" upon cash payments, did not respect procedural safeguards, including the requirement to assess the individual's personal circumstances, the proportionality of an expulsion order, and the ability to challenge the decision in court. The bill before Parliament does not explicitly require authorities to conduct such assessments when determining to remove an EU citizen.
More troubling provisions
The bill would also empower the government to create ad hoc "transit zones" for the purpose of legally detaining and fast-tracking the asylum claims of a group of ten or more foreigners who have entered France without passing through an established border entry. In January, a group of over 100 asylum seekers arrived in Corsica by boat. French authorities were forced to release them after judges ruled their detention unlawful. Transit zones, which already exist at border points and airports in France, are based on a legal fiction that allows the government to treat an individual as if he or she is still outside the country. Individuals detained in transit zones have fewer rights and are subject to speedy deportations.
Human Rights Watch research has documented how unaccompanied children detained in transit zones in France are held jointly with adults and deported to countries they merely traveled through or to their countries of origin without any consideration of whether their families or child protection services are able to care for them upon return.
Human Rights Watch said that the bill would make the detention of asylum seekers and fast-track examination of their claims more commonand also give the authorities too much latitude to decide when those detained in a transit zone are notified of, and may begin to exercise, their rights. The EU Returns Directive allows EU countries to suspend immigration detention rules for a limited time only where an "exceptionally large number" of irregular migrants places an "unforeseen heavy burden" on authorities.
"Existing transit zones are already a disaster zone when it comes to rights, especially for unaccompanied children and asylum seekers," said Sunderland. "Creating portable zones will just make it harder for them to get the protection they need."
The only article of the draft legislation dealing with asylum procedures is designed to clarify the basis for rejecting an individual's request to enter France in order to apply for asylum. The bill does not remedy the lack of a suspensive appeal for asylum seekers on French territory whose claims are processed under the accelerated "priority procedure", despite recent recommendations from the UN Committee against Torture and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and several amendments proposed by both opposition parties and a deputy from Sarkozy's ruling party, the UMP. Human Rights Watch has been campaigning with Amnesty International France and ACAT France for the reform of the priority procedure.
In response to rioting in Grenoble in July which saw police officers come under gunfire, the government amended the draft legislation to allow for withdrawal of citizenship from individuals convicted of voluntary or involuntary homicide of public officials, including law enforcement officers, firefighters, and judges. French law already provides for naturalized citizens to be stripped of French citizenship if convicted of a crime against the fundamental interests of the nation or an act of terrorism. This facilitates subsequent expulsion to their country of citizenship by birth, where they may never have had or no longer have strong social or family ties.
The bill would also delay the review of immigration detentionby a specialized judge from the current 48 hours to five days, limit the scope of the review, increase maximum detention pending deportation from 32 to 45 days, and allow for those expelled from France to be banned for up to five yearsfrom returning to France and any of the other 24 countries covered by the "Schengen" agreement on free movement.
National rights groups and the National Consultative Commission on Human Rights have warned that all of these provisions are likely to lead to rights violations. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights expressed his concern that bans on return to the Schengen area could seriously affect the possibility of those in need of asylum to seek protection in Europe.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
To Push for Bold Treaty, Greenpeace Unveils Biden's Plastic Legacy Monument
"He can be the president who put an end to the plastic pollution crisis, or he can be the one who let it spiral out of control."
Mar 28, 2024
Inspired by Atlas, who in Greek mythology carried the heavens on his shoulders, Greenpeace installed a 15-foot monument outside the U.S. Capitol on Thursday to pressure the Biden administration to support an ambitious global plastics treaty.
President Joe Biden "has the chance to cement a lasting legacy: He can be the president who put an end to the plastic pollution crisis, or he can be the one who let it spiral out of control," Greenpeace oceans director John Hocevar said in a statement. "We're calling on him to stand up to plastic polluters like Exxon and Dow and put us on a greener and healthier path."
The third round of treaty talks ended in Kenya late last year with little progress—largely thanks to fossil fuel and chemical lobbyists along with allied governments. The next round of negotiations is set to be held in Canada next month.
The "Biden's Plastic Legacy" monument features the president kneeling and holding up an Earth full of plastic. The base has a written message: "Biden, the world's in your hands. Is this your plastic legacy?"
"Plastic pollution is everywhere, impacting every aspect of our lives. It affects our health, harms our communities, and fuels the climate crisis."
The statue's unveiling ceremony included remarks from Dr. Leo Trasande, a world-renowned environmental health researcher at New York University, and Jo Banner, who lives in Louisiana's Cancer Alley and co-directs the Descendants Project, an environmental justice group.
"The communities of color that live among the plastic manufacturers are first in line for the toxic mix of pollution they produce," said Banner. "Our health, bodies, and communities matter. We refuse to be treated as a mere checkmark on a list of concerns, and we cannot continue to be sacrificial zones."
"We need President Biden to truly listen to our needs and help create a strong global plastics treaty that protects communities like ours," she added. "We must ensure that Cancer Alley is confined to the past, not a part of the future we gift our children."
Trasande noted that in addition to the public health argument for cleaning up the plastic industry, there's an economic one.
"The chemicals found in plastics cost our economy hundreds of billions of dollars because of increases in disease and disability," the doctor said. "The easiest way to stop these diseases is to address plastic production, and a strong global treaty is essential, for people here in the U.S. and around the world."
Research has repeatedly shown the pervasiveness of plastic pollution. A January study found that there are 240,000 plastic particles in the average liter of bottled water. Last September, researchers discovered microplastics in clouds, potentially "contaminating nearly everything we eat and drink via 'plastic rainfall.'"
A 2022 Greenpeace report revealed that U.S. households "generated an estimated 51 million tons of plastic waste" the previous year, and the vast majority ended up in landfills or as pollution.
"Plastic pollution is everywhere, impacting every aspect of our lives. It affects our health, harms our communities, and fuels the climate crisis," Greenpeace campaigner Kate Melges said Thursday.
"The global plastics treaty is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a cleaner, safer planet," Melges argued. "President Biden must rise to this moment by supporting a strong plastics treaty that prioritizes human health, cuts production, and ensures a just transition for workers and communities."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Justice Is Delayed' as Judges OK Rigged South Carolina Map for Elections
"I'm disappointed it appears 30,000 people lost their political voice and nobody seems to care," said one Democratic congressional candidate from the affected district.
Mar 28, 2024
Voting rights defenders on Thursday decried a federal panel's
decision to let South Carolina use a congressional map the three judges found to be racially gerrymandered in this year's primary and general elections due to the U.S. Supreme Court's delayed resolution of the case.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for South Carolina in Columbia ruled last August that "race was the predominant motivating factor" in the Republican-controlled state Legislature's design of the 1st Congressional District "and that traditional districting principles subordinated to race."
Their ruling, which ordered the redrawing of the map, noted that "Charleston County was racially gerrymandered and over 30,000 African Americans were removed from their home district."
"Make no mistake—these discriminatory maps are a direct attempt to suppress Black voices ahead of a consequential election."
In their new decision, the judges acknowledged the awkward predicament of ordering the use of an unconstitutional map.
"But with the primary election procedures rapidly approaching, the appeal before the Supreme Court still pending, and no remedial plan in place, the ideal must bend to the practical," they asserted.
Brenda Murphy, president of the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, said: "Make no mistake—these discriminatory maps are a direct attempt to suppress Black voices ahead of a consequential election. We will not stand idly by as the rights of thousands of South Carolinians continue to be overlooked."
"The court's ruling today, further delaying these proceedings, continues to tip the scale of justice during a crucial moment in our democracy in an undemocratic attempt to sway the outcome of the upcoming election," Murphy added. "We must strive for a system where every voice is heard and every vote counts, free from the stain of discrimination."
Last October, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case, which was filed in 2021 by the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and voter Taiwan Scott. They are represented by the ACLU, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the ACLU of South Carolina, Boroughs Bryant LLC, Arnold & Porter, and the General Counsel's Office of the NAACP.
As Democracy Docket noted Thursday: "The parties asked the Supreme Court for a decision by January 1, 2024. Nearly three months later, the court still hasn't ruled on the case, creating a dire situation for congressional candidates as the candidate filing period started on March 16 and will end on Monday."
Joshua Douglas, a professor at the University of Kentucky Rosenberg College of Law, said on social media that "someone should write an article about the number of times jurisdictions have been allowed to use an illegal map because there's 'not enough time' to create a fair, legal one."
Douglas noted states where this has occurred, including Alabama, Louisiana, Ohio, North Carolina, "and now South Carolina."
South Carolina primary voters will head to the polls on June 11.
The 1st Congressional District is represented by Congresswoman Nancy Mace, a Republican. On Thursday, she toldThe Post and Courier that the judges' ruling "makes sense."
"It's only fair candidates know what the lines are," Mace said. "For us, I just want to know what constituents I'm serving."
Michael B. Moore, a Democrat running for the seat, called the decision "regrettable."
"I'm disappointed it appears 30,000 people lost their political voice," he said, "and nobody seems to care."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Weak Biden Endangered Species Rules a 'Massive Missed Opportunity'
"Imperiled plants and animals do not have the time for half-measures, since extinction is forever," one expert warned.
Mar 28, 2024
While welcoming efforts by President Joe Biden's administration to undo Trump-era damage to endangered species protections, conservationists warned Thursday that three new federal rules are inadequate, given the world's worsening biodiversity crisis.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, which proposed the rules last June, said that they will "restore important protections for species and their habitats; strengthen the processes for listing species, designating of critical habitat, and consultation with other federal agencies; and ensure a science-based approach that will improve both agencies' ability to fulfill their responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)."
The Center for Biological Diversity—which had blasted the Trump administration for taking a "wrecking ball" to the decades-old law—praised the agencies for removing barriers to designating unoccupied areas as critical habitat as well as for restoring the "blanket rule" for threatened species and the ban on considering economic impacts of listing decisions.
However, the center also pointed out that "of the 31 harmful changes made in 2019 to the act's regulations, only seven are fully addressed and corrected in today's final rules," despite years of work on the new rules and nearly half a million public comments.
"We're mostly still stuck with the disastrous anti-wildlife changes made by the previous administration."
"This was a massive missed opportunity to address the worsening extinction crisis," said Stephanie Kurose, a senior policy specialist at the center. "We needed bold solutions to guide conservation as the climate crisis drives more and more animals and plants to extinction. Instead we're mostly still stuck with the disastrous anti-wildlife changes made by the previous administration."
Jamie Rappaport Clark, president and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife, similarly said that "while the regulations restore some essential wildlife protections, we were hopeful for far more than the marginal win the Biden administration delivered today."
"Our nation's threatened and endangered species are under constant attack and the Endangered Species Act is the only thing standing between them and extinction," she stressed. "We appreciate the administration's work on this matter, but at the end of the day much work remains to be done to ensure the Endangered Species Act can fulfill its critical lifesaving mission."
Experts at the environmental law organization Earthjustice also expressed disappointment that—as Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans put it—the Biden administration didn't fully seize "the opportunity to fully reverse the damage inflicted upon the Endangered Species Act and the imperiled species it protects."
Writing about former Republican President Donald Trump's gutting of the ESA—which Biden helped pass shortly after joining the U.S. Senate in 1973—Earthjustice president Abigail Dillen explained at The Progressive on Wednesday:
The dismantling of the ESA could not have come at a worse time. Scientists around the world are telling us that we are on track to lose a million or more species in this century. We have already witnessed a staggering drop of more than two-thirds of all plant and animal life on Earth since 1970. In the United States, nearly half of our ecosystems are now at risk of collapse. It is a staggering pace of loss that climate change is only accelerating.
It would have been far worse without the ESA. The law has saved 99% of listed species from extinction, including the bald eagle, Florida manatee, and the gray wolf, one of my first "clients" when I began my career as an environmental lawyer more than two decades ago.
Earthjustice attorney Kristen Boyles declared Thursday that "we are in the midst of an extinction crisis; it is time for bold action."
"Imperiled plants and animals do not have the time for half-measures," she noted, "since extinction is forever."
The new rules—expected to provoke lawsuits from farmers, ranchers, and right-wing groups—come as Biden and Trump prepare for a rematch in November.
"One of the lingering legacies of Donald Trump is his attempt to undermine the Endangered Species Act, one of the most successful and popular conservation laws in the history of the United States," Sierra Club executive director Ben Jealous said Thursday. "At this moment, we should be listening to scientists and acting urgently to save biodiversity, not letting Donald Trump's gutting of environmental safeguards and sellouts to Big Business stand."
"President Biden has made generational investments in climate action with the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, but we need him to do more to protect imperiled wildlife," he added. "The Biden administration needs to protect more habitat, not less. We need the administration to increase protections for biodiversity, not abandon them. The president has the power, and we need him to use it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular