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
Sanders Calls for Repeal of Trump-Era Deregulation Blamed for Bank Collapses
"We cannot continue down the road of more socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for everyone else," said the U.S. Senator from Vermont.
Mar 13, 2023
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday night called for a full repeal of the 2018 banking deregulations signed into law by former President Donald Trump and declared that "now is not the time for taxpayers bail out Silicon Valley Bank"—the California bank that collapsed Friday.
On Sunday evening, the U.S. Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) issued a joint statement outlining a plan to make all deposits for Silicon Valley Bank as well as Signature Bank, which was shuttered by New York regulators earlier in the day, available to costumers Monday morning.
In his statement, Sanders said, "If there is a bailout of Silicon Valley Bank, it must be 100 percent financed by Wall Street and large financial institutions. We cannot continue down the road of more socialism for the rich and rugged individualism for everyone else. Let us have the courage to stand up to Wall Street, repeal the disastrous 2018 bank deregulation law, break up too big to fail banks and address the needs of working families, not the risky bets of vulture capitalists."
The statement the Fed, Treasury, and FDIC noted that "no losses" associated with the rescue plan "will be borne by the taxpayer," though the extraordinary intervention—the largest of its kind since the 2008 financial collapse—is still seen by many economists and financial experts, even if bank investors and debt holders are not protected, as a "bailout" for the financial industry only made possible by taxpayers.
"Let us have the courage to stand up to Wall Street, repeal the disastrous 2018 bank deregulation law, break up too big to fail banks and address the needs of working families, not the risky bets of vulture capitalists."
Warren Gunnels, longtime staffer and top advisor to Sanders, made the connection between venture capitalists clamoring for a speedy government intervention to save the banking sector from a wider shock and the same kind of people who have adamantly opposed financial relief for the struggling middle- and working-class Americans:
As the Washington Postreports, "The decision by Treasury to backstop all deposits at SVB and Signature — not just those up to $250,000 that are insured under federal law — rested on a judgment that it was necessary to avoid a wider 'systemic' meltdown. The move will likely ignite a political firestorm over the decision to protect the assets of tech firms, venture capitalists, and other rich people in California."
In 2018, as Sen. Mike Crapo's (R-Idaho) Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act was making its way through Congress, Sanders took to the floor of the U.S. Senate to oppose the bill, warning of exactly this kind of economic disaster if the deregulation was approved:
"Let's be clear," Sanders said Sunday night in his statement. "The failure of Silicon Valley Bank is a direct result of an absurd 2018 bank deregulation bill signed by Donald Trump that I strongly opposed. Five years ago, the Republican Director of the Congressional Budget Office released a report finding that this legislation would 'increase the likelihood that a large financial firm with assets of between $100 billion and $250 billion would fail.'"
"Unfortunately," he added, "that is precisely what happened."
On Monday, Lindsey Owens, executive directive of the progressive economic watchdog Groundwork Collaborative, focused on the additional lending facility made available to the bank customers and said the latest actions expose a deep "rot" within the Federal Reserve—especially as the central bank squeezes workers with increasingly higher interest rates, hikes that played at least a part in the banks' failures.
"This weekend, the Federal Reserve moved mountains to protect wealthy venture capitalists from the fallout of its aggressive interest rate hikes," said Owens. " Today, the Fed will return to its core work of pushing hardworking Americans out on the street to meet its inflation goals."
Such a set of policies, said Owens, shows the Fed "is irreparably broken and can no longer be trusted to go it alone on monetary policy. As Congress works to re-regulate mid-size banks after the misguided 2018 rollbacks that set this weekend's crisis in motion, they should also address the rot at the Fed."
In a statement on Sunday ahead of the government's rescue plan announcement, Matt Stoller, research director for the American Economic Liberties Project, made the case against any taxpayer bailout for SVB.
"Silicon Valley Bank was a badly managed and corrupt institution that entangled itself with powerful actors in the technology industry," Stoller argued. "The operative question government regulators are now facing is whether to use taxpayer funds to bail out the depositors from the failures of SVB's management."
But a full bailout, Stoller warned, "will only encourage other large regional banks to take similar risks in the future, just as Silicon Valley Bank did."
While bank investors and executives will not be included in the emergency actions announced on Sunday, Rep. Ro Khanna, the California Democrat who represents Silicon Valley, applauded the actions taken by Treasury to keep depositors whole.
Among his constituents impacted by the bank's collapse, he said, were "non-profit leaders, small business owners, start-up founders, and impacted employees of small businesses."
While expressly arguing that government intervention "should not and need not ... cost taxpayers a dime" during a news interview Sunday morning, Khanna later applauded the government plan while echoing Sanders' call for a reversal of the deregulation that led to the current crisis.
"I am glad that the Department of Treasury listened and moved to protect workers, the innovation pipeline, and the economy at large," Khanna said. "But the work doesn't end here. We've known since 2008 that stronger regulations are needed to prevent exactly this type of crisis. Congress must come together to reverse the deregulation policies that were put in place under Trump to avert future instability.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Shocking': Saudi Aramco Posts Largest-Ever Annual Profit for a Fossil Fuel Company
"These extraordinary profits, and any future income derived from Aramco, should not be deployed to finance human rights abuses, cover them up, or try and gloss over them," said Amnesty International.
Mar 12, 2023
Saudi Aramco, an oil giant almost entirely owned by the government of Saudi Arabia, announced Sunday that it brought in a staggering $161.1 billion in profits last year as it joined other fossil fuel companies in capitalizing on energy market turmoil sparked by Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
The company's profit figure for 2022 is the largest ever recorded by an oil corporation. Amin Nasser, Aramco's CEO, declared on an earnings call that "this is probably the highest net income ever recorded in the corporate world."
For comparison, ExxonMobil—the second-largest oil company in the world behind Aramco—reported $56 billion in net income last year, a record for the U.S. firm but nowhere close to the Saudi corporation's haul.
"It is shocking for a company to make a profit of more than $161.1 billion in a single year through the sale of fossil fuel—the single largest driver of the climate crisis," Agnès Callamard, secretary-general of Amnesty International, said in a statement. "It is all the more shocking because this surplus was amassed during a global cost-of-living crisis and aided by the increase in energy prices resulting from Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine."
Aramco said its banner profits—driven by "stronger crude oil prices, higher volumes sold, and improved margins for refined products"—were up nearly 47% compared to 2021, a windfall the company has used to reward investors.
"Aramco declared a dividend of $19.5 billion for the fourth quarter, to be paid in Q1 2023," the oil firm said in a press release. "This represents a 4.0% increase compared to the previous quarter, aligned with the company's dividend policy aiming to deliver a sustainable and progressive dividend. Additionally, the Board of Directors also recommended the distribution of bonus shares to eligible shareholders in the amount of one share for every 10 shares held."
While Aramco said it intends to devote resources to "lower-carbon technologies" and carbon-capture initiatives that climate campaigners have dismissed as false solutions, the company made clear that it has no intention of shifting aggressively away from fossil fuel production—a transition scientists say is necessary to avert climate catastrophe.
In its earnings announcement, Aramco said it is committed to "expanding oil, gas, and chemicals production."
Saudi Arabia is the second-largest oil producer in the world behind the United States. Late last year, the Saudi-led Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) agreed to slash oil production by 2 million barrels a day in a bid to keep prices high—benefiting companies like Aramco, Exxon, and other fossil fuel majors that have posted record-shattering 2022 profits as households struggle to heat their homes.
"It is past time that Saudi Arabia acted in humanity's interest and supported the phasing out of the fossil fuel industry, which is essential for preventing further climate harm," Callamard said Sunday. "These extraordinary profits, and any future income derived from Aramco, should not be deployed to finance human rights abuses, cover them up, or try and gloss over them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump-Era Deregulation Deemed a Key Culprit in the Failure of Silicon Valley Bank
"President Trump and congressional Republicans' decision to roll back Dodd-Frank's 'too big to fail' rules for banks like SVB—reducing both oversight and capital requirements—contributed to a costly collapse," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Mar 12, 2023
In 2018, ignoring the vocal warnings of experts and advocacy groups, the then-Republican-controlled Congress passed legislation that weakened post-financial crisis regulations for banks with between $50 billion and $250 billion in assets, sparking fears of systemically risky failures and more taxpayer bailouts.
Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), the California-based firm that collapsed on Friday, controlled an estimated $212 billion, leading analysts and lawmakers to argue that the 2018 law made the institution's market-rattling failure and resulting federal takeover more likely.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who was an outspoken opponent of the deregulatory measure, said in a statement Friday that "President Trump and congressional Republicans' decision to roll back Dodd-Frank's 'too big to fail' rules for banks like SVB—reducing both oversight and capital requirements—contributed to a costly collapse."
But the GOP wasn't alone in its support for Sen. Mike Crapo's (R-Idaho) Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, which critics dubbed the Bank Lobbyist Act.
As Warren noted as the bill was flying through Congress, a number of Democrats—including Sens. Mark Warner (D-Va.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), and Jon Tester (D-Mont.)—were integral to the legislation's passage, which led almost immediately to more bank consolidation.
Prior to the enactment of the Crapo bill, which then-President Donald Trump signed into law on May 24, 2018, banks with more than $50 billion in assets were subject to enhanced liquidity mandates and more frequent stress tests aimed at ensuring they could weather economic turmoil.
The 2018 law raised the threshold for the more stringent regulations to $250 billion or higher, a gift to banks like SVB that had been working for years to gut post-crisis regulations implemented under the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. The diminished oversight, some argued, is at least partly to blame for SVB's crisis.
"The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank was totally avoidable," Rep. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) wrote on Twitter. "In 2018, Wall Street pushed a deregulation bill that allowed banks like SVB to take reckless risks. It passed, even as I and many others warned of the risks. I am writing legislation to reverse that law."
As The Leverreported Friday, SVB specifically pushed Congress in 2015 to hike the regulatory threshold to $250 billion, with the bank's president touting its "strong risk management practices."
"Three years later—after the bank spent more than half a million dollars on federal lobbying—lawmakers obliged," the outlet added.
The collapse of SVB, a major lender to tech startups, was the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history and the biggest since the 2008 crisis. SVB's failure came days after it announced it sold $21 billion worth of bonds at a substantial loss, triggering fears about the firm's health and a run on the bank that was intensified by venture capitalists' calls for startups to pull their money.
The bank's last-ditch efforts to raise capital and find a buyer failed, prompting regulators to seize its assets and begin efforts to make depositors whole. (SVB reportedly paid out bonuses to U.S. employees just hours before federal regulators took over.)
The American Prospect's David Dayen noted that "because the depositors holding the bag at SVB are Very Important People, there's going to be intense pressure for a bailout."
"Hedge fund titan Bill Ackman is already calling for one," Dayen observed. "Larry Summers told Bloomberg that the financial system should be fine, as long as depositors get every penny of their money back, which would be a $150 billion bailout."
In an appearance on "Face the Nation" Sunday morning, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen pledged that "we are not going to do that again," referring to the bank bailouts of 2008.
"But we are concerned about depositors," Yellen said, "and we're focused on trying to meet their needs."
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is currently seeking a buyer for SVB, with final bids due by Sunday afternoon, according toBloomberg.
The Washington Postreported Sunday that "federal authorities are seriously considering safeguarding all uninsured deposits at Silicon Valley Bank, weighing an extraordinary intervention to prevent what they fear would be a panic in the U.S. financial system."
"Although the FDIC insures bank deposits up to $250,000, a provision in federal banking law may give them the authority to protect the uninsured deposits as well if they conclude that failing to do so would pose a systemic risk to the broader financial system," the newspaper reported. "In that event, uninsured deposits could be backstopped by an insurance fund, paid into regularly by U.S. banks."
"This predictable disaster should give serious pause to the current MAGA House majority who are pursuing further rollbacks of consumer financial protections after taking money hand over fist from Wall Street banks."
In a statement on Saturday, Liz Zelnick of the watchdog group Accountable.US said that "this mess was left behind by congressional Republicans and the Trump administration, who were too deep in the big banks' pocket to care about the consequences of gutting financial industry oversight."
"The chickens came home to roost this week in the Republican war against Wall Street reform and consumer financial protections," Zelnick continued. "This predictable disaster should give serious pause to the current MAGA House majority who are pursuing further rollbacks of consumer financial protections after taking money hand over fist from Wall Street banks—but don't count on it."
Some expert observers were quick to voice concern that SVB's collapse is just the start of broader chaos in the financial industry and the overall economy.
Dennis Kelleher, the president of Better Markets, warned that the fall of SVB "is going to cause contagion and almost certainly more bank failures," noting that the Federal Reserve's rapid and large interest rate increases left many financial institutions without "time to reposition their balance sheets and portfolios."
"That's why SVB is just the beginning," Kelleher argued. "Contagion, likely more bank failures, and various bailouts are almost certainly coming. While the immediate financial stability threats will materialize or be addressed, the underlying fundamental problems caused in large part by the Fed will remain and likely get worse."
"The Fed's actions to fight increasing inflation will need to be materially adjusted, which it should be anyway because inflation is driven by many factors that are beyond the Fed's control," he said. "Causing financial instability and a recession (of any depth and length) while missing the mark on inflation should cause a fundamental rethinking of the Fed's powers, authorities, and role."
This story has been updated to include comments from Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.