Since early February ECRE and 26 partner organisations have been campaigning to mobilise progressive voters for the EP election under the hashtag #YourVoteOurFurture. The voices carrying the campaign belongs to those most directly targeted by increasingly harsh integration and asylum policies at EU and member state level – on our last day of campaigning we leave the word to them.
VOTE FOR A EUROPE THAT APPRECIATES THE MIXTURE OF RACE AND NOT RACISM, THAT BELIEVES IN INTEGRATION AND NOT DISCRIMINATION, THAT HONOURS EQUALITY WITHIN HUMANITY
ADAM | NGO VICE PRESIDENT, GHANAIAN, NEW EUROPEAN
VOTE FOR A EUROPE THAT IS HOME TO ITS DIVERSE CITIZENS, INCLUDING MIGRANTS, NEWCOMERS AND ALL EUROPEANS IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR GENDER, RACE, POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, ONE THAT IS BASED ON OPEN- MINDEDNESS, THAT PROTECTS INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, THAT OFFERS EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES, THAT GUARANTEES DEMOCRACY AND RULE OF LAW AND ENSURES HUMAN DIGNITY!
MASOOMA | PHD STUDENT, AFGHAN, NEW EUROPEAN
VOTE FOR A EUROPE THAT CALLS ME BY MY NAME AND NOT BY A NUMBER!
MUBARAK | NGO ACTIVIST, SOMALI, NEW EUROPEAN
VOTE FOR A EUROPE THAT DEFENDS ITS VALUES OF SOLIDARITY, EQUALITY AND HUMANITY!
YAGOUB | NGO VICE-PRESIDENT SUDANESE, NEW EUROPEAN
VOTE FOR A EUROPE THAT FIGHTS FOR A GREEN AND JUST WORLD. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE - USE IT TO MAKE SURE SHORT TERM ECONOMIC INTERESTS ARE NOT PRIORITISED OVER UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS!
ANILA | POLICY ADVISOR, PAKISTANI, NEW EUROPEAN
VOTE FOR A EUROPE THAT CALLS FOR PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE, ACCEPTS DIVERSITY, RESPECTS ALL HUMANS REGARDLESS OF THEIR APPEARANCE, RELIGION, GENDER OR COLOUR. VOTE FOR A EUROPE THAT BELIEVES IN HUMANITY!
SHAZA | RESEARCH ASSISTANT, SYRIAN, NEW EUROPEAN
VOTE FOR A EUROPE THAT PROMOTES HOPE AND NOT FEAR, ADVOCATES FOR FREEDOM AND NOT LIMITATION AND RESPECTS ALL HUMAN BEINGS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR COLOUR, BACKGROUND, RELIGION AND SEX!
SPOGMAI | DIRECTOR, AFGHAN, NEW EUROPEAN
VOTE FOR A EUROPE THAT UNDERSTANDS THAT LOSING EVERYTHING IS NOT A CHOICE, BUT THAT GIVING SOMEONE THE CHANCE TO LEARN, EDUCATE THEMSELVES AND CONTRIBUTE, IS. I DON’T WANT TO CHANGE EUROPE BUT I WOULD LIKE TO BECOME A PART OF IT!
IMRAN | STUDENT, SYRIAN, NEW EUROPEAN
VOTE FOR A EUROPE WHERE PEOPLE STOP SEEING US AS ALIENS AND START SEEING US AS FRIENDS WHO WILL ONE DAY HELP PAY THEIR PENSIONS. I AM BELGIAN ENOUGH TO MISS THE COUNTRY WHEN TRAVELLING AND SUPPORT THE RED DEVILS – I DON’T WANT ANYONE TO KILL THAT FEELING!
BARAKAT | TRANSLATOR, SYRIAN, NEW EUROPEAN
VOTE FOR A EUROPE THAT SEES WE ARE NOT LOOKING FOR HANDOUTS BUT OPPORTUNITIES. I MIGHT NOT BE FLUENT IN FRENCH OR TOTALLY IN TUNE WITH THE BRUSSELS CULTURE YET BUT I AM ONLY A STRANGER UNTIL INVITED IN AND ONLY UNEMPLOYED UNTIL SOMEONE WILL HIRE ME!
MUHAMAD M | JOB-SEEKER, SYRIAN, NEW EUROPEAN
VOTE FOR A EUROPE THAT JUDGES PEOPLE BY THEIR ACTIONS RATHER THAN THEIR BACKGROUND, THEIR POTENTIAL RATHER THAN THEIR PAST AND THEIR ABILITY RATHER THAN THEIR DISADVANTAGES!
OMAR | EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT, SYRIAN, NEW EUROPEAN
The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (EBCG), launched its first joint operation on the territory of a non-EU country at the Greek Albanian border. The Status Agreement between the EU and Albania is the first of four agreements with countries in the Western Balkans to be implemented. The push to externalise the EU’s borders risks limiting access to effective protection for asylum seekers.
Status agreements allow the European Border Agency to operationally engage on the territory of a neighbouring third country together with at least one EU Member state in the border management by carrying out joint operations, rapid border interventions and return operations to the third country concerned. Under the status agreement with Albania, the EBCG is able to lend both technical and operational support and assistance. The EBCG teams will be able to support the Albanian border guards in performing border checks at crossing points, for example, and preventing unauthorised entries, a press release of the Commission states. The Agency will be deploying 50 officers, 16 patrol cars and 1 thermo-vision van from 12 EU Member States to support Albania in border control and tackling cross-border crime.
ECRE has already raised concern over the potentially extensive powers, including authorisation and refusal of entry, conferred to EBCG team members under the Status agreement with Albania. These could be used to prevent irregular migration towards the EU, beyond the EU’s physical borders, without independent oversight. The EU has concluded similar Status agreements with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and Serbia, which have not yet entered into force. The chain of status agreements in the region could become an additional tool in the closure of the Balkan route and contribute to containing asylum seekers in flawed and under-resourced asylum systems, effectively limiting their access to protection in the EU.
In April, the Parliament and the Council agreed to reinforce the mandate of the ECBG. Under the new Regulation, which is expected to enter into force on 1 January 2020, joint operations and deployments can take place in any third country and are no longer limited to third countries neighbouring an EU Member State.
For further information:
An account from Open Democracy documents how hundreds of Europeans have been criminalised by offering support to migrants. The findings confirm a growing trend of criminalisation across Europe also revealed in a recent report of The Institute of Race Relations (IRR).
Research by Open Democracy in cooperation with journalists across Europe documents more than 250 cases across 14 countries of people arrested, charged or investigated over the last five years for supporting migrants. The cases involve a variety of alleged offences related to “assisting illegal migration” and a sharp increase occurred in 2018 with a doubling from the previous year to 100 cases. The account states that there were: “Elderly women, priests and firefighters among those arrested, charged or ‘harassed’ by police for supporting migrants, with numbers soaring in the past 18 months”.
Given the difficulty in gathering comprehensive data, Open Society estimates that the actual figures could be substantially higher. The majority of cases were documented in just seven EU member states - Italy, Greece, France, the UK, Germany, Denmark and Spain.
In its recent report IRR chronicled 17 cases against 99 people in 2018 and the beginning of 2019 revealing: “the expansion and escalation of states’ prosecutions during the ‘migrant crisis’”. Charges include anything from membership of a criminal network to terrorism-related offences. Organisations and individuals have had their phones tapped and bank accounts frozen and in some cases of search and rescue NGOs, investigations have been accompanied by orchestrated public campaigns to delegitimise them.
For further information:
- ECRE, Interview: Ready to Rescue – Caught Up in Politics, May 2019
- ECRE, Malta Charges Five Rescued Migrants with ‘Terrorist Activities’ while Facts Remain Unclear, April 2019
- ADITUS, National Media Report on the representation in the media of suspects and accused persons, April 2019
- ECRE, Op-ed: Detention, Insecurity, Rights Deprivation – The Legal Crackdown on Asylum Seekers in Germany, April 2019
- ECRE, Mare Jonio Seized by Italian Authorities while Loss of Lives on the Med Continues, March 2019
- ECRE, Hungary: Constitutional Court fails to give sufficient protection to people and organisations working to protect the rights of asylum seekers, March 2019
- ECRE, Stansted 15: Freedom for Peaceful Deportation Activists, but Deportations Still on Agenda, February 2019
In the context of the impounding of the search and rescue vessel Sea-Watch 3 by Italian prosecutors, 47 people were allowed to disembark in Italy overriding Interior Minister Matteo Salvini’s Directive on surveillance and prevention of ‘illegal’ migration. Further, in a letter to the Italian government UN special rapporteurs demand the withdrawal of Salvini’s directive.
After 18 people, comprising of families with young children, were taken off the civil rescue vessel Sea-Watch 3 by an Italian Coast Guard vessel on Friday, the remaining 47 people were transferred to Lampedusa by the Italian coastguard on Monday as part of the orders from Italian prosecutors to seize the ship. While Italian interior minister Salvini has condemned the disembarkation, Sea-Watch praised it in a Tweet: "The Italian authorities finally allowed the disembarkation of our remaining guests. The constitution still has more power than a Minister, who disrespects the law according to the UN. We are grateful to the Italian people who defend solidarity".
A letter signed by six UN Special Rapporteurs and independent experts expresses grave concern over a draft decree introducing fines of up to 5,500 euro for each person rescued and urges the Italian government to withdraw Salvini’s recent Directive for the unified coordination of surveillance activities of maritime borders and fight against illegal immigration. The letter stresses : ”…search and rescue operations aiming at saving lives at sea cannot represent a violation of national legislation on border control or irregular migration, as the right to life should prevail over national and European legislation, bilateral agreements and memoranda of understanding and any other political or administrative decision aimed at 'fighting irregular migration'."
The Directive from Salvini issued as a circular from the interior ministry to the police, customs police, port authorities, Navy and Defense chiefs of staff followed the rescue of 49 people in international waters by the vessel Mare Jonio, operated by the Italian NGO Mediterranea on 18 March.
290 people have been rescued and returned by the Libyan Coastguard in two operations off the coast of Tripoli. They have been returned to a Libya where armed conflict and severe abuse is well documented.
For further information:
- ECRE, Tragedy and Chaos Continues on the Mediterranean, May 2019
- ECRE, Continued Stand Off over Rescued Migrants Unfolds in European Waters, April 2019
- ECRE, Spain: Open Arms Search and Rescue Vessel Denied Permission to Conduct Mission, January 2019
- ECRE, Malta Charges Five Rescued Migrants with ‘Terrorist Activities’ while Facts Remain Unclear, April 2019
- ECRE, The Struggle Continues for Civilian Search and Rescue in the Med, November 2018
- Institute of Race Relations, When witnesses won’t be silenced: citizens’ solidarity and criminalisation, April 2019
According to charities in the UK and France, the ‘Dubs scheme’, which brings vulnerable unaccompanied refugee children in France to the UK, is coming to an end. Many children in vulnerable situations in places such as Calais and Dunkirk have come through the scheme to the UK.
The UK Home Office launched the scheme in May 2016 and promised legal and safe pathways to the UK for 480 unaccompanied refugee children in vulnerable situations in France, Italy, and Greece. Since then, 220 unaccompanied minors have been transferred under the scheme to live with foster families.
In an open letter, 10 NGOs in France and the UK urged the UK government to increase the number of children brought to the UK stressing that, “hundreds of children remain in destitution in Northern France, exposed daily to the risks of trafficking and abuse.” They call upon the UK government to fill the 480 promised ‘Dubs places’ by October 2019, over three years on from the introduction of the scheme.
Alf Dubs, after whom the scheme is named, stated that the ending of the scheme in France appeared to be due to a filling of the quota allocated for children in France. He vowed to challenge the quotas, emphasising that local authorities have offered to take more children.
Conditions in the camps in Northern France remain dire, and concerns for unaccompanied children are particularly acute. The closing of the scheme would reduce the number of safe and legal pathways available to them.
For further information:
Several Hundred People have occupied terminal 2F of the airport Charles-de-Gaulle in Roissy, France, to protest against Air France’s collaboration in deportations from France and the asylum policy of the French state.
The protest was organised by the collective Gilets Noirs (Black Vests), a group of migrants without papers (“sans-papiers”) in the Ile-de-France region, and the pro-migrant activist group la Chapelle debout. Around 500 people occupied the terminal for two hours. The protests denounced those who benefit from the removal of people considered “illegal” and demanded that Air France stops financial, material logistic and political support of deportations. The airline was also asked to stop pressuring members of staff and passengers who oppose deportations. In the afternoon, four representatives of the Gilets Noirs were received by a delegation of the airline.
The occupation forms part of a series of actions to protest the restrictive character of French and EU asylum policies and ask for the provision of accommodation and regularisation of the status of the migrants, most of which come from former French colonies.
The airport is located next to one of the biggest migrant detention centres in France, the centre de rétention administrative (CRA) of Mesnil-Amelot. In 2018 more than 1000 people were deported from there.
REPORTS & NGO ACTIONS
In a report published following a visit to Germany in April 2019, ECRE examines gaps and compliance with procedural guarantees in the airport procedure implemented in the airports of Frankfurt/Main and Munich.
The airport procedure in Germany has been described as a “black box” due to its obscurity, lack of quality, and limited amenability to scrutiny. Although the number of claims processed at airports representing less than 1% of the total caseload before the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), the airport procedure is marred by severe deficiencies in practice.
Among other concerns, the report highlights that asylum seekers navigate highly truncated procedures without comprehensible information and adequate interpretation. The BAMF is reported to make superficial and inadequate assessments of the reasons for flight from the country of origin and maintains a restrictive stance aimed at filtering out claims, going beyond the scope of cases that should be deemed “manifestly unfounded” in line with the German Asylum Act.
Furthermore, applicants with special procedural needs such as pregnant women or persons with disabilities are subjected to lengthy interviews with the BAMF without benefitting from “adequate support” guaranteed to them by the recast Asylum Procedures Directive.
Finally, the report emphasizes that procedural deficiencies are exacerbated by the conduct of the entire airport procedure in a regime of de facto deprivation of liberty, without effective access to means of communication or remedies against arbitrary detention. In that respect, ECRE is particularly concerned by the persisting failure of German authorities to comply with Strasbourg jurisprudence on the right to liberty in airport transit zones.
For further information:
ECRE published a Policy Note which focuses on issues related to asylum and migration in the ongoing negotiations for the EU’s next long-term budget: how much money will be provided for migration-related objectives? For what specifically? To be spent where? And under whose competence?
As part of the negotiations for the next Multi-Annual Financial Framework (MFF), Member States are divided over the way in which migration should feature in the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI), to what extent Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) funds should cover migration related spending outside the EU and what coordination between internal and external funding for migration should exist. The Policy Note seeks to inform discussions by providing a perspective on what would constitute the most effective and rights based approach to funding asylum and migration outside the EU.
It argues that it is the immense need resulting from forced displacement, with least developed countries hosting one third of the world’s asylum seekers and 85% of the world’s refugees living in the developing world which should be the priority of migration related EU development assistance. If Member States make a more specific reference to migration management, this should be based on the Global Compact for Safe, Regular and Orderly Migration (GCM) and the Sustainable Development Goals, more particularly SDG 10.7 which is to “facilitate orderly, safe, and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies”. The suggested 10% earmarking for migration will already lead to the allocation of a significant amount of the EU’s development budget to issues related to displacement and migration. It should therefore be an indicative maximum earmark.
The current MFF proposal already introduces enough flexibility, so no additional measures to increase flexibility within NDICI should be taken. The proposed emerging challenges and priority cushion, which constitutes 11% of NDICI is flexible enough to also be used to address migration if a change in dynamics would risk leading to instability, conflict or undermine resilience of states. However, in line with the Busan Commitments, this should be based on the third countries assessment of priorities as opposed to the EU’s. Member States who are committed to effective and flexible EU external action should commit to defending the EU’s external and development budget, which in past MFF negotiation received the largest cuts proportionally to the initial proposal by the European Commission.
The MFF proposal foresees a significant increase in the amount of money dedicated to migration and border management as part of the Justice and Home Affairs funds. With adequate resources, the Asylum and Migration Fund (AMF) can play a considerable role in ensuring fair and effective asylum systems in Europe, returns in dignity of third country nationals and contribute to the harmonisation of standards in relation to asylum, reception conditions and integration. It is therefore that support to the third countries under the AMF and the suggested, significant components for external migration management must remain limited and inherently linked to the internal dimension of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). Diverting a substantial portion of the funds outside the EU can be used as a justification for continued substandard asylum systems and poor integration services. The same argument holds true when considering the spending of the Integrated Border Management Fund (IBMF) outside the EU. The link with the objective of the fund to ensure “strong and effective European integrated border management at the external borders while safeguarding the free movement of persons within it” must be made clear for all activities outside the EU.
In line with the European Parliament, ECRE proposes the introduction of a maximum allocation requirement of 5% of AMF and 4% of IBMF for funding spent outside the EU. Without a cap, there is a risk that JHA funds will be diverted outside of Europe which will jeopardise the EU and Member States reaching the CEAS and integrated border management objectives. In addition, increased JHA spending outside may result in a parallel foreign policy developed, implemented and managed by DG Home and Ministries of Interior.
It must be ensured that each of the actions in or in relation to a third country fully respects the rights and principles enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the international obligations of the Union and the Member States. The EU otherwise runs the risk of becoming complicit in human rights violations. Oversight of border control activities to assess their compliance with international refugee and human rights law, commonly known as border monitoring, is a fundamental component of rights-compliant migration management systems. Ensuring civil society has access to IBMF funding and is supported to participate in border monitoring programmes is therefore important.
The Policy Note also makes the argument for amending the weighting of indicators which determine how much money is being allocated to national programmes and including both a quantitative and a qualitative analysis of Member States performance under the AMF and IBMF in the mid-term review which determines the allocation of the second tranche of spending to Member States.
For further information:
In a newly released Guidance Note the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) establishes that given the political, economic, human rights and humanitarian situation in Venezuela, the majority of the 3.7 million people who fled the country are in need of international protection.
According to UNHCR because of: “the threats to their lives, security or freedom resulting from circumstances that are seriously disturbing public order in Venezuela”, the majority of the people fleeing Venezuela are entitled to protection based on the 1984 Cartagena Declaration. Further the Agency states that for certain profiles of Venezuelans at risk the 1951 Refugee Convention is applicable.
By the end of 2018, some 460,000 Venezuelans had formally sought asylum, the majority in neighbouring countries in Latin America. Between February 2018 and January 2019 alone, more than 25,000 have applied for asylum in the US. Despite statements in support of the Venezuelan people, so far the administration has not granted Venezuelan nationals Temporary Protected Status (TPS) or given them priority in its asylum system. Nazanin Ash, vice-president of policy and advocacy for the International Rescue Committee (IRC), commented: “Here you have the administration standing with Venezuelans seeking freedom – and banning them from seeking that freedom in the United States.”
Since the start of 2019, Venezuelans present the second highest number of asylum seekers in the EU after Syrians, according to data from the European Asylum Support Office (EASO). UNHCR and International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimate that 5,3 million people will have fled Venezuela by the end of 2019.
For further information:
Nina Murry is Head of Policy and Research at the European Network on Statelessness (ENS). Laura van Waas is Co-director of the Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion (ISI). In 2017, the two organisations started the #StatelessJourneys project to examine the relationship between statelessness and forced displacement in Europe.
The issue of statelessness is often overlooked in the debate on asylum. What is the number of people impacted?
NINA: Statelessness is a legal anomaly affecting more than half a million people in Europe, and more than 10 million globally. Thousands of refugees arriving and living in Europe today are stateless, but because countries lack law and policy to address statelessness, nationality problems are often hidden and overlooked.
LAURA: Between 2015 and 2018, the EU received nearly 100,000 asylum applications from people whose nationality status was recorded as ‘stateless’ or 'unknown’. That’s around 3% of all applications. This includes only people whose nationality problems were identified on registering their claim for asylum. We know that many more are wrongly attributed a nationality that they don’t in fact hold.
What are the main challenges facing stateless refugees arriving to Europe?
NINA: One of the main issues is the invisibility of statelessness. To protect the specific rights of refugees and migrants who are stateless (or at risk of statelessness), nationality problems have to be identified and dealt with. But, in practice, this rarely happens. There is no standard procedure to identify and register statelessness on arrival at the border and officials responsible don’t have access to training and guidance. Stateless people are often simply ‘assigned’ a nationality during screening procedures based on their country of origin or the language they speak or registered with an ‘unknown nationality’. This can obviously cause lots of difficulties further down the line for them. It also hides the scale of the problem because data we have is inaccurate.
Problems with identification are compounded by the fact that many European countries don’t have dedicated legal frameworks in place to determine statelessness and grant stateless people protection under the 1954 UN Convention on statelessness. This means that if a stateless person is refused refugee protection, they can end up in a vicious cycle of repeated return attempts and prolonged detention, unable to regularise their stay but with nowhere to go because no country will accept them.
LAURA: Not only are European countries not doing enough to uphold rights of stateless people, they are also producing new cases of statelessness. Through gaps in states’ nationality laws children are still born stateless in Europe. Only half of European States have full safeguards in their nationality laws to prevent childhood statelessness.
There are many common State failures surrounding the birth of a child to a refugee in Europe (or in transit). For example, the inaccurate identification and registration of parental nationality, means that States can either be unaware or outright refuse to accept that a child may be born stateless on their territory. A child may be recorded as having the same nationality as their parent with no investigation into whether the parent can confer their nationality. Yet we know that countries like Syria do not allow mothers to pass on nationality. So in cases where the father is not known, does not recognise the child or is unable to confer his nationality the child will be stateless. The nationality laws of numerous other major countries of origin discriminate against women in the same way, including Iraq, Iran and Somalia. The bureaucracy surrounding the systems in place for birth registration can also act as a barrier, with overcomplicated and strict evidentiary requirements, punitive fines and court procedures.
Why is statelessness relevant to authorities and actors working with refugees and what can be done?
NINA: We know that European countries and refugee response actors are increasingly encountering stateless people in their asylum systems. And we know that the fact that an asylum applicant may be stateless can be critical when assessing their claim for international protection. The fear of persecution of a Kuwaiti bidoon at the hands of the Kuwaiti authorities might be directly connected to their statelessness. The same could be said of a stateless Rohingya from Myanmar. Whether someone is stateless or a national of their country of origin not only impacts on the initial assessment of their claim, but also on the nationality rights of their children, access to family reunion, integration and naturalisation, because they are unlikely to have documentary proof of identity and family links.
LAURA: We started to more carefully document the relationship between statelessness and forced displacement in Europe. It is true that existing country of origin information relating to refugee populations in Europe today is not tailored to address statelessness as a specific phenomenon in the asylum context. This information and knowledge gap is making it difficult for refugee actors to take statelessness-specific issues into account in their work. Our ‘Country Position Papers’ aim to provide information on the profiles of stateless individuals and people who may be at risk of statelessness due to nationality or civil documentation problems.
Take Myanmar, for example. It is home to almost half a million stateless Rohingya, with many more already displaced from their country by violence and persecution. This is the country’s most widely known and largest stateless population. But it is not the only one. In fact, Myanmar’s problematic Citizenship Law discriminates on the grounds of race and ethnicity and lacks safeguards to prevent statelessness. Coupled with widespread corruption in civil documentation processes, this has generated a severe statelessness crisis affecting many other vulnerable populations in the country. We've put this information in our Country Position Paper on Myanmar. Position papers on statelessness in Syria, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and Palestine will soon be available. We hope that these position papers will be used in helping to ensure a more statelessness-sensitive approach to assisting refugees and migrants. In the long term we are advocating for a greater focus on nationality problems and statelessness in Country of Origin Information prepared by other actors.
What is the change that needs to happen? Who needs to be involved and what do they need to do to make sure that stateless refugees are protected?
LAURA: Change is needed at different levels. Authorities need to put in place legislation and policy procedures to regulate and guide the response to stateless people arriving in Europe and ensure that States can meet their international obligations. To name a few practical examples. Firstly, States need to develop guidance to assist frontline officials to accurately identify statelessness during nationality screening procedures. Secondly, all States need to have a statelessness determination procedures, so that people identified as - or claiming to be - stateless can then be referred to a legal procedure to determine their nationality status and receive protection. This is especially important where they don’t qualify as refugees or for other forms of subsidiary protection. Thirdly, there needs to be a procedure for reviewing and correcting errors in the recording of nationality status and people need to be signposted to specialist support and legal advice. Fourthly, training, capacity-building and information should be provided to registry officials so they are better equipped to respond to the specific circumstances of stateless parents.
NINA: And at a more basic level, anyone who encounters a stateless refugee or migrant in their work should feel empowered to respond appropriately to that person’s specific situation. So, for example, frontline response officials should have a basic understanding of who might be affected, how to ask someone about their nationality status, how to record an accurate answer, and where to refer people to for assistance. NGOs, lawyers and volunteers should also have access to information, resources and training to build a basic awareness of statelessness and nationality problems and how to support people affected. Stateless individuals and communities should have access to information about their rights and how to find specialist support in formats that are accessible to them.
The #Statelessjourneys project is designed to support those objectives.
For further information:
ECRE European Parliament Campaign: Your Vote Our Future! It is time to oppose the far-right populists and fight for a Europe respecting human dignity and fundamental rights – the European Parliament elections provide this opportunity. Every vote counts!
Social Platform: Your world – your vote! What kind of world do you want to live in? One where the majority line the pockets of the wealthy few? Or one where people’s well-being is top priority and where nobody is left behind? The European Elections give you the power to choose. Your world – your vote!
JRS Europe - The Power of the Vote! Against the rise of populist anti-migrant rhetoric, we, at the Jesuit Refugee Service, believe that the most fundamental resource in Europe today is our vote. Therefore, we wish to appeal to all people to stand up for the future of the EU and especially for the fundamental rights of asylum seekers in Europe.
Choose Respect: Together We Can Tackle Anti-Migrant Hate Speech. Hate speech against migrants and refugees is all too common, both online and in the real world. But it isn’t always easy to know how to react effectively – and it’s even harder to respond in a way which changes attitudes. In the run-up to elections, politics is a frequent topic of debate. But if the discussion turns nasty – either around the dinner table or on your social media feed – here are some tips to help you make a constructive contribution to a more positive discourse.
- Several Dates in May/June, Oxford, Refugee Studies Centre Public Seminar Series, University of Oxford
- 3-5 June 2019, London, Refugee Law Initiative Fourth Annual Conference, ‘Rethinking the “Regional” in Refugee Law and Policy’, Refugee Law Initiative
- 20 June, The Hague, EMEN Annual Event: Innovative financing solutions for migrant entrepreneurs? Cross your own borders, European Migrant Entrepreneurship Network
- 24-28 June 2019, Nottingham, Summer School 2019 - Development Aid and Migration, Human Rights Law Centre, University of Nottingham
- 17-28 June 2019, Geneva, Summer School on Global and Regional Migration Governance, University of Geneva
- 26-28 June 2019, The Hague, 2019 World Conference on Statelessness and Inclusion, Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion
- 1- 5 July 2019, Budapest, Conceptualising, Navigating and Representing the Field in Migration Studies, Central European University, Summer University
- 1- 12 July 2019, Brussels, 2019 Summer School on EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy, Odysseus Network
- 3-5 July 2019, Geneva, 2019 UNHCR Annual Consultations with NGOs, UNHCR
- 29 July- 2 August 2019, Tilburg, Statelessness Summer Course: Global Focus 2019, Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion
- 27- 30 August 2019, London, Geographies of Trouble/ Geographies of Hope, 2019 Annual International Conference, Royal Geographical Society- IBG
CALLS FOR PAPERS & OPEN CALLS