Notebooks geographers
by Olivier Tramp
devices to regulate the movement of foreigners into the EU are increasingly complex, therefore the boundaries migration of the Union tend to be polymorphic. If the conventional expression of the Border - Linear - continues even strengthens certain limits on the Union, as in Ceuta and Melilla, where real walls were built, other realities border reappear elsewhere, in various ways, but always in places where immigration controls may take place and be effective. These realities of the border, which are not mutually exclusive of each other, tend to combine well. Thus, for many migrants, the first audits are taking place in the European consulates and border outposts almost invisible point are all forms worldwide migration of the border of the EU (Bigo and Guild, 2003). European policies have also resulted in border areas. Some are areas like Calais, western Ukraine and northern Morocco, whose functional limitations are sometimes difficult to grasp. But they are also more swaging dimensional spaces like detention centers. These border areas have become populated areas, spaces lived, and more so that the period of detention or transit is long (and Kobelinsky Makaremi, 2008).
All these devices to control the movement of migrants and implemented by European states do not operate independently of each other and are bound by different mechanisms at the center of which there are places of detention (Closed centers). The agency Frontex, which coordinates the surveillance operations at the borders of several Member States can also establish links between different control units. It is the same computer networks such as the Information System (VIS), the Schengen Information System (SIS) and Eurodac system. Border Union's migration seems to be going to a provision increasing lattice with surveillance that has tended to settle along the routes used by migrants (Suez, 2008). According to Claude
Raffestin, networks Registration is a form of power over space. The resulting networks of European migration policies do not seem to be exceptions to this rule. Starting from a reading of texts on European regulations and communications from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council (on visa policy, the liaison officers, the computer databases, etc..), That article 'want to change the borders of the Union based on features of lattice order. European states hope to better control migration flows. We shall first that the development of immigration control has resulted in a specific form the borders of the European Union, a configuration " controlled by a principle of connectedness rather than contiguity and characterized by telescoping of spatial scales (Offner and Pumain, 1996 ). Collaborations increasingly close ties between the police forces of Member States have strengthened the networking that takes place now partly under the aegis of a European Agency for External Borders (Frontex). Related to international maritime transport networks and air, the devices also penetrate the European territories of third countries, including neighboring states of the European Union by partially "ignored state boundaries." Finally detention centers, whose number is increasing have become major issues of current policies and their relation to other control devices has become inevitable.
1.The increased outsourcing and migration controls of the European Union in third countries
European regulations concerning the common visa policy, the actions of officers of immigration liaison or the establishment of large computer systems converge surveillance more rigorous movements of migrants. These devices also highlight a provision increasing lattice and are set either side of the external borders of the European Union, the latter being deterritorialize part of its immigration controls in all neighboring states .
A visa policy increasingly marked by the deployment of biometric systems
March 15 2001, Member States adopted a regulation establishing a common list now consists of nearly 140 countries whose nationals are subject to visa requirements when crossing the external borders of the Union. Only short-stay visas (less than three months) are subject to this regulation, other visas remain the responsibility of individual Member States. Since then, the European consulates were partially aligned their practices relating to the issuance of visas. The Common Consular Instructions moreover, adopted the following year to clear all European officials how immigration controls should be conducted at the consulates. The text included a statement that "the consular cooperation [...] focus on assessing risk migration. It will be [...] the determination of common criteria for examining files, exchanging information on the use of false documents, on possible illegal immigration and the refusal of visas where of manifestly unfounded or fraudulent. [And] it is therefore appropriate to exercise particular vigilance "populations risk "unemployed persons, and those stable ... resources." Procedures for visa applications - from one consulate to another - however, continued to be marked by differences, sometimes significant (Beaudu, 2007).
The Community Code on visas , effective April 5, 2010, aims to relaunch the process of harmonization of procedures for issuing short stay visas to all the consulates of Member States. In March 2010, the European Commissioner Cecilia Malmström said here that the delegations of the Union should play a greater role in coordinating between the different European consulates, especially in the context of "local cooperation" in third countries. One objective is that the consular officers of the Union in the same country can jointly assess the "immigration risk" of some applicants. For this cooperation to be operational at the local or regional, a leading computer network - the Information System (VIS) -, decided in 2004 is being established. Settlement dated 9 July 2008 is came specify the terms and features of VIS.
The scheme aims to facilitate the exchange between Member States of data on applications for short-stay visas. This system identifies " anyone who does not meet or no longer meets the conditions of entry " in the territory of the Union. It also aims to fight against the "visa shopping, looking for people who have been refused in another consulate, and know where applicable, the reasons for rejection: Insufficient livelihood, purpose and / or conditions enough travel precise, a person with " a particular risk for illegal immigration ", etc.. A refusal can also be notified because the person has already spent three months during a recent period of six months, the territory of a Member State.
The information system on visas is expected to link all EU embassies around the world. It has a central portion located Strasbourg, connected to the national interfaces of each Member State, while each national VIS - managed by an authority competent - is connected to all its consulates. And the office responsible for examining an application for a visa can be transmitted to the VIS, through its competent authority name, nationality, place of application , etc.. the applicant, indicating he wishes to consult Member States. The country or member (s) interviewed (s) transmit the response to the VIS in turn communicates to the Member State which has made the request. Each authority consulted for seven days to give a definitive answer, " no response within limit, the authorities consulted shall be deemed to have no objection to the issuance of the visa .
To improve the implementation of this common policy on visas, the Visa Code envisages that over time, biometric information (see box below) are also processed in the VIS. Therefore this network linked to the issuing of visas may be connected to other devices.
data banks to identify third-country nationals to the European Union are becoming increasingly common. In Europe, in addition to the VIS, two other important features have emerged since the mid-90s: the Schengen Information System (SIS) and Eurodac. The first allows Contracting Parties, " through an automatic query procedure, to have record of persons and objects, on the occasion of border controls [...] and other police checks and the Customs within the country . The second is a technological tool linked to the implementation of the Dublin Convention, one of whose main objectives is to determine the State responsible for examining an application for asylum.
Launched in 1995, the SIS in 2010 covers all states of the European Union - with the exception of Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ireland, the United Kingdom and Romania - as well as Norway, Iceland and Switzerland. A new design of the device - called SIS II - should be operational very soon and include Bulgaria, Cyprus and Romania. As a reminder, in exchange for the free movement of persons within the Schengen countries that signed the Schengen Agreement have required the strengthening of external border controls. In terms of migration, the introduction of this equipment is designed to make effective policy on the expulsion of third country nationals illegally. European police forces have in fact need to share information quickly. So what makes computer network during a police control at the border, when applying for a visa or residence permit, to ascertain whether the person has not violated the national rules on entry and residence foreigners. The institutions also seek to control whether the alien has been unsuccessful asylum and subjected to inadmissible in any State, or does not object to a prohibition of entry or deportation if etc.. (Tramp, 2007) Available to all police officers at the local level, this device has become one of the largest common databases and allows for example the German authorities to seek the services of the Austrian police to readmit a stranger illegal immigrants who made a transit (or lived) before in Austria. Unlike
SIS, Eurodac system - came into force in January 2003 - for all countries of the European Union, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland. It can record the fingerprints of asylum seekers in order to define, based on criteria endowed with a hierarchy, Member States will be responsible for the investigation of his case. If these impressions are already stored in the database, the states implement the readmission of persons under a procedure supervised by the deadlines set out in the regulations. The seizure must be made within three months after registration of the claim and the state has seized two months to respond. Then the readmission of the applicant may take place within six months or eighteen months if the applicant is fleeing.
Finally, by 2012, the European Commission is considering creating an agency to manage the Schengen Information System (SIS II), the Information System (VIS), the Eurodac system, as well as articulation with other information systems.
The European network of liaison officers: how to establish or strengthen links with the police third countries
The liaison officers "Immigration" (ILO) found in third countries are very close to consular officials because, firstly, they contribute to the harmonization of procedures for issuing visas of European consulates, and secondly, they are attached to representations of their country abroad (embassy or consulate). They help to "establish (...) contacts with the authorities " one or more countries and strengthen cooperation between member countries and European states, establishing trade operational between the various police and gendarmerie to fight against illegal immigration. For example, when immigrants were expelled from the territory of the Union, the presence of these agents upon arrival is somehow an additional safeguard to make sure that the alien does not receive a "party ping-pong "between states (Migreurop, 2009, p.35). The many links with local police, airlines and ports and if appropriate, their security companies, also help determine whether border controls in third countries are effective.
These agents operate in a network since the 1990s in the same region - in connection with officers from other EU Member States - and worldwide with the other officers of their state. Based on earlier experiments, the EU adopted 19 February 2004, a regulation aimed at " formalize the existence and functioning " of a single network.
The spatial distribution of these agents varies widely between Member States. France has nearly one hundred fifty agents around the world some of which are also involved in the fight against terrorism, drug trafficking and organized crime, it is the same fourteen Belgian liaison officers. The United Kingdom Border Agency (UKBA) has fifty-two officers "Immigration" three of which have the task of facilitating the identification of illegal aliens in the United Kingdom and their deportation order in their country of origin. This agency can also avail of other attached English homeland security abroad who work in other areas. Almost all countries in the world is therefore affected by the presence of at least one agent from one of the EU Member States - with the exception of Denmark - and the other three countries also adopted the resolution of February 19, 2004 (Iceland, Norway and Switzerland). It should be noted that some national systems are characterized by the existence of specific missions that can be deployed at certain "migration crisis", as demonstrated by the displacement of English delegations in Mauritania and Senegal in 2005 and 2006, Following numerous arrivals Cayucos (Large canoes used by fishermen).
European countries increasingly seek to pool the functions of their liaison officers. Thus, European agents sometimes use to their colleagues in other Member States in countries where their physical presence is not assured (cross-cooperation) (Migreurop, 2009: 35): for example an Italian liaison officer may work for on behalf of France, and vice versa. This logic is partly reticular favored by the limitations of each national scheme. The law also provides that agents in third countries to be seconded to administration of a Member State or a third country or international organization. Despite these various provisions, however, seem more limited collaboration in the shared management of the "immigration risk", particularly with the governments of some countries refusing the presence of liaison officers in areas considered "sensitive." In Morocco, the authorities refused until 2004 that liaison officers be present in the region of Tangier, and in 2009 the European agents were still not allowed to cooperate with the Turkish police at the airport Istanbul.
2. The border police cooperation, reflecting the construction of new borders of the Union
Since the early 1990s, the Member States of the Schengen area have gradually established joint units to strengthen immigration controls at their borders. If the first cooperation between member countries have generally been established locally and / or temporarily on common borders, the interior ministers of the first fifteen Member States meeting in Rome were first considered in May 2002 creating a special body to monitor the Union's external borders. The Commission communication of 7 May 2002 entitled "Towards a integrated border management EU" underscores this commitment and is supported by the European Council in Seville in June 2002. The fight against illegal immigration becomes a major concern of Member States and the SCIFA (Strategic Committee on Immigration, Frontiers and Asylum) consisting of border control officials of Member States, is created. The goal was to go towards the establishment a European Agency for External Borders (FRONTEX) to coordinate the control of immigration.
of bilateral cooperation between Member States first internal border ...
With the creation of the Schengen area, migration controls at internal borders of Member States have moved in part to the train stations, ports and airports, even some logistic platforms, mobile units composed of police officers from neighboring countries also act on both sides of common borders. And the mid-1990s, operations were highlighted when the first gradual abolition of checks at internal borders, and this was the case in the French-German border. Since then, Member States continue to provide assistance permanently, in the framework of bilateral agreements, " that border control is implemented effectively . Mathilde Darley said here that " since the disappearance in December 2007, the Schengen border between Austria and the Czech Republic, the Czech-Austrian center Police cooperation is expected to play a more important "(Darley, 2008). Monitoring migration takes place beyond the limits with a redeployment of state controls on the territory, "the police Austrian border was mostly restored, a few kilometers from the old border posts, roadblocks conducted by patrols ash, while the Czech police checks multiplied throughout the country. The extension, the Czech Republic as in Austria, the possibility of arrest for deportation of applicants asylum as irregular migrants also appears as a form of response to the disappearance of the border as the primary place of 'tri' circulations "(Darley, 2008). Similar operations are found in the French-Italian border, but also in the border region between Germany and Poland, and in the Calais where the French and British police help each other to fight against immigration called "irregular .
Under these cross-border police cooperation and in accordance with the Schengen Borders Code, the border guards can consult databases and European national computer to check whether the person is not reported for non-entry in the SIS (see above) or if it has not exceeded the maximum length of stay permitted on the territory of Member States. Many third-country nationals are detained at the border as well and put in administrative detention because they do not have proper papers when they are in possession of a travel document to return to their country of origin. These situations, which occur particularly in the Franco-English border, to positions of Hendaye or Perpignan (Cimade, 2009), are linked to objectives defined distance in recent years by the French Government (26 000 in 2008 and 27,000 in 2009).
... management "collective" of borders ...
The association between European police forces led to what the immigration control takes place not only over the border. Thus the first control operations coordinated by the SCIFA with the help of several Member States were conducted on both sides of the land borders of Central Europe, over maritime areas and simultaneously in major European airports. During the year 2003, have thus emerged cross-border cooperation with legendary names such Ulysse I Ulysse II Neptune, etc.., Respectively extending from the Strait of Gibraltar and the Strait of Sicily, between the Canary Islands and the African coast and in central and eastern Mediterranean Sea.
The Eastern and Mediterranean countries of the Union are indeed very committed to this cooperation. By their geographical location and length of their maritime borders, Italy, Malta, Greece and Cyprus say they are most in demand and carry out checks on behalf of most European states. In March 2003 the Greek Presidency had suggested four criteria for sharing the burden of control: the location of a country, the nature of its borders, migratory pressure and quality controls. But this proposal was rather aggravating divisions among Member States. In addition, the Commission recalled that each Member State was financially guarantee arrangements in place at external borders from the EU budget only as a supplement; gold with the strengthening of Frontex in recent years, EC assistance is increasingly important.
Finally as for the Schengen area in the early 1990s, some states still want to be precursors of new experiences may then transposed to the European Union (Labayle Henry, 1997: 124-125). Thus the Treaty of Prüm signed May 27, 2005 by Germany, Austria, Benelux, Spain and France seems to express such intent. This agreement intends to facilitate the exchange of information, employment Common Agent to fight against immigration "irregular" and the strengthening of border controls operations of the States concerned. But behind these resolutions, maybe there will, at least above board, bypass certain institutional constraints and democratic Union as much as some of its members deemed unreliable. As a reminder, during the 1990s, Italy and Greece were not allowed to join the Schengen area as the first members felt their border controls unreliable.
and ... establishment of Frontex
Founded in October 2004, the agency Frontex aims to strengthen the coordination of immigration controls at the external borders of the Union among Member States and to establish joint operations to expel - in batches - nationals of third countries. Since its inception, the agency's budget is constantly increasing: from 6.3 million in 2005, it rose to 42.2 million euros in 2007 to over 100 million euros in 2010 This increase is related to the development of coordinated operations Frontex (see table below).
Each Member State Border Guard is available to the agency for the deployment of surveillance provided by Frontex. These interventions taking place at sea, land borders and in major European airports, are of several types:
- pilot projects which are highly localized experimental operations, to obtain information on regions. One of the objectives of these missions is to convince European governments to make available to the agency human resources and materials Additional, essential to the organization of actions more or less perennial
- joint operations established for limited periods and are renewable, which are organized by a Member State and which several countries participate
- checks conducted by police officers several Member States within one or more crossings ( focal points ) established on a relatively long period, they allow each Member State to share their experiences in this field.
Behind the development of this solidarity between Member States, the objective the agency is creating his own body guard borders (Frontex, 2009a). According to a regulation 2007, at the request of a country considers to be confronted with the arrival of a large number of exiles, Frontex can already deploy one or several teams of Rapid Border Intervention (RABIT). The implementation of these operations must be linked with situations " urgent and exceptional ", however the geographic boundaries of Frontex operations tend to become entrenched. At the request of Greece, the agency moreover, established its first regional office in the port of Piraeus (Athens) in May 2010 to establish a greater number of surveillance operations in the Aegean. The establishment of a Coastal Patrol Network for the permanent southern maritime external borders also agrees to strengthen control mechanisms.
Frontex operations reveals a "network approach" (Frontex, 2009b) of a whole chain of actors and / or devices - both complex and powerful - whose initial tasks were not always related to the fight against immigration "illegal." Thus, to carry out its missions, the agency is seeking partners from the fields of security, immigration and asylum, customs, maritime affairs, transport, technology and management crises. Frontex is moving towards cooperation and increasingly close ties with the European Police College (CEPOL), the European Police Office (EUROPOL), the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) or the Center for International Development Migration Policies (ICMPD), even with the Agency European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). The agency may also request international organizations such as IOM (International Organisation for Migration) and UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). Under agreements predetermined, it can also work with authorities in third countries, is currently the case with fonts Mauritania and Ukraine.
In view of the means employed, the device is similar in fact to a military deterrent. In 2009, Frontex has 25 helicopters, 21 airplanes, 113 boats and 475 units of equipment (radars, probes, sensors, cameras, etc.).. Remember also, that the actions of the agency should not in principle affect the rights of refugees " and persons seeking international protection, particularly as regards non-refoulement . Yet evidence (Amnesty International, 2008) emphasize that the principle of non-refoulement has been damaged many times. Moreover, in the annual reports agency, it is not referred to the principle of non-refoulement as defined in Article 33 of the Geneva Convention of 1951 .
Between 2007 and 2009, numbers of flights and the number of aliens deported under the aegis of Frontex have dramatically increased (see Table 2), the agency's budget to coordinate these flights is also spent half a million in 2005 to over seven million in 2010. Citizens of Nigeria are most concerned by these operations two flights in 2007 to a hundred people against seventeen flights in 2009 to more than eight hundred people. In 2009, evictions grouped into Nigeria were organized by Austria (4) , Italy (3), Ireland (2), the Netherlands (2), the United Kingdom (2) and Switzerland (1); each time, almost all Member States participated. Please note that from 2010, Frontex to participate in financing some flights and consequently acquire or lease aircraft .
This mechanism of joint flights indirectly highlights the difficulties that one EU country to negotiate readmission in number with third countries. And it was France which migration policy is expressed in recent years by annual quotas to meet on evictions of illegal aliens, which was partly at the initiative of organizing such European charter . Thus, these evictions grouped can decrypt a part of the pooling of resources is taking place at European level, and they stress the linkages - through Frontex - between the major detention centers for different Member States, particularly those near major airports.
3. A provision of more and more reticular of administrative detention centers
The administrative detention centers, large and small, are more or less regularly distributed in space of the European Union. They are based on national arrangements that are juxtaposed increasingly associated with other devices described above. By their geographical position and their primary function (keeping strangers in a confined space for their deportation), these places of confinement have become key elements, the key bottlenecks in the functioning of police cooperation and networks to fight against the irregular immigration. And links are forged in recent years at European level for the establishment of joint return operations . Also places of detention are part of the territorialization process related to the presence of borders and major cities where generally the number of illegal aliens is more important. On a larger scale, some detention centers also use other types of places so alien detention centers is possible. For example, the waiting area of the airport of Roissy - Charles de Gaulle had recourse to the Tribunal de Grande Instance in Bobigny and the Paris Court of Appeal to extend, if necessary, keeping foreigners. It is the same in Latvia where the administration running the detention center Olaine (ten kilometers from Riga) is obliged to present the foreign judge, who decides whether to extend the detention.
Finally, since the 1990s, with growth in the number of places of detention in Member States of the EU and neighboring countries (like Libya, Turkey and Ukraine), routes of migrants are more increasingly marked by periods of confinement, creating another form of relationship between the centers.
Towards a hierarchy of places of detention
The increase in the number of places of administrative detention is the result of major changes in the organization of migration over the last twenty years. Within the EU, many are detained migrants from third countries acts as an indicator of changes in EU policies on asylum and immigration.
In several countries the introduction of devices is often based on empirical approaches related to the circumstances and capacities of the directors, then the law from regulating the detention centers which have many similarities. The proliferation of these centers is accompanied by increased periods of detention , which often exceed the time required for the implementation of the deportations. The map on the legal duration of detention underscores the coincidence limits of administrative detention of devices with national boundaries. So for now, in the European Union, detention centers Administrative characterized by the juxtaposition of national systems. Behind the stated objectives (ie streamlining the management of migration), the institutionalization of the detention of migrants is in fact support a policy of deterrence, and criminalize those who are designated as undesirable. The arrival of 124 Kurds on the island of Corsica in January 2010 illustrates fairly well the welcome that the European states reserve for those seeking protection.
In some European countries, knowledge of these places is still very incomplete, both in their organizational characteristics and their operation. In the 27 EU states, the administrative detention centers, the number of seats is greater than ten are estimated at nearly 250 (2009), but the total capacity remains undetermined because no one knows the capacity of 150 to them, nearly 32,000 seats. At European level, there is no official data public. Annual manpower of "undocumented" and asylum seekers locked vary greatly from one Member State to another. In 2006, fewer than one thousands of foreigners who were held in Hungary and Latvia, while they were over 45 000 in Greece and France (Migreurop, 2009: 67).
At the end of 1983, the French government is one of the first in Europe to try to establish on its entire territory of the places will be taken care of foreigners who could be deported. It thus provides "space in diffuse points of the territory to ensure the accommodation of immigrants immediately after the decision [of deportation]," supplemented by "implementation modular buildings in the five major airports of departure for immigrants "(Fischer, 2005). Twenty-five years later, under the map 3, we can assume that the objective is partly achieved. Many detention centers are created during the 1980s. Reception capacities currently range from 30 to 280 seats. In the 2000s, new facilities are built and many local retention of smaller size (2 to 14 seats) come support the first device. The location of a center near a major international airport helps increase the size (places) of these institutions within a state, it is believed today to administrative detention centers located in the village of Le Mesnil Amelot - near the airport Roissy Charles de Gaulle - with a capacity Total Home 380 seats. If all the centers do not depend on each other, it is possible to explain the locations of other places. Their arrangement on Map 3 highlights coverage sufficiently differentiated from the territory of either side of a line Bayonne - Strasbourg. There are different levels of centers:
- centers linked the proximity of a large international airport or port where it is possible to make a large number of expulsions (in Le Mesnil Amelot, Lyon, Marseille),
- centers whose activity is related to the proximity a land border internal to the European Union (Hendaye, Lille, Nice, Strasbourg),
- centers where a large number of asylum-seekers under the Dublin II Regulation are maintained as at Coquelles, near Calais Centre in Eurodac which a terminal is installed,
- centers that we call "intermediate" (Bordeaux, Fun, Rennes, Rouen) where migrants are held before being taken to those located near major airports,
- and the retention of local permanent and temporary, usually arranged in police stations, where the maintenance n is possible that during the first 48 hours of detention .
It seems here that the detention centers tend to become hierarchical elements, that is to say, objects whose size varies significantly. Thus, some foreigners go through level centers lower (in size) before being taken to places where the largest police try to arrange their deportation. For example in 2008, according Cimade (2009), 23% of detainees were transferred to Calais to Lille and 155 of the 767 foreigners held ARC's Pleasure (20%) had previously been kept in administrative detention (LRA).
At European level, all places of confinement are not interdependent with each other. Large detention centers, however, maintain close relations in the context of evictions grouped set up by Frontex (cf. above) and necessarily have links with other devices. For example, the center authorities may seek one or more liaison officers to facilitate the implementation of a measure of deportation.
migration routes marked by passages in different centers
Many foreigners are required to pass through several places of detention before being deported to their country of origin or to have their asylum claim heard by a Member State. There are also those who are held in various centers before continuing their journey in the European Union (with or without a residence permit). Thus the lives of migrants are increasingly marked by these retention periods, with expectations ranging from days to months, even years. In view of the migratory paths, passages in detention can take place either continuously, for example as part of a readmission procedure interstate or intermittently, following several arrests in one or more States, members or neighbors. The following testimonials illustrate these two processes has grown in recent years in the Union European and neighboring countries. A young Palestinian
met December 17, 2009 in the police Famagusta (Larnaca), says he is originally from Gaza and was maintained for one year in an Israeli prison. Having managed to leave his country, he filed an application for asylum in Cyprus June 2, 2009. The residence permit before it authorizes him to go temporarily in the northern part of the island he wants to return to search for personal belongings he has left in its passage. Upon his return, the Turkish Cypriot police consider their papers are not in order, and placed in jail for twenty days, a new detention he considers more difficult than previously lived in Israel. He then returned to Istanbul and held for five days in the center of the Ataturk International Airport. He said he was repeatedly beaten by Turkish police who sought to know the country through which he passed before. He is then deported to Syria where he spent three days on the Syrian authorities decided to return to Larnaca September 19, 2009. Upon his arrival on the island, it is placed in the police station in Famagusta (Larnaca) ..
This and other conversations recorded during our stay in Cyprus show that many migration routes are marked by periods of confinement, on both sides of the borders of the Union, with expectations ranging from days a few months or even years. Other foreigners are only kept in holding centers in the EU, for example when crossing a land border between Turkey and Bulgaria, and Ukraine and Slovakia. There are also those who, after crossing the Mediterranean, arriving on the territory Europe in boats and are conducted in closed camps on the islands of Malta, Lampedusa and Sicily. "In Italy, many asylum seekers have spent part of their procedure in detention centers. Several witnesses stressed that they are marked by these initial conditions for the 'home'. The home ownership involves the willingness to continue their migration to another European country with the hope of a better reception (CFDA, 2008). This is the case of exiles present in the Calais and kept in the detention center at Coquelles. In June 2008, a Vietnamese arrested at Calais and dismissed his application for asylum in the Czech Republic said he had spent six months in jail (CFDA, 2008). Strict diets security applied to foreigners held in detention centers in the Czech Republic (where the maximum detention period is 6 months) are in fact they define these places of detention such as prisons (European Parliament, 2007).
Finally in some countries such as Poland or Greece, asylum seekers living in difficult material conditions, and in the absence of their new record, they continue their migration route to other European countries. When controlled, they can be detained and the state may apply for readmission to the country which began processing their asylum applications (CFDA, 2008). On their return, some countries such as Lithuania and Cyprus put the applicants in places of detention, the time that the administration concerned provides an answer.
periods of confinement punctuated increasingly these mobilities are sometimes serious consequences, because they undermine the lives of families with young children, and more generally all those deemed "vulnerable" (sick, etc..), including asylum seekers and their status should nevertheless protect ...
Conclusion In terms of organization of migration controls, the figure of the network - a group of interconnected and sometimes managed centrally on a local scale but often larger - is gaining ground. How willing are the instruments and inspection sites leads us to believe that there is today in the migratory route, for a moment that is not affected by these devices.
long listed practices in the world of fiction are becoming the norm. So with new passports and important high-tech networks (Eurodac, SIS II, VIS, etc.). Where biometrics is a growing, European states confirm their willingness to place certain immigrant populations under surveillance, by giving ways to return more easily. The fingerprint (or iris of the eye) are all elements that use biological methods of identification (or planning to use) to fight against illegal immigration. The
new cell dimensions implied by European immigration controls at the borders, also based on cooperation with countries of origin and transit. Thus, the management of the border is more likely to evolve according to the mobility of people. The liaison officers have reinforced each other's shares, giving their network of growing importance in European migration policies. It is the same agency Frontex operations which support the idea of a permanent mutual control mechanisms of Member States. Finally
development centers Administrative detention is increasingly important. It goes beyond the borders of the Union and underlines the emergence of territoriality in networks. In this seeding places, large centers can be seen as "nodal points" that could be matched, when operating controls or joint returns, the authorities of several Member States.
For fear of being invaded by hordes of "irregular" migrants, EU governments continue to develop new modes of control, resulting in significant changes of the borders of the Union. Thus, all these devices are in the process leading to a profound questioning of the traditional model of the border with the development of a logic high level of crosslinking, which sometimes lose their arrangements at the border of the Union's immediate evidence. So a whole set of control devices that are increasingly interconnected and linked by exchanges of information or people during deportation. But this leads to complex mesh door to overhang the broad principles of several international conventions to which European states have acceded , and flout the rights of many migrants (Migreurop, 2009). These developments also exist in other parts of the world (Australia, USA, etc..). In this spiral of controls, rich countries manage to forget that the tightening of legislation on asylum and immigration is the main driver of illegal migration.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- G. Agamben, 2007, What is a device? Paris: Poche Shores / Little Library.- AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, 2008, Mauritania: "Nobody wants us." Arrests and collective expulsions of migrants denied entry into Europe, 53 p. [Available online]
- BEAUDU G., 2007, "Outsourcing in the field of Schengen visas," in Culture & Conflict, No. 68 [available online]
- BEYER A., 2008, "The boundaries of the" Single European Sky. " Technical issues and territorial air traffic control in Europe ", in Flux, No. 71, pp. 8-23. [Available online]
- BIGO D. and Elspeth G., 2003, "The sidelining of foreigners: the logic of the Schengen visa," in Cultures & Conflict, vol. 50. [Available online]
- CFDA, 2008, The law of "jungle". The situation of exiles on the coast of the Channel and North Sea Observation Mission Report May-July 2008, [available online]
- CIMADE, 2009, Centers and local administrative detention. Report 2008, 415 p.
- ROBERT O., 2007, the game borders in access to refugee status: a geography of European policies on asylum and immigration, PhD Geography, University of Poitiers - Migrinter, 486 p.
- COUTARD O. and RUTHERFORD J., 2009, "The networks turned their margins: developing techniques and ambivalence" decentralized ", in Flux, No. 76-77, pp.6-13. [Available online]
- DARLEY M., 2008, "Migration control Schengen Borders: practices and representations of fonts on the Czech-Austrian," in Cultures & Conflicts, No. 71, [available on the Internet ]
- N. FISCHER, 2005, "Clandestine incommunicado. Control and information flow in the French administrative detention centers, "in Cultures & Conflict, vol. 57. pp. 91-118 [Available online]
- FRONTEX, 2009a, External Evaluation of the European Agency for The Management of Operational Cooperation at External Borders The Member Of The State of the European Union, 81 p.
- FRONTEX, 2009b, General Report 2008, 46 p. [Available online]
- Frontier Group, Arbaret-SCHULZ C., A. Beyer, J.-L. Piermay, Reitelli B., C. SELIMANOVSKI, SOHN C. and ZANDER P., 2004, "The frontier, a space object changing", in EspacesTemps.net, [available online]
- JAGLIN S. STECK and B., 2007, "Networks and Boundaries. Geopolitical " in Flux, No. 70, pp.4-7. [Available online]
- KOBELINSKY C. Makarem and C. eds, 2008, "Containment of foreigners, between movement and confinement," in Cultures & Conflict, vol. 71, 192 p. [Available online]
- LABAYLE H., 1997, "An area of freedom, security and justice", in European Law Review, No. 33 (4), pp.105-173.
- MigrEurop, 2009, Atlas of migrants in Europe: critical geography of migration policies, Paris: Armand Colin.
- OFFNER Pumain J.-M. and D. eds, 1996, Networks and Territories, meanings Cross, La Tour d'Aigues: Ed de l'Aube.
- European Parliament (Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs), 2007, Conditions for third-country nationals detained in facilities (detention camps, open centers and transit zones) with special attention to services and facilities for people with special needs within the 25 Member States of the European Union, 249 p. [Available online]
- RAFFESTIN C., 1980, Towards a geography of power, Toulouse: Book techniques.
- SUEZ D., 2008, The Union European and illegal immigration. Homeland Security to constructrion of the political community, Brussels: Ed University of Brussels.
This work was performed under the program Terrferme confinement devices. Territorial approach to contemporary social and political control. ANR program (Ref.: NRA-08-JCJC 2008-0121-01) with funding from the Aquitaine Regional Council (Ref: 2010407003)
0 comments:
Post a Comment