Europe's Birth Registration Stumbling Blocks

Last week, the European Network on Statelessness posted a guest blog written by yours truly. I'm re-posting it here for my own records, but definitely go check out ENS! 
************
It is well-established that one of the best ways of preventing statelessness is by ensuring universal birth registration of all children, regardless of the status of their parents. As Plan International notes, “registration means proof- not only of identity, but of existence.”  Even in countries where being born on the territory of the state does not confer citizenship this documentation can be crucial to later gaining nationality, and is a first step towards ensuring basic human rights.

For instance, in some countries, citizenship is granted on the basis of having been born there and then living there for some continuous amount of time. (For an example of such a policy, see the UK.) In that case, proof of birth is a crucial step in the process. In addition, countries that have ratified the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness have the obligation to grant citizenship to children born on their territory who would otherwise be stateless (under Article 1.) In this case as well, birth registration is a crucial piece of evidence for accessing rights- particularly when the citizenship in question is not granted until many years after the birth.

Unfortunately, many countries in Europe have “stumbling blocks” to birth registration for non-citizens or persons lacking complete documentation. What I mean by that is, although they allow for undocumented or stateless people to register in theory, in practice they have bureaucratic procedures established which make it difficult- or in some cases, expensive or impossible- for people lacking documents to register. As UNCHR points out, these “inadequate birth registration” measures may be one of the diverse causes of statelessness in Europe.

Here are some examples of policies which may pose a barrier for stateless or undocumented persons in registering their children at birth:

• Requiring extensive documentation: Most countries have a list of documents to be presented at the time of birth registration for proof of the identity of the parents. When this requirement is mandatory, it makes it impossible for people lacking those documents to register.  Some countries will carry out an investigation or require court intervention when documents are missing, which adds additional barriers to the process. A better practice is to allow for alternative forms of proof of identity, such as a sworn statement, the statement of witnesses or identity information from humanitarian documents.
• Requiring expensive translations of documents: If a country requires translation of identity documents prior to registration, this can become a hidden financial barrier for indigent individuals.
• Linking Registration to Immigration:  If a lack of proper immigration documents at the time of birth registration can be held as a reason for parents to be referred to immigration enforcement, this may prove an impossible choice for parents wishing to register their children who may be at risk for deportation.
• Fees or punishments for late registration: When countries have strict time requirements and pose fees for late registration, even within the first year, this can have a “chilling effect” on parents who did not manage to register their children on time, who may decide not to do so later for lack of funds.

(More specific information on birth registration policies can be found at the website of the International Commission on Civil Status and in Statelessness Mapping Projects sponsored by UNHCR.)

It is not clear whether these “stumbling blocks” have impacted a large number of people trying to register their children (more research would be required to determine that.) However, as UNHCR well documents, there are thousands of asylum-seekers, IDP’s, and stateless persons in Europe and the number is growing as refugee crises in the Middle East and flows from Southeast Europe increase. These people, like any others, will continue to have children and need to be able to register them without facing barriers from complicated birth registration laws. European countries would do well to face this situation proactively and ensure that universal birth registration is available to all persons on their territory, regardless of the immigration status or lack of documents of the parents. If not, the potential is there for leaving many children at risk of statelessness.

Countries must ensure that their birth registration practices provide an opportunity for all children born in the country to be registered, and make the process as streamlined and barrier-free as possible for families, regardless of their legal status. This is required not only by common sense (isn’t it best for everyone to know how many babies are being born in the land?) but also by international law. The Convention on the Rights of the Child requires that states ensure birth registration and the right to an identity under their laws.

It is understandable that some European states do not wish to enable fraud by making the birth registration process easy to manipulate. However, the human rights issues at stake are just too important –and state obligations too high- to allow fear of misbehavior by a few to dictate policy for all.

Poverty Migration to Germany- Social Problem or Straw Man?

I wrote a brief analysis piece for Balkan Insight on the topic of Romanian and Bulgarian migrants being portrayed as "poverty migrants." Here it is, with added embedded links to most of the documents mentioned. 

***************
Reports about the number of impoverished migrants from Bulgaria and Romania are alarming Germany - but how accurate are these claims?

German society is up in arms following an alarming recent report about a dramatic rise in the immigration of unqualified and unemployed migrants from Europe’s poor Southeast.
But some experts are now calling the report, and its use by media and politicians, into question.

The furor started in February, when the media started to publish stories based on an upcoming report from the German Association of Cities, the Städtetag, an association representing the interests of German cities at the federal and European Union level. The stories suggested that the report would contain worrying statistics about a rise in “poverty-driven” migration from Southeast Europe, in particular from EU members Romania and Bulgaria.

Even before the actual report emerged, a flurry of articles demonstrated the media’s willingness to believe such a narrative, with titles like “Influx from the Southeast: German Cities Complain of High Immigration,” from Der Spiegel.

Meanwhile, following the release of the report, titled “Position Paper of the German Association of Cities on the Question of Migrants from Romania and Bulgaria,” many newspapers gave persuasive coverage to its central claim, which is that an influx of poor, uneducated jobseekers pose a threat to Germany cities, many of which already struggle with high unemployment and problems with the integration of foreigners. The headlines were provocative: “Migrants: German Cities Sound the Alarm!”; “The Fight Against Poverty Refugees”; “The Flood?” and “Number of Poor Migrants Doubles”.

Even more problematically, some newspapers conflated the issue with the already hot topic of Roma migration, such as Die Welt’s article, “Roma: Big Cities Sound the Alarm about Poverty Migrants.” The report itself only hinted that some of the migrants were of Roma ethnicity, since statistics on the subject don’t exist.

“The federal government must recognize that social balance and social peace in cities is endangered to the highest degree,” the report warned.

Citing statistics from the Ministry for Foreigners, the Association noted that in 2011 alone some 147,000 new migrants from Romania or Bulgaria arrived, with the first months of 2012 already showing an increase of 24 per cent over the previous year.

This apparently means that the number of Romanians and Bulgarians migrating yearly more than doubled since 2007, when the combined number of migrants from both countries was around 64,000.

Even more troubling, the Association noted, is that a large number of these migrants were clearly not integrated into their own country and so arrived in Germany with low educational and job skills, making them eligible for social assistance and vulnerable to a backlash. The report raised the possibility of dangerous reactions to migration from xenophobic, right wing groups. “The first signs of this are evident,” it states.

From the Daily Mail

The report urged the government to take more note of the problem, formulate a strategy to deal with migrants and push for the greater integration in the home countries of disadvantaged persons who might find the prospect of migration tempting.

Following the loud declarations of the newspaper headlines, some experts have since questioned whether these statistics are indeed accurate.

Some say not, including the director of the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, the vice-president of the Rhine Westphalia Institute for Economic Research and the director of the Institute for Economic and Social Statistics of TU Dortmund. In a joint statement from February 28th the three called the numbers in the report their “Non-Statistic of the Month.”

Meanwhile, the Integration Media Service, Medien Dienst Integration, an office dedicated to providing journalists with accurate information on migration and integration funded by (among others) the German Ministry for Migration, Refugees and Integration, pointed out that the actual numbers were “much less dramatic” than was being reported.

Using contextual evidence left out by the German Association of Cities, the two groups say the way the information was presented within the report and the media is confusing and incomplete.

The majority of migrants from Romania and Bulgaria are not unemployed and uneducated, the “Non-Statistic” Press Release maintains.

Using micro-census data, they say some 80 per cent of migrants arriving from the two countries since 2007 are now gainfully employed. Of these, about 46 per cent are qualified and 22 per cent highly skilled.

That’s not counting the number of people entering Germany as university students; according to the Integration Media Service, some 7,000 from Bulgaria alone in the winter semester of 2011/2012. “A blanket classification of all migrants from these countries as poverty migrants, exaggerating the problem of migration for the German social system, only does harm,” say the release.

Even without these classifications, the numbers presented in the report and the media appear overblown.

The number of people entering Germany from Romania and Bulgaria in 2011 quoted by the report, around 147,000, is accurate, the Integration Media Service says, but it fails to take account of how many people left.

Numbers from the Federal Statistics Office show that a large number of the former came for temporary employment and since returned to their home countries, leaving the total number of those who remained in 2011 at about 58,000, it says. In other words, the number of yearly migration has not doubled from 2007.

Finally, the idea that these migrants come primarily to take advantage of German social benefits is also being queried. Whereas the number of people from Bulgaria and Romania has increased by about a quarter since 2007, the number of contributions to social insurance rose in the same period also by about 25 per cent, suggesting that these persons are paying their share.

Given the misleading character of the data, it is unfortunate that so many media outlets published the results of the report without a thought, sometimes making the issue even less clear by lumping in the separate debate about Roma integration.

Germany no doubt faces real problems and issues when it comes to integrating new migrants from different areas of Europe. But it will make the task more difficult if the debate takes place in an atmosphere of unchecked hyperbole and confusion.

However unintentional the oversight was in creating a poverty-migrant straw man, it now may have real consequences.

The German Interior Minister, Hans-Peter Friedrich (pictured), has acknowledged the report in the case he makes against allowing Romania and Bulgaria to join the EU’s passport-free Schengen zone.

“Those who only come to receive social welfare, and thus abuse the freedom of movement, must be effectively prevented from doing so,“ the minister told Der Spiegel.

Thus, phantom hordes of uneducated, unskilled migrants knocking on the doors of the Schengen area could turn into another obstacle for real-world citizens of Romania and Bulgaria as they try to access the same rights as other countries in the European Union

Guest Post: African Migrants to Israel Face Refoulement, Discrimination- by Theodore Baird

I used to be a refugee. In Cairo I had a refugee card. Now I am confused. Am I a refugee or am I with the Israeli government? I just want to know what I am. I need a good visa, a paper to work or to do something good. I don’t get help in Israel, but if I am a refugee, shouldn’t I get help?

Furst-Nichols, Rebecca & Jacobsen, Karen (2011) “African Migration to Israel: Debt, Employment and Remittances,” Tufts University and Feinstein International Center, January 2011: Page 15.

On Wednesday January 2^nd 2013 a ceremony was held commemorating the completion of the main section of the border fence between Israel and Egypt. The total length of the border fence is 230 km and reaches a height of 7 meters in parts. The cost of the fence is 1.4 billion shekels, or around 372 million US dollars. It is made of 44,000 tons of building material. It took two and a half years to build. The fence has barbed wire, a dirt road and patrol path, cameras, and radar. The final piece of the border fence is due to be completed in May 2013, and is located near the Taba crossing in a mountainous region near Eilat. The terrain is difficult and is a complex engineering project. Netanyahu reiterated that he is committed to returning Sudanese and Eritrean migrants regardless of international law on non-refoulement. Israel does not have diplomatic relations with either Sudan or Eritrea. Sudan is technically an enemy state of Israel.

Earlier, in July 2012, Netanyahu declared the main goal of the fence and Israel’s policy towards asylum-seekers: “The goal is to turn the tables, and take all necessary actions to have the number of illegal immigrants that leave Israel be larger than the number entering Israel.” Netanyahu was politely reminded by UNHCR in Geneva that returning Eritrean migrants would threaten their lives, and that no country has returned Eritrean refugees from their territory.

Echoing the fears over foreign ‘infiltrators’ in the south, Netanyahu declared that an identical border fence would be built along the Syrian border in the Golan Heights. Fears over jihadists armed with chemical weapons or pro-Palestinian fighters crossing into Israel from Syria, not asylum-seekers, instigated the plans to construct the fence. Armed with the success of preventing African asylum-seekers from entering Israel in the south through the lawless Sinai, the new border is intended to prevent the entrance of foreign fighters coming from Syria or exodus resulting from the collapse of the Assad regime. If Israel completes the fence project along the Golan Heights, it will be completely fenced in. The Golan-Syria border fence would span about 70 km, with a height of five meters, and fortified with trenches, barbed wire and a patrol road, similar to the Sinai-Negev border in the south.

In 2005, Sudanese refugees in Egypt protested against their poor treatment by Mubarak’s regime. The protest was ended violently by the government and the environment in Egypt for Sudanese refugees became increasingly hostile. In response, Sudanese refugees migrated to Israel from Egypt. Since 2005, the number of African refugees entering Israel has increased to more than 60,000, with 17,000 people crossing in 2011. The southern border fence is deemed a success, with 36 asylum-seekers crossing in December 2012, compared with 2153 entering the previous year. Netanyahu is campaigning for national election on January 22^nd. Netanyahu reiterated his commitment to return those asylum-seekers who have entered Israel already: “Just as we stopped completely the infiltration into Israeli cities, we will succeed in the next mission - the repatriation of tens of thousands of infiltrators already in Israel to their home countries.”

Photo by: Oren Ziv/Activestills.org

On October 14^th, 2012, Sudanese refugees protested against the building of prisons to detain African refugees, shouting ‘We are refugees, not infiltrators!’ and ‘We need rights right now’. According to the recent Anti-Infiltration Law from January 2012, anyone crossing from Sinai is deemed an ‘infiltrator’ by the Israeli state and is treated as a threat. The original law is the 1954 Prevention of Infiltration Law, which was amended in January 2012, to define all irregular border-crossers as ‘infiltrators,’ subject to detention and deportation, with limited or no access to the asylum procedure. Asylum-seekers may be detained for three years or more without charge or access to legal representation. Punishing asylum-seekers for unlawful entry is illegal under international refugee law.

Amendments to the Anti-Infiltration Law include new legislative initiatives as well as a bill from 2006. The amendments which passed on 10 January 2012 include: preventing the sending of remittances, taxing employers of asylum-seekers, monthly deposits for each asylum-seeker employed to ensure they have funds to leave Israel, expanding police authority over legally resident asylum-seekers, preventing the appeal of a deportation order, and barring asylum-seekers from filing lawsuits in Israeli courts. These amendments are designed to increase the difficulty in employing asylum-seekers and to make incorporation into Israeli society difficult in order to pressure asylum-seekers to leave Israel.

Israel does not recognize refugees, and only rarely processes refugee claims. The public as well is skeptical of African migrants. In a poll from 2012, a majority (52%) of Jewish Israelis regarded Africans as a ‘cancer’ on society. Only 19% of Arab-Israelis considered African migrants to be harmful to society. Most of the Jewish Israelis responded that they did not live near refugees or lived only near a few.

In preparation for enforcing the new law, a new detention center is being built which can house up to 30,000 people, and hundreds have been deported back to South Sudan. After South Sudan announced independence, hundreds of Sudanese migrants were returned there from Israel in 2011. After an Israeli court judged that 1500 South Sudanese were safe to return home, they were rounded up. Numerous difficulties involved in returning migrants have been cited by human rights organizations.

Sinai is extremely dangerous to transit, with multiple evidence pointing to hostage-taking, abuse, and torture of refugees for money by unscrupulous traffickers. Refugees have been criminalized in Israel, in direct contravention of international refugee and Israeli domestic law, and are also vulnerable to torture and trafficking in Sinai. Survivors of torture and abuse are being detained in Israel since the implementation of the new laws in June 2012. Dozens of Eritrean and Sudanese migrants have been prevented from entering Israel or from asking for asylum, and have been illegally refouled back to Egypt, into the lawless Sinai. In July, 40 Eritreans were detained just inside the border and then forcibly returned to Egyptian authorities. Others waited at the fence itself and provided with some water and food by NGOs, and some waited inside drainage pipes in the area to escape the difficult weather. Those crossing Sinai face serious abuse at the hands of traffickers holding them for ransom.

For more information see:

Physicians for Human Rights – Israel www.phr.org.il

Hotline for Migrant Workers www.hotline.org.il

African Refugee Development Center (ARDC) www.ardc-israel.org

Theodore Baird is a PhD fellow at the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) and Roskilde University (RUC). His thesis investigates refugee smuggling from Sudan and Somalia to the Middle East. More information about his project can be found on the DIIS website at: http://www.diis.dk/sw109325.asp

---

New Report Draws Attention to UK's Stateless Children

Via Voice of Russia

A new BBC Inside Out episode is causing a flurry in UK news outlets after uncovering a hidden problem: hundreds of stateless children living on London's streets, at risk of exploitation or turning to crime. The report identifies migrant children whom possess no means of identification and are unable to take advantage of social programs, forcing some to turn to crime or prostitution.

One 17-year-old, who fled Libya without her family in 2009, said: “I have to do things that make me sick and ashamed for a few pounds, sometimes even pennies - just so I can eat or get somewhere to sleep for one night.” (The Week)

(If you live in the UK you can watch the clip here.)

This is obviously a horrible problem, but I can't help but wonder: what is the deal with calling all of these kids stateless?

New figures show at least 600 children in the capital are stateless — without a passport or official documentation linking them to their country of residence — and campaigners fear that number is rising.
Many of London’s stateless youths came to the UK legally but were never officially registered, meaning they cannot access education or apply for social housing. For teenagers like 17-year-old Ugandan-born Tony, attempting to become a legal citizen retrospectively can be virtually impossible. (London Evening Standard)

As we know from the 1954 Statelessness Convention, the definition of a stateless person is "a person who is not considered as a national by any state under the operation of its law" (Art. 1). Not possessing a passport or documents might be a feature of statelessness, but its not enough. For example, Ugandan boy Tony, above, has a Ugandan father who kicked him out of his home at age 14. So although he is in an awful, heart-wrenching situation, Ugandan boy Tony is not "stateless", he is more likely Ugandan, and undocumented.

I bring this up because it may hurt the cause to call all these children stateless when in fact they are more likely "legally invisible," at risk of statelessness, or undocumented. The international human rights laws and UK immigrations laws applying to those groups are different, and are not as generous. If Tony were in fact stateless, and born in the UK, he would have a right to citizenship there that would simplify his problems tremendously. However, being legally invisible or undocumented he has limited options, at least under migration law. And that is a real problem- one that deserves more attention given the human rights issues at stake for these children.

The presence in each of these pieces of a disclaimer that most of the kids actually arrived in the UK legally suggests the reason for such a misnomer. If the kids were "illegal immigrant" homeless, would it be a news story? Does anyone feel sorry for kids with more complicated immigration issues, who aren't refugees or stateless?

If the public is outraged or concerned about this problem, it certainly doesn't help to call it something else to arouse additional sympathy. Its not necessarily the UK's "Homeless Stateless Kids" problem... might be more like the UK's "Homeless Kids" problem. And whether these children are actually stateless, legally invisible, or undocumented, don't they deserve some help in getting off the streets?

Read More:
Mapping Statelessness in the UK (Report from UNHCR and Asylum Aid)
Interview: Nando Sigona of Refugee Studies Centre (The Voice of Russia)
No Home, No Country, No Future: The 600 Stateless Children Living on London's Rough Streets (Evening Standard)
Hundreds of Stateless Children Live on UK City Streets (The Week)

And meanwhile, a report from Greece doesn't mince words: Teenage Migrants Trapped in Greece (IRIN)

Happy Ending for Berlin Refugee Strike?

Image via Der Tagespiegel

The hunger strike of asylum seekers/ refugees at Berlin's famous Brandenberg Gate has come to an end after 8 days, following a long discussion yesterday evening between strikers and politicians. This is a highpoint but hopefully not the conclusion, of over a year of hardcore activism on refugee issues in Germany.

The protest, which followed last month's march throughout Germany, aimed in general to call attention to the plight of refugees in Germany but it also had several key specific demands (a full list can be found here.) Namely, to stop deportations, close refugee "camps" (holding facilities for asylum seekers, often in the middle of nowhere), recieve working permits and permission to learn German, and above all, to abolish the Residenzpflicht. 

Residenzpflicht is a long standing policy applying to asylum seekers that limits their freedom of movement while their asylum applications are being processed. They may not leave the administrative zone where they have first registered in Germany without a permit until their asylum status has been sorted out- which in extreme cases can take up to 10 years. Naturally, this policy keeps refugees in a sort of limbo, preventing them from fully integrating into society, traveling to visit relatives, studying at university, or finding work. This nasty law also means the state controls whether you can attend meetings or protests- limiting freedom of speech and the right to assemble.

With the recent refugee march from Wurzburg to Berlin, the refugees and their allies practiced non-violent resistence to these and similar policies, and sought to make the invisible visible.

Did it work? Der Tagespiegel reports today that the Berlin Senator for Integration Dilek Kolat and Refugee Commissioner Maria Böhmer visited the strikers and had a 4 hour discussion with them about their demands. Although the resulting quotes are basically platitudes, the politicians expressed their support of the protest and stated that they supported the desires of the protestors to learn German and start working. Böhmer apparently questioned whether the Residenzpflicht is still "up-to-date," and hinted that they would write a letter discouraging the arrest of the protestors for violating their residence restrictions by travelling to Berlin.

We'll have to keep an eye on the situation to see whether any changes are made to refugee housing, work permits, or the draconian Residenzpflicht. In the meantime, I think the protestors can cautiously celebrate a success.

Read More:
Refugees End Their Hungerstrike (Der Tagespiegel, in German)
Refugee Tent Action (The website of the Hunger Strikers)
AsylstrikeBerlin (Website with information about the refugee march and protest)
Karawane (Organization for the Rights of Refugees and Migrants)
Pro-Asyl (NGO supporting Refugees in Germany)

And finally, here's a clip from an awesome recent documentary by Denise Garcia Bergt about Germany's refugees and migrants, called "Residenzpflict."

Trailer Residenzpflicht from denisebergt on Vimeo.

The Great Balkan Asylum Seeker Debate Continues

The last few weeks have brought a flurry of attention to the visa-free regime of the Balkans. Will the EU shut the whole thing down because of so-called "fake" asylum seekers?

In a letter to the European Commission, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands claimed that a flood of asylum seekers from ex-Yugoslavia have been slowing down their systems with false asylum claims. The idea of reintroducing visas in the region to prevent such exploitation has now been raised several times, but this has been the most serious request.

Germany in particular has been harping on this point, faced as they are with a "surge" of asylum-seekers from Serbia and Macedonia. Interior Minister Hans Peter Friedrich has stated that the influx "must be stopped immediately" and has advised that asylum seekers recieve vouchers for products rather than funds as one measure to reduce the attractiveness of Germany as a destination.

While the media often points out that such false asylum claims represent a small portion of the populations of the sending countries (and that most have come from Roma) there seems to be no attempt to verify that all the claims are fake, or, "economic based."

If the influx is so heavy that it has clogged asylum systems, then how can governments have possibly managed to properly evaluate the claims to determine that they are not legitimate under the refugee convention? Considering the many human rights problems in the sending countries- the same human rights issues preventing them from joining the EU in the first place- isn't it possible that some of the claims are legit?

The EU countries on the receiving end of such claims seem to be in a catch-22 here. If they admit that the claims are legit, than they have to provide refuge (and funds) to asylum seekers, as well as anger the governments which are currently trying to project a human rights friendly image. If they send them back, because there are no legitimate human rights claims emerging from these countries, then what is the hold-up from letting them into the EU? In a particular bind are countries like France and Belgium, who don't have such an amazing track record of their own when it comes to minority rights. France's record on Roma, in particular, leaves much to be desired, even in comparison to Serbia and Macedonia.

A thin line is being walked by these states when it comes to the Balkans, and if the free visa regime is indeed revoked, its going to be more than just asylum seekers who are put off.

Read More:
How to Solve the Balkan Asylum Crises (Balkan Insight)
Germany and France Demand Reintroduction of Balkan Visas (EU Observer)
EU Ministers to Curb 'Fake' Asylum Seekers (EuroActiv)
Germany Seeks to Halt Influx of Balkan Asylum Seekers (Der Spiegel)

New Report: Unnacompanied Minors on the Rise in Central America

The Women's Refugee Commission has released a new report on unaccompanied minors entitled,
"Forced from Home: The Lost Boys and Girls of Central America". According to the report, the number of child migrants apprehended traveling to the US from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador has almost doubled .

The research conducted by the WRC confirms that the continuing problem of gang violence, coupled with heavy-handed tactics of police that tend to consider all youngsters potential gang members, has led to the upswing and created a "lost generation." In addition, girls are at a particular disadvantage since they are vulnerable to both gang violence and gender-based violence. Although there is also poverty in these countries, the majority of children seem to be fleeing from violence.

The conditions in Central America have deteriorated to such a point that, when the WRC asked the children if they would risk the dangerous journey north through Mexico all over again now that they had direct knowledge of its risks, most replied that they would. They said that staying in their country would guarantee death, and that making the dangerous journey would at least give them a chance to survive. Many of them expressed a longing for their homelands, stating that they would not have left but for fear for their lives (at 7).

Since the conditions in these countries don't seem to the changing (and let's recall that the US has contributed to the Central American gang problem significantly) it makes sense for the Government to adjust certain measures to ensure the human rights of these children are protected.

The report outlines a number of ways for the government to improve its response, but I would like to emphasize one in particular: unnacompanied minors are not entitled to legal assistance or lawyers, and often have to defend themselves from deportation in court. This is just patently unfair and should be the first thing to change. When a child's life is in the balance, he or she should have a better shot than an elementary grasp of a foreign legal system and 15 minutes in front of an impatient judge.

The entire report is worth a read, and is available for download here.

Read More:
 Gangs without Borders (SFGate)
National Center for Refugee and Immigrant Children
Gang-Based Asylum Claims (Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota)

Images from Berlin's Refugee March

 This weekend in Berlin was the culmination of a long-organized Refugee Protest March, wherein Asylum Seekers protested against deportation and especially the conditions of "Residenzpflicht"- the policy preventing asylum seekers in Germany from travel or work. Here are some images from the March, which I attended.

"Right to Stay for All"- Youth Without Borders

"No Deportation for Refugees! Same Rights for All"

"Stop Deportation- Shut down Refugee Camps"

Even the police came by to show their support :)

Video: Your ID, Your Rights

This is a neat video from UN Women showing Egyptian women claiming rights such as healthcare, inheritance, marriage and education after obtaining a national ID. The video also shows how the campaign was successful organized as a cooperation between the government and NGOs.

Kind of dry but definitely drives the point home. Check it out!

New Israeli Regulation Bars Some Non-Citizens from Filing Lawsuits

Child of a migrant worker in Israel, photo via Global Post

 The Jerusalem Post reported Tuesday that the Israeli Justice Minister has signed a new regulation requiring an Israeli ID or a foreign passport number to anyone wishing to file a lawsuit. If true, this law would seem to flagrantly violate many international human rights norms by preventing stateless persons, refugees and asylum seekers from having their day in Court.

Just to refresh your memory, the 1954 Statelessness Convention, to which Israel is a signatory, touches on the topic at article 16. 

Article 16: 1. A stateless person shall have free access to the Courts of Law on the territory
of all Contracting States.
2. A stateless person shall enjoy in the Contracting State in which he has his habitual residence the same treatment as a national in matters pertaining to access to the Courts, including legal assistance and exemption from cautio judicatum solvi.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights also discusses access to Courts in several articles (see, e.g. Art.6-10), and the sentiment of right to legal personhood is echoed continuously throughout the human rights cannon. In other words, Israel could not possibly have failed to notice that a law like this would raise eyebrows, to say the least.

When pressed, the government has responded that,

"amendments were purely technical in nature, and ensured that litigants in possession of an Israeli ID number or foreign passport specified those details on court documents so that court registrars could be certain that they were dealing with the correct individuals.

“The regulation does not alter therefore the current legal situation regarding the basic right to access the courts,” wrote Dr. Peretz Segal, head of the Justice Ministry’s Legal Counsel department. (JPost)

Hmm. So either we have a regulation that would prohibit Palestinians, who de facto do no often possess a government-issued passport, along with a host of other non-citizens, from accessing basic Court procedures, OR we have a meaningless administrative hurdle that does not change the law. If so, why pass it in the first place?

After a few days of back and forth with the government (while Israel steadily garnered increasing attention from the media for this rule, see here, here and here) the Justice Ministry has agreed to review the rule, but is sticking to the story that this does not change anything, really.

Au contraire, says the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, among others.

Attorney Oded Feller of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel warned Neeman the regulations will immediately deprive Palestinian residents of the territories, migrant workers and stateless individuals who have no passports the right to file claims in Israeli courts. ..."Technical matters become fundamental when they specify explicitly who will not be able to file claims in court."

Hopefully the negative attention this rule has attracted in advance of its debut in September will force the Israeli government to reconsider whether this is a step they really want to take. If not, I predict we will see continuing major action on the subject in the Fall. 

Greece is at it Again: Mass Deportation Raids Over the Weekend

Via FoxNews

Very depressing news from Greece in the last few days, as the government has rounded up thousands for deportation and shamelessly sought to shift blame for financial issues onto the shoulders of non-citizens.

The minister, Nikos Dendias, defended the mass detentions, saying that a failure to curb a relentless flow of immigrants into Greece would lead the country, which is surviving on foreign loans, to collapse. “Our social fabric is at risk of unraveling,” Mr. Dendias told a private television channel, Skai. “The immigration problem is perhaps even greater than the financial one.”(NYT)

 Oh, if only that were true.

Unfortunately, it is far more likely that this is a cynical move to distract from the country's actual financial problems- reliance on foreign debt, risky lending, artificial inflation- by suggesting that this is an outsider problem, caused by foreigners.

As we have discussed previously in this blog, Greece's asylum system is dangerously backed up, with asylum seekers waiting for years to get a (mandatory) interview or possibly receive refugee status if they are entitled to. With Greece being an entry point into the EU, and with the masses of refugees pouring out of countries effected by the recent tumult in the Middle East, this has meant a compounding of problems- larger numbers of people waiting larger amounts of time to have their status regularized (or, alternatively, to reach a determination that they are not refugees and may legally be deported.) This means some people have been living in Greece for years, waiting to get their status regularized.

It is understandable that the Greek government is anxious to clear up this issue. However, the solution is not to utterly disregard human rights obligations, both under EU and international human rights law, by arbitrarily deporting anyone found during mass "immigration raids" to not possess papers. Not only are some of these individuals likely to be waiting for their appointment with the immigration services, but more to the point, deporting an individual who qualifies as a refugee is refoulement, and is reprehensible and illegal. And you can't tell whether a person is a refugee by a brief glance at their papers, or lack thereof. When 6,000 people are detained over one weekend, it is hard to believe that anyone received a fair shake at a refugee status determination interview.

As history has often demonstrated, in times of economic and social strife it is tempting to rely on xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment as a tool of distraction. But that doesn't mean they should get away with it.

Come on, Greece, you can do better.

Previously:
Greece: The Pressure is on to Fix an Failing Asylum System
Deja Vu: Greek Immigration Crackdown

Go Guor! Stateless Marathoner to Compete in Olympics

The Olympics is typically a time when even the most timid of citizens become flag-wavers for their country, counting the medals their home country racks up and paying close attention when their country faces off against historical or modern rivals. But one Olympian is drawing media attention not because of his nationality but because of a lack thereof- stateless marathoner Guor Marial.

Marial was born in South Sudan, where he was one of countless children kidnapped and forced into labor during the Sudanese Civil War. As a refugee in Egypt, and later the United States, he left behind many deceased family members and has not seen his parents in 20 years (the complete story can be found here). Marial wouldn't be the first refugee of the Sudan conflict to compete in the Olympics. However, unlike Lopez Lemong, a Sudanese refugee who was a flag-bearer in the Beijing Olympics, Marial does not possess US Citizenship, and will be competing under the Olympic Flag. Despite being offered to compete for Sudan, Marial declined, “It’s not right for me to do that.  It’s not right for me to represent the country I refuged from.”

Media reports have been presenting the case as an uplifting, if bewildering, human interest story. Time noted that if he wins, Marial will stand on the podium while the Olympic hymn (rather than a national anthem) is played. Die Welt ran their article on him with the headline "No Flag and No Hymn." These Olympic trappings are so common that their lack is as headline-making as the shocking story that put him in this situation.

Other articles refer to him simply as a refugee, portraying him as an unoffficial Sudanese representative despite his strong declarations to the contrary.

With an estimated 12 million stateless and 43 million refugees worldwide, belonging to either group is not so remarkable in and of itself. More remarkable to me is the ability of the Olympics, a bastion of nationalism, to allow for some ambiguity in their ceremonial trappings in a way that represents the true nature of a world that is composed of citizens, stateless people, and everything in between. Its obvious that rather than being a disadvantage, being stateless will only cause Mr. Marial to receive even more support when he competes on August 12th.

European Network on Statelessness Launches

Exciting news! The long awaited European Network on Statelessness has launched, and has a new website packed with blogs and resources. The aim of the Network is to draw attention to the estimated 600,000 stateless person in Europe, while presenting news and resources useful to people interested in the subject. They'll also have a blog presenting views from the different Network members. Membership is open to organizations, and already many great organizations have joined, such as the Equal Rights Trust, Hungarian Helsinki Committee, and Praxis Serbia. All are dedicated to the aim of promoting accurate information about the problem of statelessness in Europe.

With both government and civil society organisations often unaware of the problem, many stateless persons find themselves stuck in the margins of society without respect for their basic human rights. ENS was set up against this backdrop and to fill a perceived gap by acting as a coordinating body and expert resource for organisations across Europe who work with or come into contact with stateless persons.

Sounds great, right? So go check out the website, and encourage your organization to join!

Non-Citizen News Roundup

Protestor in Hungary- photo via ENAR

Kuwait: After last week's promise to grant citizenship to 3000 of the 100,000 stateless residents of Kuwait, the Bidoons are in the spotlight again for protests against the government. At a protest on Tuesday police used force, including batons, to disperse the crowd of over 200 and accused the protestors of violence against the police. The protestors were angered by a promise of identification that would have indicated their stateless status, thereby ensuring discrimination.

 Meanwhile, still convinced that this is not really their problem, the Kuwaiti government has requested some 42,000 passports for Bidoons from Iraq so that they can be issued work documents. (I'm sure Iraq was all, "Totally, we'll just send those right over!") Facing arrests, deportation and jail time the protestors continue on, which demonstrates that this problem is not going to go away without serious efforts by the government.

Kuwait say stateless protestors carried out criminal acts (via Chicago Trib)

Kuwait asks Baghdad to issue passports for 42,000 Bedoons (via Kuwait Times)

Coverage from this blog

Hungary: As part of the continuing effort to shock the EU with their human-rights deviant behavior, Hungary is now being accused of locking up asylum seekers alongside criminals for months after arrival. Some have apparently been beaten and denied the opportunity to apply for asylum. If Hungary is indeed violating human rights norms on detention and refoulement, let's hope they manage to straighten out the system before 800 more ECtHR cases are filed against them. (Strasbourg must be SO sick of getting cases from Hungary..)

UN Accuses Hungary of Locking Up Asylum Seekers (via Euronews)

Hungary as a Country of Asylum (PDF via RefWorld)

And in short: 

Israel: Are asylum-seekers, particularly from Africa, facing discrimination and violence?

From Asylum Seeker to Community Leader (via Haaretz)

Australia: Politicians offer an idea for their asylum woes: Pay citizens to host asylum families. Well, its a better idea than detention or return, but will Aussies go for it?

Govt Defends Asylum Seeker Homestay Plan (via Sydney Morning Herald)

Afghanistan: Following a (fund-raising) conference in Geneva held by UNHCR, several countries have agreed to contribute $1.9 billion to support the return of refugees to Afghanistan. Wonder how much the US chipped in?

Countries Agree on 1.9B Afghan Refugee Strategy (via AP)

Excerpts from Arizona V. US

Last week the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case Arizona, et. al, v US concerning the god-awful Arizona immigration law SB 1070. You can now read the whole transcript online, but in case you're not in the mood to read the whole, depressing thing, I thought I would provide some salient excerpts below.

The first issue that the justices really pounced on was the section of the law pertaining to holding a person for suspected immigration violation. The justices were concerned that the time taken to check on the suspect's immigration status could result in them being imprisoned for unreasonable stretches of time, and Paul Clement, atty for Arizona, emphasized that length of imprisonment would still be governed under the 4th amendment.

"JUSTICE GINSBURG: But how would the State officer know if the person is removable? I mean, that's sometimes a complex inquiry.
MR. CLEMENT: Well, Justice Ginsburg, I think there's two answers to that. One is, you're right, sometimes it's a complex inquiry, sometimes it's a straightforward inquiry. It could be murder, it could be a drug crime. But I think the practical answer to the question is by hypothesis, there's going to be inquiry made to the Federal immigration authorities, either the Law Enforcement Support Center or a 287(g) officer.
And presumably, as a part of that inquiry, they can figure out whether or not this is a removable offense, or at least a substantially likely removable offense.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Suppose it takes 2 weeks to make that determination, can the alien be held by the State for that whole period of time -MR.
CLEMENT: Oh, I don't think -
JUSTICE KENNEDY: -- just under section 6?
MR. CLEMENT:I don't think so, Your Honor, and I think that, you know, what -- in all of these provisions, you have the Fourth Amendment backing up the limits..."

Next, Clement had a chance to make his argument on federal preemption. Whenever states get into areas of governance that usually dominated by the federal government, there is the potential for a claim that the federal law "pre-empts" and overrules the state level law. Let's see Clement's argument.

"I do think as to section 3, the question is really -- it's a provision that is parallel to the Federal requirements, and imposes the same punishments as the Federal requirement.
So it's generally not a fertile ground for preemption. But of course, there are cases that find preemption even in those analogous circumstances. They're the cases that the government is forced to rely on."

He then goes on to differentiate the AZ law from the ones in other federal preemption cases that the government is likely to bring up. However, the gist of the argument is always that the law is duplicated, so its hard to say that it conflicts with the federal requirements.

"And so I think the right analysis is really the analysis that this Court laid out in its Whiting decision, which says that in these kinds of cases, what you look for is whether or not the State scheme directly interferes with the operation of the Federal scheme."

Next up to bat we had the atty for the government, our hero Donald Verrilli. Verrilli comes out immediately with the main federal preemption argument:

"GENERAL VERRILLI: Mr. Clement is working hard this morning to portray S.B. 1070 as an aid to Federal immigration enforcement. But the very first provision of the statute declares that Arizona is pursuing its own policy of attrition through enforcement, and that the provisions of this law are designed to work together to drive unlawfully present aliens out of the State.
That is something Arizona cannot do, because the Constitution vests exclusive -JUSTICE
SOTOMAYOR: General, could you answer Justice Scalia's earlier question to your adversary? He asked whether it would be the Government's position that Arizona doesn't have the power to exclude or remove -- to exclude from its borders a person who's here illegally.
GENERAL VERRILLI: That is our position, Your Honor. It is our position because the Constitution vests exclusive authority over immigration matters with the national government."

After the assist from Sotomayor, Verrilli spends the rest of the time getting picked apart by Roberts and Scalia.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: You think there are individual cases in which the State can call the Federal Government and say: Is this person here illegally?
GENERAL VERRILLI: Yes, certainly. But that doesn't make -CHIEF
JUSTICE ROBERTS: Okay. So doesn't that defeat the facial challenge to the Act?

Problematically for the government, they didn't rely on the possibility of racial profiling as a reason to challenge the law, although that was the constant "elephant in the room" of the argument.

GENERAL VERRILLI: ... Now, we are not making an allegation of racial profiling. Nevertheless, there are already tens of thousands of stops that result in inquiries in Arizona, even in the absence of S.B. 1070. It stands to reason that the legislature thought that that wasn't sufficient and there needed to be more.
And given that you have a population in Arizona of 2 million Latinos, of whom only 400,000 at most are there unlawfully -

JUSTICE SCALIA: Sounds like racial profiling to me.

From here, it gets really messy. After failing to sell the preemption claim (Scalia and Roberts interpreted the Arizona statute as "helping" the federal government) Verrilli focused on the foreign relations aspect.

VERRILLI: What they're going to do is engage, effectively, in mass incarceration, because the obligation ...[is]...to enforce Federal immigration law, which is what they claim they are doing .... And so -- so you're going to have a situation of mass incarceration of people who are unlawfully present. That ... poses a very serious risk of raising significant foreign relations problems.And these problems are real. That is the problem of reciprocal treatment of United States citizens in other countries.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: So you're saying the government has a legitimate interest in not enforcing its laws?
GENERAL VERRILLI: No.

UGH. As we can see, this did not turn out well. The real problem at stake in SB 1070 is that police can just pull over any Latino, incarcerate them for a while and ask the government to figure out their immigration status. Problematically, due to VAWA, TPS, and asylum, this isn't always the straightforward question that one might think. So, because of our complex immigration laws in combination with this terrible statute, the result is a situation that allows for the incarceration and punishment of a section of the population to the extent that, even if they are legally here, they won't want to live in Arizona any more. And that is the point of the law. "Attrition through enforcement."


Harassing and annoying every Latino citizen of Arizona is racist, inhumane, and embarrassing for the US. But is it unconstitutional? Its going to take some fancy footwork to make that claim from the arguments in this case.