20 questions and answers about flight

I receive many inquiries from citizens about my work and my topics of flight and migration. Most of them are guided by honest interest and I am also very happy to answer them. Unfortunately, there is also a loud minority that repeatedly tries to impose its racist and right-wing populist worldview on others. Of course, we must not allow that to happen. That is why I have written down and answered the most common questions here. This article serves as information on common questions, but also to argue against right-wing ideas.

1. if we save more people – won't more and more come?

Many people believe that sea rescue at the external borders must be prevented because otherwise more and more people will come to Europe. Studies but prove that the Numbers of crossings not fallingif rescue at sea is prevented. But without sea rescue, more people drown. And quite honestly: even if the many dead in the Mediterranean were a deterrent: Do we really want to let people fleeing war and terror from countries like Libya drown at Europe's borders instead of rescuing them? Rescue at sea is an obligation under international law. We cannot build European borders that are more dangerous than civil wars just so that people have to stay in war instead of finding protection.

Two, it's mostly young men who come, right?

Worldwide are as many women as men on the run. In 2020, the number of refugees in Germany has so far been 43% of asylum seekers women and 57% men. Only about 20% of the first-time asylum applicants are young men between 15 and 34.
The fact that overall slightly more men than women flee to Europe has various reasons: Many families can only afford the flight for one person. Women are exposed to the danger of being abducted or raped during the flight. For this reason, family fathers often flee alone and then try to legally catch up with their wives and children. Since family reunification is now severely restricted, more women and children have to flee along life-threatening escape routes. In addition, men sometimes have special reasons for fleeing, such as military service for a dictator who is fighting against his own people. The fact that threatened military service in such situations is a reason for flight was recently confirmed by the European Court of Justice in a decision.

3. are these even real refugees or just economic migrants coming to us?

Most refugees in Germany come from the war zones Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Eritrea. They are not economic refugees. After the examination of the content more than half of the asylum seekers in Germany a positive decision. No one embarks lightly on a life-threatening flight. You only get asylum if you are politically persecuted. So not every person who comes to Europe has a right to asylum, but every person has the right to a procedure based on the rule of law. And even if people do not receive protection status, that is still no justification for mistreating them, as is the case in the on the borders of Europe often happens.

4. do the citizens want to accept refugees at all?

87 percent said after the fire in Moria that Germany should take in people from the Greek islands. Only eleven percent are against it. 208 municipalities are willing to take in additional refugees. Several federal states have already pledged to take in more people than they would have to according to the German government's distribution key. It is a small minority of people who do not want to help refugees at all. Most say: We have room and we want to help, too. Unfortunately, however, the Federal Government is preventing this willingness to help from being put to good use. It should actually stand up for the fundamental rights of minorities, regardless of majorities. The protection of human rights is a basic condition of democracy.

5. since 2015 there have been more refugees than we can handle, right?

In 2015 and 2016, a relatively large number of people – mainly from the Syrian civil war – came to Germany and Europe. But in recent years fleeing again much less people to Europe. In the month of October 2015 alone, more people arrived than in each of 2017, 2018 or 2019, according to UN figures.  
The number of asylum applications in Germany has also declined sharply in recent years. Fewer people applied for asylum in Germany in 2019 and also in 2020 than in the years before 2015. The German government stated in its 2017 coalition agreement that between 180,000 and 220,000 people a year could find refuge in Germany. But last year there were only about 140,000 new asylum applications, and this year the number will be much lower again.

I heard that the refugees don't want to work and don't learn German. Is that true?

A clear majority of refugees in Germany are in work or undergoing training. But in the Corona crisis, many refugees have lost their jobs and are particularly hard hit by the economic consequences of the pandemic, as they often work in the catering industry or other sectors that are now closed. In July 2020, 420,000 people from countries of origin of asylum were in employment. For the winter semester 2018/2019, almost 3,000 people with a refugee background have enrolled at German universities. Currently, 55,000 people from the eight most common countries of origin for asylum are also in education. The number has risen sharply in recent years. In 2019, 195,000 people took part in a so-called "German test for immigrants". 82% of the participants achieved the language level A2 or better.

Doesn't more refugees also mean more crime?

Germany has also been one of the safest countries in the world in recent years. In recent years, the number of serious crimes has continued to fall.
So why do refugees appear more frequently in crime statistics? There are many reasons for this: The statistics are often based on suspicions and not on judgments – and refugees are suspected more often. In addition, all the crimes that Germans cannot commit have to be taken out of the equation when comparing crime rates: Missing residence permits or violations of registration requirements, for example. If one considers this, it becomes clear that refugees commit crimes just as rarely as comparable social groups that have not immigrated.

8. but won't the refugees take away our jobs?

Although so many refugees came to Germany in 2015 and 2016, unemployment has continued to fall. The labour market situation is therefore not worsening as a result of immigration. Added to this: Asylum seekers are often not allowed to work while they are in an initial reception centre. They only get their work permit a few months after they have moved out. In fact, tens of thousands of apprenticeship places are unfilled in Germany and there is a shortage of labour in some regions.. That's why trade unions and employers' associations also welcome migration and advocate the rapid integration of refugees into the labour market. And last but not least: right-wing populists would have to make up their minds: Are refugees now taking away jobs, or are they all lazy and want all the welfare benefits? Sometimes prejudices are mutually exclusive.

Germany is already doing so much. Why shouldn't the other countries do something?

Worldwide there are 79.5 million people on the run. Only one in 72 refugees worldwide is in Germany. Because most people do not flee to Europe: 85% of the refugees seek protection in so-called developing countries, more than half stay within their country when fleeing. 4.2 million people are asylum seekers. A large part of the people on the run find protection in countries of the global south: Turkey, Colombia, Pakistan, Uganda.

In terms of population, most refugees live in Lebanon, where they make up one-sixth of the population, followed by Jordan. And in Europe, too, Germany ranks 9th out of 27 member states in the number of first-time asylum seekers per capita last year. Behind Cyprus, Malta, Greece, Luxembourg, Spain, Sweden, Belgium, France and Slovenia.

10. Why do they all have smartphones? They can't be that poor.

What would you take with you if you had to flee? For many people on the run, smartphones are the last thing they have left. On them are memories, photos and messages from loved ones. It is their way of communicating with their families and friends. It is the navigational tool that helps them move forward. It helps them translate in a region where they can otherwise barely communicate. Not all refugees are poor. But for many who are poor, the smartphone is their only and most important possession.

11. why can't they just serve their country and fight?

Would you pick up a gun for a dictator? Would you shoot or bomb innocent people? Or would you try to escape? Surely we should be grateful to every person who doesn't pick up a gun to fight for dictators or murdering militias. And we should give those people protection. The fact that the threat of military service in such situations is a reason to flee was recently confirmed by the European Court of Justice in a ruling. 

We are not to blame for all reasons for flight, but for many. For example, by supplying weapons to countries that are involved in major wars. Many refugees want to participate in the reconstruction of their countries of origin, but can only do so when the war is over. For example in a 2015 survey only 8% of the Syrian refugees stated that they wanted to stay in Germany permanently.

Twelve. We have no room, where are they all going to go?

In Germany more than 600,000 apartments are vacant. In the new federal states in particular, many people have moved away since reunification, leaving behind a spatial, but in some cases also a social void. For example, the city of Suhl in Thuringia still had 56,000 inhabitants in 1991. Today there are only about 35,000. 

So we have space and we also have many people who want to help refugees. There are over 200 municipalities that want to take in additional refugees. Germany is not a boat, but a huge but aging country – without immigration we would have shrunk long ago. The willingness to accept is high – we could easily take in more people than are currently arriving. For example, the protection seekers on the camps of the Greek Aegean islands.

13. aren't the many refugees too expensive? How are we supposed to afford that?

How much should it cost us to protect a human life from war, torture and political persecution? Of course, taking in refugees or supporting the socially disadvantaged costs money. But if cohesion in society is important to us, we should rather ask ourselves: How do we want to live together? According to its own information, the federal government spent Year 2018 15.1 billion euros for refugees, but this money does not only benefit refugees. It also includes expenditures from which not only refugees benefit. For example, the federal government transferred around 870 million euros to the Länder for the expansion of childcare, which not only benefited refugee children. One billion more for social housing is also included in this sum. A large part of this sum therefore benefits us all. Studies also show that migrants pay more taxes over time than they receive in social benefits.

14. don't we need to protect our borders better?

Border controls are important above all to protect against dangers. This includes, for example, trafficking in human beings, drugs or arms smuggling. But human rights must of course also be protected at the borders. Refugees have the right to an asylum procedure based on the rule of law at the borders. Moreover, they must not be punished for crossing the border illegally if they are fleeing from a country where they are being persecuted. This is already stated in the Geneva Refugee Convention. 

Unfortunately, human rights are now systematically violated at Europe's external borders. People are tortured at the Croatian border and the Greek coast guard abandons people on plastic islands in the open sea and leave them to their own devices.

In March, people were even shot at the Greek land border.
This is not only unworthy of those seeking protection, but also of Europe. Because European borders are only protected if human rights are protected at these borders.

15. if they are real refugees, why are they paying smugglers?

To get on a plane to Europe, you need a visa for the Schengen area. In many countries of the world like Syria or Afghanistan there is no possibility to get a visa. Therefore, most people can only flee to Europe with smugglers on boats. They often have to pay several thousand euros for this. Safe escape routes to Europe no longer exist for the vast majority of people. Although the number of refugees worldwide has reached a new high, the number of legal means of escape via resettlement programmes has reached a new low.

Although flying to Europe by plane would be much cheaper and safer than escaping on a rubber dinghy, for many that is out of reach. Legal ways to Europe are the most effective means against smugglers. No one puts themselves in the hands of criminals when there is a safer and cheaper option.

How much money do refugees get? Is it more than German Hartz-4 recipients get?

During the asylum procedure, a person is entitled to benefits according to the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act. This is less than Hartz 4. Asylum seekers who are accommodated in an initial reception facility receive 150 euros per month for the „necessary personal needs“. This payment is often made in kind or in vouchers. When a refugee is no longer in the initial reception facility, she receives 344 euros per month. That is significantly less than Hartz 4 recipients receive. Refugees do not get more, but less. Unless they work more. But then they also pay more taxes.

17. doesn't migration have too many disadvantages for us?

If all migrants were gone tomorrow, our society would collapse. Corona has shown that in important areas such as agriculture, care or the delivery of goods, we would not manage a day without migrants. And the fact that the first vaccine against Corona was developed in Germany is also connected to this, that Özlem Türeci and Uğur Şahin's parents migrated to Germany.

But you don't have to defeat a global pandemic or make a lot of money to be granted a right to asylum. The right to asylum is a human right. And beyond economic aspects, migration is above all a constant that is as old as humanity itself – and has been a driving force for progress, exchange, new ideas and necessary change throughout human history. Without migration, Europe would not be populated at all. For the first humans existed on the African continent.

18. did refugees bring corona into the country?

The virus came on business travel and tourism to the country and it's been spreading like wildfire ever since. Now the virus is here, so it can no longer be brought in. Refugees are not to blame for Corona, on the contrary: due to their forced accommodation in collective housing, refugees often become victims of the pandemic themselves, because they are not allowed to no chance of distance and pandemic life is left.

19. why not take the rescued back to Libya, Tunisia or other North African countries? 

There is a Study by the Heinrich Böll Foundation. It clearly proves that no state in North Africa can be considered a safe haven. In particular, cooperation with Libya is legally and also morally unjustifiable.

In Libya, refugees are imprisoned in so-called "Detention Centers" (detention camps) under the worst conditions, where they are threatened with danger to life and limb. The population as well as foreign refugees and migrants suffer from crime, abductions, irregular detention, illegal executions, torture and suppression of freedom of expression by various actors due to the prevailing lawlessness. The cooperation with the so-called Libyan Coast Guard is a violation of international law.

The rescued have to be brought to Europe because none of the North African states have a functioning asylum system. For vulnerable groups, such as LGBTI or other minorities, these states are not safe. Since it is not feasible on board rescue ships to determine which territories would be safe for people and which would not, Europe cannot shirk its responsibility and must bring people to safe ports in Europe. This also applies to NGO ships.

20. Where should I donate?

There are very many organizations to donate money to. I personally am involved in the organization of LeaveNoOneBehind involved, which focus on the Greek islands and the European external borders. But in total there are hundreds of associations of Sea-Watch via the pier By Pro Asylum, that your donations help. That is why it is difficult for me to give concrete tips and advice here.

Question: Reception facilities in Bosnia and Herzegovina

In order to be able to exercise my parliamentary control function as a Member of the European Parliament, I have the opportunity to put questions to the European Commission. The Commission must answer these questions.
Together with other Members, I put the following questions to the Commission:

Subject: Adequate EU funding and long-term reception facilities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including for vulnerable groups

The Commission has been funding reception operations for asylum seekers in Bosnia and Herzegovina since 2018. The funding has enabled the establishment and maintenance of temporary reception centres, including health services following the COVID-19 outbreak, and supported key humanitarian assistance outside these centres. Funding has provided adequate reception and living conditions in several locations, but the announcement by the Government of Una-Sana Canton (USK) to close camps already in operation (Bira and Miral) has worsened the now already inadequate reception capacities, particularly for vulnerable groups, including unaccompanied minors and children, who are often forced to remain in informal settlements and squatted houses or to hide in the open in the forest.

1. what the Commission's position is on the announced closures of the Bira and Miral reception centres, which jeopardise the effective and sustainable use of EU funds?

2. how it can support the accommodation of vulnerable groups, particularly following the closure of the Bira and Miral reception centres?

3. in view of the approaching Bosnian winter, will the EU support minimum humanitarian conditions for asylum seekers, in particular for vulnerable groups, including possible expansion of reception capacities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, preparation for winter in the Lipa emergency camp and provision of emergency humanitarian assistance outside reception centres?

Answer given by Commissioner Oliver Várhelyi on behalf of the European Commission on 09.12.2020:

The European Union has strongly condemned the action of the authorities of Una-Sana Canton to close the Bira Reception Centre in Bihac and transfer the refugees and migrants to the COVID 19 emergency tent camp in Lipa, which was already at full capacity and does not meet the conditions for winter use[1].

The European Union has urged Bosnia and Herzegovina to take all necessary measures to prevent a humanitarian crisis; this is of particular importance just before the onset of winter. The BiH authorities must ensure adequate accommodation for refugees and migrants, and in particular for vulnerable groups, by making full use of all existing capacity, including that of the Bira reception centre, and by providing suitable alternative facilities for those admitted to Lipa as well as for refugees and migrants currently outside the reception centres. Emergency humanitarian assistance will continue to be provided to those who have to stay in unsuitable conditions outside the reception facilities, by offering dry food, sleeping bags, warm clothing, first aid and onward referrals. The authorities should facilitate the work of humanitarian partners and contact support.

The European Union is seeking appropriate solutions with the competent authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina to meet the needs of refugees and migrants and in particular to prevent the closure of the Miral reception centre. It will continue to assist Bosnia and Herzegovina in managing migration and addressing the humanitarian situation. The European Union will continue to closely monitor the situation on the ground in cooperation with its humanitarian partners.


[1] http://europa.ba/?p=70146

How the EU facilitates deportations to the most dangerous country in the world

In 2016, the EU and Afghanistan signed the Joint Way Forward Agreement during the Brussels Donor Conference. The aim is to facilitate deportations to Afghanistan.

It is an informal, non-binding legal instrument, and the European Parliament was not involved in its agreement. Because the agreement expired on 6 October this year, the EU wants to negotiate a two-year extension until the end of 2020. 

Afghanistan has been rocked by war for over 40 years, forcing millions of Afghans to leave their country over the decades. Contrary to the pervasive narrative, however, the vast majority of Afghan refugees have sought shelter in surrounding countries such as Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey. Thus, Afghanistan represents those worldwide second largest refugee population to civil war-torn Syria. 

People have good reasons to flee Afghanistan. For the second year in a row, Afghanistan was named the "most dangerous country in the world" classified." The reasons for this include the ongoing violent conflicts between the Taliban and the Afghan government, as well as regular terrorist attacks on civilians. Thus died in 2019 over 3,000 civilians and nearly 7,000 were seriously injured.

Therefore, the recognition rate of Afghan refugees in the EU last stood at 58% in August this year. However, the recognition rates in the individual member states vary drastically. For example, the recognition rate of Afghan refugees is in Italy 94% and in Bulgaria 4%. In many media and also in the EU Commission, there is constant talk of "illegal migrants and economic migrants", although the majority are refugees fleeing terror and have a very realistic claim to protection under EU legislation. Also the The German Government continues to take the viewAfghanistan is a country to which one can deport and thus deliberately turns a blind eye to the situation on the ground. Many human rights organisations and lawyers call for the Deportations to Afghanistan as Infringement of the prohibition of non-refoulement laid down by law (non-refoulement): in other words, people may not be deported to countries where they are threatened with torture or other serious human rights violations.

Deportation to an unknown country

Furthermore, the Joint Way Forward Agreement ignores the reality of Afghan refugees. As already mentioned, many Afghans live in the surrounding countries and have been doing so for decades, so that there are repeated deportations of refugees who have not yet left Afghanistan. have never set foot in and have to find their way around in a completely foreign country. In addition, despite official requirements and international and EU legislation, there are more and more reports of Deportations of young women and children who are abandoned in the streets of Kabul and thus abandoned to a fate of destitution and renewed flight. Moreover, time and again the Suspicion expressed that financial development assistance to the Afghan Government linked to deportations will. We do not need more deportations to Afghanistan, but rather a a better European asylum systemSecondly, there is a need to ensure that protection seekers are granted their rights, for example by introducing equal recognition quotas across the EU, based on the actual situation on the ground. Secondly, informal agreements must also complied with the law for example, the non-refoulement ban and the non-refoulement of persons in need of special protection, also in recognition of the complexity of Afghan migration. In addition, financial development aid must under no circumstances be tied to deportations. Last but not least, the successor programme must be adopted in a legally binding manner in democratic agreement with the European Parliament and monitored through regular evaluations.

Peace negotiations between government and Taliban

For decades, the Afghan people have longed for an end to violence and conflict, and never before have the Afghan government and the Taliban sat down to negotiate a possible peace. Both sides seem to have realized that there is no military solution can give. 

Thus, on 29 February 2020, the Doha Agreement was reached, in which agreement was reached on the initiation of intra-Afghan peace negotiations. Particular attention was paid to ensuring that the negotiations take place without outside influence from states such as Russia or the US. Despite the forthcoming negotiations, Afghanistan has continued to be affected in recent months by above-average violence and many people died, although the population had hoped for a ceasefire. In particular, the last five weeks before the start of the negotiations were described by experts as the most difficult. most dangerous weeks in the last five years in terms of the quantity and brutality of violence. The Doha Agreement is also accompanied by the gradual reduction and eventual elimination of the US troop presence, as this is a basic condition for the Taliban to participate in the peace talks. Currently, about 4,500 of the original 13,000 troops remain in the country. Nevertheless, the election of Joe Biden as US president now raises many unanswered questions, as the Doha deal was negotiated under the Trump administration and Biden had said during the campaign that he wanted to maintain a small troop presence in Afghanistan. 

Now, the peace talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government began in Doha on September 12, 2020. The start of the substantive negotiations has been delayed since then, as they have so far been dominated by structural and procedural conflicts and disputes over the agenda are characterized. The stakes are particularly high for women: from 1996 to 2001, women lived under lock and key during the Taliban regime and were only allowed to leave their homes when accompanied by a male guardian. Since 2001, with the invasion of US troops, the situation has changed and women have increasingly taken part in social life again. Today, Afghan civil society thrives on committed, educated women and the big concern is that Taliban involvement in government would undo all the work of the last 20 years in this area. The Afghan government has a total of only four women at the negotiating table, while the Taliban are all men.

It is impossible to predict the next steps of the peace negotiations, but the civilian population is longing for a CeasefireHowever, this is on condition that fundamental rights are not compromised in the peace process and that criminals from the ranks of the Taliban and the Afghan governments are finally prosecuted. Despite the peace talks, attacks on civilians continue, such as the bloodbath at Kabul University on 2 November. 

Terrorist attack in Kabul University – Attack on the future of Afghanistan

On the same day as the attack in Vienna, there was a terrorist attack on Kabul University. Three gunmen stormed the university and shot at the students. It took the security forces and the arriving military six hours to secure the campus. Twenty-two students were killed and 27 others were injured. badly hurt. Even if those responsible have not yet been clearly identified, this is driving a wedge into the peace negotiations, which are already getting off to a difficult start. There are initial calls to boycott the negotiations in Doha, for example under the hashtag #BoycottDohaTalks or in the form of protests against the government, which has been unable to protect the young people. One of the demands is not to make a deal with the Taliban. It remains to be seen how the chain of violence will continue and how it will affect the peace negotiations.

Afghan refugees in Europe

The situation of Afghan refugees in Europe is fatal. Half of all refugees on the Greek islands comes from Afghanistan. It is widely known that the conditions in the completely overcrowded camps as well as in the new Moria are absolutely inhumane and untenable. Many have been there for many months or even years, some children were even born there. They are either waiting to apply for asylum or for it to be processed. The application for family reunification, for example, turns out to be a long, rocky road for many Afghan families, because the Federal Office for Migration and Asylum in Germany often rejects such applications unjustly and the people concerned usually lack access to legal counsel to appeal. 

If their application for asylum is granted, the Greek authorities transfer some of the protection seekers to mainland Greece, but without housing them. Instead, many Afghan refugees and families live in homelessness on the streets of Athens, receiving only makeshift assistance from local non-governmental organizations. But it is precisely this assistance that is proving particularly difficult at the moment, as Athens is once again in lockdown and aid workers can only distribute meals and other goods in secret.

Furthermore, in October of this year, Greece and Afghanistan agreed on a Memorandumwhich is supposed to facilitate the deportation of "illegal migrants" to Afghanistan in the future – a shocking development considering the dangerous situation in Afghanistan. Also the situation on the Balkan route is a human rights disaster. The Afghan refugees there are part of a cruel game of cat and mouse. They try to enter the EU via Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, only to be brutally deported back to Bosnia-Herzegovina by the Croatian border police or in so-called chain deportations from Italy, Austria or Slovenia. For years now, reports have been accumulating of Torture and violence by Croatian border police officerswhich are repeatedly rejected by the Croatian government as spurious. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, many refugees live in empty houses or in the cold, wet forests, where they sleep under tarpaulins – including families with children. Just as in Greece, humanitarian workers are largely prohibited from assisting refugees. Especially with the upcoming winter, another humanitarian catastrophe is looming.

Berlin sues Seehofer

Finally, we're getting somewhere: The state of Berlin is suing the Federal Ministry of the Interior so that Berlin can finally take in refugees. The lawsuit is promising, because Interior Minister Horst Seehofer wants to prevent the admission despite legal leeway. You can find more information about this in the Press release of the Berlin state government.

For those who want to delve more deeply into the legal framework: I have a Expert opinion commissioned, which proves that Seehofer may not so simply refuse his consent for the admission.

Question: Human rights violations by Greek authorities

In order to be able to exercise my parliamentary control function as a Member of the European Parliament, I have the opportunity to put questions to the European Commission. The Commission must answer these questions.
Together with other Members, I put the following questions to the Commission:

Subject: Systematic and coordinated push-backs by the Greek authorities

On August 17, 2020, the New York Times published an article titled "Taking Hard Line, Greece Turns Back Migrants by Abandoning Them at Sea." It documents how migrants who landed on Greek soil were repeatedly forced by Greek officials onto unsafe life rafts and abandoned at the sea border between Turkey and Greece. There they were left to drift until rescued by the Turkish coast guard. Others were towed back to the Turkish maritime border and left there after officials disabled their engines, abandoned on an uninhabited island or expelled across the Evros River without the possibility of appeal.

Is the Commission aware of these incidents and can it confirm that they are taking place?

Given the seriousness of the newspaper, we believe that the Greek authorities are carrying out unprecedented, extremely aggressive and systematic push-backs, in breach of Union law, in particular Article78(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Articles 3 and 4 of the EU Schengen Borders Code, Article9 of the Asylum Procedures Directive, Article5 of the Return Directive, Articles18, 19(2) and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees. Asylum and migration are shared responsibilities of the Union. In view of this, does the Commission intend to initiate infringement proceedings against the Greek Government?

Answer given by Commissioner Ylva Johansson on behalf of the European Commission on 06/11/2020:

The Commission is following the situation closely and has taken note of reports such as those quoted by the Honourable Members.

It has expressed concerns to the Greek authorities about these reports and stressed that, for border surveillance tasks under Regulation (EU)2016/399 on the Schengen Borders Code, Member States should[1] are responsible. In doing so, obligations related to fundamental rights, ensuring access to international protection and the principle of non-refoulement under Union and international law must be fully respected.

Without prejudice to the Commission's powers as guardian of the Treaties, the national authorities are primarily responsible for the correct transposition and application of EU law. The Commission has therefore urged the Greek authorities to investigate any possible wrongdoing.

With the new migration and asylum package[2] - in particular the proposal for a Regulation introducing screening of third-country nationals at the external borders[3] - the Commission has suggested that Member States, with the assistance of the Fundamental Rights Agency, establish an independent monitoring mechanism. This would ensure compliance with EU and international law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, during the screening process. At the same time, it would ensure that any violations of fundamental rights, including those related to access to the asylum procedure and non-compliance with the principle of non-refoulement, are effectively and promptly investigated.


[1] Regulation (EU2016/399 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) OJ L77, 23.3.2016.

[2] COM(2020)609final of 23 September 2020.

[3] COM(2020)612final of 23 September 2020.

One month after the fire: the situation on Lesbos

After the catastrophe at the beginning of September, I travelled to Lesbos to get a picture on the ground. For the people from the burnt-down Moria camp, everything has only got worse since then – despite all the promises.
In an interview with Radio eins (RBB) I talk about the situation on the ground and what to do now.
You can listen to the conversation here listen up.

Guest contribution: Tear down Moria!

The Berliner Zeitung asked me to write a guest article on the occasion of 30 years of German unity:
The courage of 1989 should be more important than the fear of 2015. Let's not look the other way when the EU testifies at the external borders.

I am writing these lines on Lesvos, one of the most beautiful places in Europe, which is telling one of its most terrible stories these days. Moria, the largest refugee camp in Europe, has burned down completely. 13,000 people, who were already living in undignified conditions, are now homeless.

For days, local police prevented aid agencies from providing medical care and food to the homeless victims of the fire disaster. Many did not eat or drink for days, and children quenched their thirst with sewage, which left them with severe diarrhea. Police used tear gas on men, women and even children. Burns remained untreated for days.

For 28 years, the Berlin Wall stood as a symbol of repression, lack of freedom and the imprisonment of its own people. The lessons learned from this period are now being sought in vain at Europe's external borders. And walls are also in vogue worldwide. There are now 70 border walls in the world - about five times as many as in 1989. The Berlin Wall no longer exists. But the idea of using a structure to keep out the other, the foreign, the hostile, still thrives in many places.

The happiness of freedom seems forgotten

But why is the desire for freedom not stronger today than the desire for new walls? The wall is a structure that is supposed to protect. But it also keeps one side from seeing the other. In a world that is becoming more and more complex, the desire for new walls is probably not only a desire for security and safety, but also a desire to put up a protective wall against the increasing complexity in order to counter one's own excessive demands by the unknown. The wall not only keeps out the unknown, but also keeps in the known.
Now there is a new Moria. And the conditions are worse than ever. While small children play in the dirt behind barrier tapes and fences, soldiers search for mines and ammunition remnants on the other side. People infected with Corona are locked behind barbed wire with others who are suspected cases. This is a crime.

When the Berlin Wall fell, I was two years old. I couldn't write any texts and I had never read a history book. The Wall, dictatorship and shoot-to-kill orders robbed millions of their freedom. The Wall fell because the idea of democracy tore it down. Now, 30 years later, I am sitting here, and a few miles away democratic states are responsible for the degradation of people. Thirty years later, we seem to have forgotten how lucky we are to be able to share freedom.

I am lucky that I no longer had to consciously experience the dictatorship in the GDR. I am lucky to live in this time, in this Europe. I owe this good fortune to courageous citizens who fought for our freedom. Not by force, but with an idea. The idea that we must build a society on a foundation of the rule of law, human rights and the dignity of every individual - because that is the only way we can build a house that no one can tear down. People took to the streets with this idea, not knowing if it would become a reality. They couldn't know that no shots would be fired. On November 9, 1989, the time finally came. The Wall fell and the world celebrated. But today the Berlin Wall stands again - in Moria.

Moria is a signal to its own population, but also to people on the run: Those who dare to flee to Europe should not rely on their own expectations. The freedom, democracy and rule of law that many seek in Europe should no longer be found by those seeking protection. Instead of a sea rescue in the Mediterranean for people fleeing Libya, we are building a wall of drowned people.

This strategy of degrading external borders follows a simple logic: as long as the Mediterranean and Moria are no more dangerous than the civil war in Libya, the wall of deterrence will not stand firm. If fewer people are to arrive, more must suffer and die.

Is this not a sign that we should be more afraid of ourselves than of the other side beyond the wall? While probably most European leaders advocate the rule of law in speeches, the reality at Europe's external borders looks grim. Instead of using the rule of law to determine what reasons a person has for climbing onto an overcrowded rubber dinghy and risking his or her life for freedom, those seeking protection at the external borders are met with truncheons, tear gas and warning shots. Wall deaths have occurred several times, and some have been shot. "Efficient border management" is the name of the "anti-fascist protective wall" today.

For many, tugboats are the only way

Further fighting words are to stabilize the wall: In October 2015, when the whole world was talking about escape, Manfred Weber, as chairman of the EPP Group, awarded the Robert Schumann Medal to Wolfgang Welsch. Welsch, an escape agent, had helped over 200 people to get out of the GDR and into the Federal Republic. A great achievement.

After the laudatory speech for yesterday's prize-winning refugee, Manfred Weber of the EPP called in the public debate for the "trafficking mafia" of today in the Mediterranean to be combated.

The judgement of the EU governments is clear in its blindness to history: the escape helpers of the past deserved medals for their services on the path from dictatorship to democracy - today, on the other hand, the escape helpers are the culprits for the deaths on our walls and should be fought. A successful escape is no longer celebrated. A successful escape is the failure of the strategy of compartmentalization. The main thing is never again 2015, the main thing is no new wave of refugees.

The traffickers from Libya certainly do not act out of humane motives, but for many refugees they are the only way to get to an asylum procedure in Europe, where protecting the dignity of every single human being is actually the task of all state authority.

Europe shows its ugly side

But state violence at Europe's external borders has degenerated into a worthless zombie with a single goal: Fewer people should come to Europe - whatever the cost. Many speeches, especially since 2015, have repeatedly stressed the need to fight the causes of flight. Since 2015, more than 15 million additional people have fled worldwide.

But how should we deal with the fact that we want to protect human rights, but 80 million refugees worldwide really cannot come to Berlin or Thuringia? "How many millions more are supposed to come?", those who campaign for the human rights of refugees are asked again and again. It is worth considering whether, on the way to the fall of a new wall at the external borders, some of the mental walls that have been erected in people's minds in recent years need to come down first.

In early March 2020, when Erdogan declared the borders to Europe were now open and 15,000 people were pushed to the border, the world watched this supposedly peaceful Europe show its ugly side. Erdogan abused the people as a weapon. Yet we did not disarm him with a democratic response. Europe simply shot back.

The shooting with ammunition and tear gas was justified above all by the fact that these were not "real refugees from Syria". Apart from the fact that the reasons for flight are examined in asylum procedures and not in border skirmishes, the absence of Syrian refugees was particularly striking. For years, there were warnings of a rush of millions of people sitting on packed suitcases in Turkey. And then, despite the opening of the border, only a handful of the 3,500,000 Syrian refugees we feared arrive? How can that be?

The future is never easy

The answer is simple: there are not these millions of people who are rushing to Europe. 3.5 million fathers, mothers and children from Syria are not fleeing. They are living in Turkey. They are not fleeing to Europe because they do not want to flee to Europe.

In reality, the fear articulated by governments of a loss of control at Europe's external borders is a metaphor for the fear of losing control over their own electoral outcomes. Too often and for too long, this fear has paralysed the will to overcome challenges. But when democratic governments - as in asylum policy - create the impression of a house in danger of collapsing, there's no need to be surprised when the population starts looking for another home.

Those who want to tear down the walls at the borders must first and foremost tear down the desire for new walls. Not with violence, but with a thought. Just as courageous people took to the streets against an unjust state back then, our powerful ideas of freedom, dignity and the rule of law must once again tear down the injustice in our own Europe today. Then the Wall will fall too.

The future is never easy, because we do not know it. But we should do everything we can in the present so that later we can proudly tell our grandchildren about the past. About when we were the brave ones in 2020 who rebelled against the wall in our heads and at our external borders. From when we finally understood that we don't protect our prosperity, freedom and security by taking it all away from others. From when Moria burned down and from the ashes arose the power to learn what we already knew in 1989. From when we learned that the courage of 1989 was more important than the fear of a new 2015.


This article is for the Day of German Unity in the Berliner Zeitung erschienen.

Migration pact – Why the EU Commission's proposal does not prevent another Moria

The EU Commission's proposal for the migration pact won't prevent another Moria. On the contrary, it would cast the model of the Greek mass camps in legal form. Border procedures and closed camps at the external borders would become the norm in Europe. The failure of the Dublin system would be perpetuated and escalated, further without a mandatory solidary reception of refugees. Germany is also threatened with considerable tightening of asylum law. The Commission's proposal on asylum procedures tightens up the 2016 Asylum Package II and casts it in European law.

European values are being damaged

With the Pact, the EU Commission has set itself the ultimate goal of European unification at any price. In order to achieve this, it accepts that refugee protection and our common European values will be severely damaged. Instead of orderly and fair procedures throughout Europe, the Pact will exacerbate the crisis at the external borders. The Pact must now be discussed and agreed in the European Parliament and among Member States in the Council. We Greens will campaign in the negotiations to end the systematic suffering of those seeking protection at the EU's external borders. A fair and humanitarian European asylum system must emerge from the ashes of Moria.

At this link you will find our proposal for a fair asylum system in Europe.

Border procedures: mass detention of refugees

According to the EU Commission's proposal, all persons who want to enter the EU without valid papers or are apprehended should be taken to closed camps under detention conditions. This also applies to those rescued from distress at sea. Those arriving must first undergo a preliminary examination, which must be completed within five days. This includes registration as well as a health check and a security check in European border and security databases.


The pre-screening should also record what type of procedures the arrivals
and whether they will continue to be held under detention conditions:

– A normal asylum procedure should only be given to those who come from a country with a recognition rate of more than 20 per cent, i.e. when at least everyr fifth asylum seeker from this country in the EU as a refugeer is recognised.

– A fast-track asylum procedure under detention conditions at the border (border procedure) must be undergone by anyone who comes from a country with a recognition rate of less than 20 per cent, anyone who poses a security risk or anyone who provides false information about their identity.

People from a previously safe country of origin (e.g. the Balkans) or from a safe third country (e.g. Syrians arriving via Turkey) must also go through a fast-track asylum procedure, but not necessarily at the border.

– Those who do not apply for asylum should be deported directly from the camp.


The Commission is thus significantly expanding the detention of refugees. According to the Commission's plans, most fast-track procedures are to be carried out in closed camps at the border. Only unaccompanied minor refugees and children under 12 and their families are exempt from this. They will be housed in an open facility during their fast-track asylum procedure, just like asylum seekers going through a normal asylum procedure. under this procedure, more than half of irregular arrivals would have had to go through a border procedure under detention conditions in 2017 and 2018 because they came from countries with a recognition rate defined as low. In 2019, by contrast, more people in need of protection arrived from countries with higher recognition rates.

Detention of asylum seekers to be extended

With its proposal, the Commission wants to send a signal of deterrence. In order to do so, it accepts that the protection of refugees and their human dignity will be undermined. It wants to drastically triple the detention period from the current 4 weeks for border procedures to 12 weeks in the future. Only if the asylum procedure cannot be completed in this time will the asylum seekers be placed in normal refugee accommodation.

Those who are rejected are also to be deported directly from the border camps without being allowed to set foot on European soil. If this is not possible by 12 weeks after the end of the asylum procedure, they are to be transferred to detention centres for deportation. The crucial question, namely how the dovetailing of asylum and deportation procedures is to lead to an increase in the deportation rate, remains unanswered, as does the question of how the Commission intends to ensure that the Member States carry out asylum procedures more efficiently than before. The Commission is creating new camps with the border procedures. But it has no answer as to how a second Moria is to be prevented.

Dublin and refugee distribution: overcrowded camps remain

The EU Commission had declared the Dublin system dead - and yet wants to retain it as a core element of the European asylum system with the pact. What changes with the pact is above all the title. Dublin is now called "Migration Management". The Dublin system is a system of shifting responsibility to member states at the EU's southern external borders. The member state in which ae refugeesUnder the Dublin system, the first person to set foot on European soil is responsible for asylum procedures and accommodation. Instead of finally replacing the system of shifting responsibility with a system of fair sharing of responsibility for those seeking protection in Europe, the Commission wants to cement it with the pact.


In future, member states will have to wait much longer than the current 18 months for ane Asylum seekersn be responsible. The right of other member states to send back refugees who have irregularly moved on to another member state only expires three years after they have been recognised as refugees. The Commission also wants to make it easier for member states to send back asylum seekers who have moved on. Asylum seekers themselves should not receive any support and accommodation if they move on irregularly. One of the few positive aspects in the Commission proposal is the extension of family reunification to
Siblings.

Deportation sponsorships instead of solutions – Southern EU countries continue to be left in the lurch

The Commission's proposal increases the responsibility of southern EU countries such as Greece, Malta, Italy or Spain - without offering them sufficient solidarity. The system of flexible solidarity proposed by the Commission is complex. It amounts to giving member states a whole range of fallback options to avoid having to take in refugees. Solidarity will be obligatory in case of "high migratory pressure", but not the reception of refugees. Member states can, under the Commission's proposal, instead:

– Provide capacity building – such as through the provision of fingerprint scanners for the registration of arrivals.

– provide operational support to these countries – for example by deploying border guardsor asylum expertinside

– by cooperating with third countries, influence the arrival of fewer protection seekers, or

– through so-called return partnerships or also deportation sponsorships – for example by helping Greece to obtain travel documents from the third country to which deportation is to take place, or by ensuring that the country agrees to the return. Only if the person cannot be removed even after eight months does the Member State have to take him or her in.

If the camps are overcrowded, the Commission can insist that member states take in refugees. But even then member states can resort to repatriation partnerships. With this proposal the Commission is going a long way towards accommodating countries like Hungary or Poland, which have boycotted any redistribution up to now - and is accepting that the European asylum system will fail once more. In many cases deportations can't be carried out because the third country in question won't cooperate. The European border protection agency Frontex already has the task of helping member states with deportations. It is completely unclear how return partnerships are supposed to additionally contribute to reducing obstacles to deportation.

The Commission's proposal will not prevent another Moria. The camps at the external borders will remain overcrowded because member states can take in people as they see fit and repatriation partnerships will only lead to more people without the right to stay being sent back in the fewest cases. The losers of the Commission's proposal are the countries at the EU's southern external borders. The profiteers are member states like Germany or Sweden. Because of the tightening of the Dublin rules they can count on being able to shift more of the responsibility for refugees who have moved to their country irregularly to countries like Greece.

The crisis mechanism

In its position on the last Dublin reform in 2018, the European Parliament had called for a fair distribution of asylum seekers from the outset. This is now only found in the Commission's proposal for a crisis mechanism. Once the Commission sets the mechanism in motion, member states will be obliged to take in asylum seekers, recognised refugees and people without the right to stay. Unlike in situations of "high migratory pressure", this also applies to admission directly from border camps.

At the same time, however, border procedures are being drastically extended to all those seeking protection who come from a country with a protection quota of less than 75 percent. Detention in border camps is being prolonged, as is the detention of people without the right to stay. This can lead to people without a prospect of staying being detained at the borders for more than a year. The Commission's proposal also provides for refugees who are manifestly in need of protection to be granted temporary protection status without an asylum assessment. It is unlikely that this proposal will find a political majority in the Council. It's not just countries like Hungary that won't want to accept the Commission deciding when the crisis mechanism is triggered and they are obliged to take people in from the border.

What does the pact mean for Germany?

The Commission's proposal will also lead to more asylum seekers being detained in Germany. Refugees who have bypassed registration at the external border and made their way to Germany will also have to undergo a preliminary examination here - under the same detention-like conditions as at the external borders. The pact proposal also does not rule out the possibility that countries like Germany will drastically expand their special procedures. Germany has already introduced accelerated procedures in "special reception facilities" with the 2016 Asylum Package II. So far, they apply mainly to asylum seekers from safe countries of origin, such as the Balkan countries, and have so far only been carried out at two locations, in Manching/Ingolstadt and Bamberg.

With the pact as proposed by the Commission, the federal government could drastically tighten the conditions in the "special reception facilities" and turn them into closed facilities like those at the external borders. It would have the option of detaining protection seekers who arrive in Germany irregularly from a country with a protection quota of less than 20 percent under the same detention-like conditions as in border procedures.

– So far, asylum seekers in Manching and Bamberg have to live in the camps and are not allowed to leave the district, but they are not locked up.

– The drastic expansion of de facto safe countries of origin to all countries with a protection quota of less than 20 per cent would affect considerably more asylum seekers than before.

– The time limit for fast-track asylum procedures is currently one week and could be extended to 12 weeks under the pact.

The Commission's proposals from 2016 on the accommodation of asylum seekers and on asylum procedures, which are now also to be adopted with the pact, already amount to a significant tightening. The new proposals threaten to further undermine refugee protection.

Rescue at sea will not be strengthened

As part of the pact, the Commission has published two non-binding recommendations on the criminalisation of NGOs and on sea rescue. However, this does not strengthen the rescue of refugees. The Commission recommends that member states should not criminalise sea rescue NGOs for saving human lives. At the same time, however, sea rescue NGOs should be held to a higher standard.

The Commission wants closer cooperation between coastal states and flag states such as Germany, under whose flag NGO ships rescue people in the Mediterranean. They should ensure that safety at sea is increased and that "relevant rules on migration management" are observed, for example against people smuggling. The Commission's recommendation is thus along the same lines as the German government.

It had already increased the security requirements for NGO rescue ships a few months ago, thus taking smaller NGO ships out of circulation. According to the Commission's proposal, refugees rescued from distress at sea will in future be treated in the same way as asylum seekers at land borders: they will have to undergo a preliminary examination under detention-like conditions and remain at the border during the asylum procedure
if they come from a country with a recognition rate of less than 20 per cent.

As long as they are in the border camp, they will not be redistributed to other Member States. The solidarity-based distribution of rescued persons to other member states is supposed to work in a similar way as in the case of high "migration pressure". Member states do not have to take in rescued persons, but can instead also take on deportation partnerships or send border guards.

Fire in Moria – call for emergency evacuation and relocation

169 MEPs signed the call for immideate action on Moria. This is the letter:

To:
Vice-President Margaritis Schinas
Commissioner for Home Affairs, Ylva Johansson
Federal Minister for the Interior, Horst Seehofer

Brussels, 11 September 2020


Dear Vice President Schinas,
Dear Commissioner Johansson,
Dear Minister Seehofer,

The fire in the EU's biggest refugee camp Moria is a humanitarian disaster and a disaster for Europe as a whole. For far too long, Europe has ignored that the camp was heavily overcrowded and that people had to stay in Moria for years under slum-like circumstances. They had no access to proper sanitary facilities nor to appropriate accommodation. When Covid-19 broke out, not just the infected persons were put under quarantine, but the entire camp. More than 12,000 people were locked in a place where they had no possibility to protect themselves from the virus. The catastrophe was predictable. It is a shame for Europe that it was not prevented.

After Moria burnt down, more than 12,000 people are now stranded without even a tent or a roof over their heads. They urgently need our help. We, the undersigning MEPs urge you to provide immediate humanitarian and medical help, to evacuate the people as quickly as possible and to provide a sustainable solution for the people of Moria by relocating them to other Member States.

We call on you to support Greece with corona tests of all asylum seekers and locals on the island and with medical personnel and equipment for people with severe disease progression.

Many of us, including the President of our House, have already at the beginning of the Covid-19 crisis called for an evacuation of the camp and the relocation of asylum seekers from Moria to avoid an outbreak. We acknowledge that it is a challenge to evacuate now more than 12.000 persons at once and encourage you to look into all possibilities. People who cannot be immediately transferred to the mainland could also preliminarily be accommodated in cruise ships, which due to Covid-19 are currently out of operation, before they are relocated. In any case, we call on you to support Greece in providing emergency accommodation for the people of Moria where they can protect themselves from the virus.

We further urge you to ensure the relocation of asylum seekers from Moria to other Member States. Taking care of the people of Moria is not just the responsibility of Greece. Moria is a European refugee camp, and Europe has to stand by its responsibility. Many municipalities and regions in Europe have long declared their willingness to receive asylum seekers from Greece.

Since Wednesday night, thousands of people went on the streets to show their solidarity with the people of Moria and to call for their swift relocation. We fully support their call. We call on you to uphold our common European values and to relocate the people of Moria to places where they can find safety and dignified living condition.

Reconstructing Moria is not a solution, nor is it as a solution to create similar conditions in other camps. It will only lead to the same problems that have caused the catastrophe.

We call on you to ensure that the upcoming Pact on Migration and Asylum will be based on solidarity and the fair sharing of responsibilities among Member States. We must make sure that a humanitarian disaster like in Moria will never happen again.

We urge you to do everything possible to help the people of Moria and to show European solidarity!

Sincerely yours,

Erik MARQUARDT (Greens/EFA), initiator of the letter
Ska KELLER, Co-President of the Greens/EFA
Philippe LAMBERTS, Co-President of the Greens/EFA
Iratxe GARCÍA-PEREZ, President of the S&D group
AUBRY MANON, Co-President of GUE/NGL
Martin SCHIRDEWAN, Co-President of GUE/NGL
Juan Fernando LÓPEZ AGUILAR, Chair of the LIBE Committee
Maria ARENA, Chair of the DROI Committee
Younous OMARJEE (GUE/NGL)
Abir AL-SAHLANI (Renew)
Adriana MALDONADO LÓPEZ (S&D)
Agnes JONGERIUS (S&D)
Alexandra GEESE (Greens/EFA)
Alexis GEORGOULIS (GUE/NGL)
Alice KUHNKE (Greens/EFA)
Alviina ALAMETSÄ (Greens/EFA)
Andreas SCHIEDER (S&D)
Anna CAVAZZINI (Greens/EFA)
Anna DEPARNAY-GRUNENBERG (Greens/EFA)
Anne-Sophie PELLETIER (GUE)
Aurore LALUCQ (S&D)
Bas EICKHOUT (Greens/EFA)
Benoit BITEAU (Greens/EFA)
Bernard GUETTA (Renew)
Bernd LANGE (S&D)
Bettina VOLLATH (S&D)
Billy KELLEHER (Renew)
Brando BENIFEI (S&D)
Carlos ZORRINHO (S&D)
Caroline ROOSE (Greens/EFA)
Chris MACMANUS (GUE/NGL)
Ciaran CUFFE (Greens/EFA)
Clare DALY (GUE/NGL)
Claude GRUFFAT (Greens/EFA)
Claudia GAMON (Renew)
Cornelia ERNST (GUE/NGL)
Cristina MAESTRE MARTÍN DE ALMAGRO (S&D)
Damian BOESELAGER (Greens/EFA)
Damien CARÈME (Greens/EFA)
Daniel FREUND (Greens/EFA)
Danuta HUEBNER (EPP)
David CORMAND (Greens/EFA)
Deirdre CLUNE (EPP)
Delara BURKHARDT (S&D)
Diana RIBA I GINER (Greens/EFA)
Dietmar KÖSTER (S&D)
Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS (GUE/NGL)
Domenec RUIZ DEVESA (S&D)
Eider GARDIAZÁBAL RUBIAL (S&D)
Elena KOUNTOURA (GUE/NGL)
Elena YONCHEVA (S&D)
Ernest URTASUN (Greens/EFA)
Evelyn REGNER (S&D)
Fabienne KELLER (Renew)
Francisco GUERREIRO (Greens/EFA)
Francois ALFONSI (Greens/EFA)
Gabriele BISCHOFF (S&D)
Grace O’SULLIVAN (Greens/EFA)
Gwendoline DELBOS-CORFIELD (Greens/EFA)
Hannah NEUMANN (Greens/EFA)
Hannes HEIDE (S&D)
Heidi HAUTALA (Greens/EFA)
Helmut GEUKING (ECR)
Helmut SCHOLZ (GUE/NGL)
Henrike HAHN (Greens/EFA)
Hildegard BENTELE (EPP)
Idoia VILLANUEVA (GUE/NGL)
Inmaculada RODRÍGUEZ-PIÑERO (S&D)
Irena JOVEVA (Renew)
Isabel CARVALHAIS (S&D)
Isabel CARVALHAIS (S&D)
Isabel GARCÍA MUÑOZ (S&D)
Isabel SANTOS (S&D)
Ismail ERTUG (S&D)
Jakop DALUNDE (Greens/EFA)
Jan-Christoph OETJEN (Renew)
Janina OCHOJSKA (EPP)
Jarosław DUDA (EPP)
Javier MORENO SÁNCHEZ (S&D)
Jerzy BUZEK (EPP)
João FERREIRA (GUE/NGL)
Jordi SOLÉ (Greens/EFA)
José GUSMÃO (GUE/NGL)
Jutta PAULUS (Greens/EFA)
Karen MELCHIOR (Renew)
Karima Delli (Greens/EFA)
Katarina BARLEY (S&D)
Kathleen VAN BREMPT (S&D)
Kati PIRI (S&D)
Katrin LANGENSIEPEN (Greens/EFA)
Kim VAN SPARRENTAK (Greens/EFA)
Klemen GROSELJ (Renew)
Konstantinos ARVANITIS (GUE/NGL)
Lara WOLTERS (S&D)
Laura FERRARA (NI)
Leila CHAIBI (GUE/NGL)
Lina GALVEZ MUÑOZ (S&D)
Lukasz KOHUT (S&D)
Magdalena ADAMOWICZ (EPP)
Malin BJÖRK (GUE/NGL)
Manu PINEDA (GUE/NGL)
Marc BOTENGA (GUE/NGL)
Marcos ROS SEMPERE (S&D)
Margarete AUKEN (Greens/EFA)
Margarida MARQUES (S&D)
Maria Eugenia RODRÍGUEZ PALOP (GUE/NGL)
Maria NOICHL (S&D)
Maria WALSH (EPP)
Maria-Manuel Leitão-Marques (S&D)
Marie TOUSSAINT (Greens/EFA)
Marisa MATIAS (GUE/NGL)
Markéta GREGOROVÁ (Greens/EFA)
Martin HÄUSLING (Greens/EFA)
Martin SONNEBORN (NI)
Massimiliano SMERIGLIO (S&D)
Michael BLOSS (Greens/EFA)
Michèle RIVASI (Greens/EFA)
Mick WALLACE (GUE/NGL)
Miguel URBÁN CRESPO (GUE/NGL)
Milan BRGLEZ (S&D)
Monica Silvana GONZALEZ (S&D)
Monika VANA (Greens/EFA)
Mounir SATOURI (Greens/EFA)
Nico SEMSROTT (Greens/EFA)
Nicolae STEFANUTA (Renew)
Niklas NIENAß (Greens/EFA)
Nikolaj VILLUMSEN (GUE/NGL)
Özlem DEMIREL (GUE/NGL)
Pär HOLMGREN (Greens/EFA)
Pascal ARIMONT (EPP)
Patricia GUEGUEN (Greens/EFA)
Patrick BREYER (Greens/EFA)
Paul TANG (S&D)
Pernando BARRENA (GUE/NGL)
Peter VAN DALEN (EPP)
Petra DE SUTTER (Greens/EFA)
Petros KOKKALIS (GUE/NGL)
Pierfrancesco MAJORINO (S&D)
Pierrette HERZBERGER-FOFANA (Greens/EFA)
Pina PICIERNO (S&D)
Raphaël GLUCKSMANN (S&D)
Rasmus ANDRESEN (Greens/EFA)
Reinhard BÜTIKOFER (Greens/EFA)
Robert BIEDROŃ (S&D)
Romeo FRANZ (Greens/EFA)
Pink D’AMATO (NI)
Salima YENBOU (Greens/EFA)
Samira RAFAELA (Renew)
Sandra PEREIRA (GUE/NGL)
Sara CERDAS (S&D)
Sarah WIENER (Greens/EFA)
Saskia BRICMONT (Greens/EFA)
Sergey LAGODINSKY (Greens/EFA)
Silvia MODIG (GUE/NGL)
Sira REGO (GUE/NGL)
Sophie IN’T VELD (Renew)
Stelios KOULOGLOU (GUE/NGL)
Sven GIEGOLD (Greens/EFA)
Sylwia SPUREK (S&D)
Tanja FAJON (S&D)
Terry REINTKE (Greens/EFA)
Thomas WAITZ (Greens/EFA)
Tiemo WÖLKEN (S&D)
Tilly METZ (Greens/EFA)
Tineke STRIK (Greens/EFA)
Udo BULLMANN (S&D)
Vera TAX (S&D)
Ville NIINISTÖ (Greens/EFA)
Viola VON CRAMON-TAUBADEL (Greens/EFA)
Yannick JADOT (Greens/EFA)

Ongoing human rights violations on the Balkan route

Even if it is less reported now, there are still people trying to flee to the EU via the Western Balkan route. Their situation is worsening, their fundamental rights are being trampled on. I have summarised current developments in the region here.

Bosnia and Herzegovina 

Most refugees in Bosnia and Herzegovina do not want to stay in the country, but try to get from there to Croatia, and then to other EU countries. At present, Bosnia and Herzegovina is Freedom of movement of refugees severely restricted and cantons and entities in one and the same country are trying to push people into each other's part of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

This is how the Una-Sana Cantonment Police prevents through checkpoints...The refugees enter the canton via the rural roads. However, they cannot return because they are turned back by the border police of Republika Srpska. As a result, people are stranded in no man's land with no access to water or food. It is undignified how these people become victims of the political shenanigans in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where several sides are trying to push the refugees in each other's direction into the other parts of the country. 

So far, they are being cared for in a makeshift manner by the local Red Cross, but also by No Name Kitchen supplied. Hundreds of people are stranded there. 

Violence against refugees is on the rise. Thousands of people are gathering on private Facebook pages to share the locations of refugees and helpers and to call for violence against them.

middle of August residents blocked the entrance to the Miral campso that no further refugees are taken in there. At the end of August, there were Protests against refugees, in which hundreds of people took part.

Croatia

In Croatia, we have been witnessing for years how refugees are systematically mistreated and illegally beaten into Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia. Now reports of torture by police officers are also increasing. Two Croatian police officers were arrested for violence against refugees for tying up and severely torturing 16 people from Pakistan and Afghanistan.

My Irish colleague in the European Parliament, Clare Daly, has also researchedCroatia misused the funds intended for the establishment of an independent mechanism for border surveillance, and this mechanism was not established in the first place. However, this independent mechanism is a condition for Croatia to join the Schengen area. The EU Commission announced an investigation following the lifting of the Corona restrictions.

Serbia erects fence to northern Macedonia

The Serbian Government has a new fence erected to northern Macedoniato prevent the entry of refugees. Most of the people now arriving in Serbia via northern Macedonia want to continue quickly in the direction of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia. There are currently around 4800 people in Serbian refugee camps themselves. While in 2015 there were no fences and walls between the Western Balkan states and their neighbours, today we have them all over the region.

EN