Opening a door to refugees

“We firmly believe that the fundamental values of the European Union, a place of freedom and justice, should be reflected in daily policies”. This is true for areas where human dignity is at risk, as in the situation of migrants, refugees, asylum-seekers, that inspired the “Recommendations for the Development of Safe and Legal Paths to Protection in the European Union”. The document published by the Churches of the Old Continent, compiled by authoritative organisms in the field of migrations: Caritas Europe, Ecumenical Commission for Migrants in Europe (CCME), Commission of the Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community (COMECE), Eurodiaconia, International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC), JRS- Jesuit Refugee Service Europe and QCEA – Quaker Council for European Affairs is available on the website www.caritas.eu). It will be accompanied by a public debate promoted by JRS in Brussels on December 9, with the provocative title: “Knock, knock Are we there? Building safe havens or new walls around Europe?” Patrolling the borders is not enough. While the tragedies of Lampedusa and Malta in October 2013 had revived the debate on people entering EU territory in need of protection, the Mediterranean Task Force appointed by the European Commission to address the issue has failed to submit proposals, and the European Council has amended nothing. Over and above the conclusion of operation Mare Nostrum, or the current and less thorough Triton, it is precisely “the lack of safe and legal ways to enter Europe in search of protection” which “forces these people to rely on smugglers, being in danger of falling prey to traffickers and other criminals”, the Churches point out. An estimated number of 3 thousand people have died in the Mediterranean in 2014, but many more have died along the paths of traffickers. “Border management measures must not lead to deaths of men, women and children”, denounces the document. The protection of human rights, namely, the right to protection, must be granted to “all those who are forced to flee their Country in search of protection” and to those whose asylum request is rejected because in some cases refoulement poses a serious risk to people’s lives. The problem is that there is no “Door for Refugees” on EU borders. A “toolbox”. The manifold situations on the borders of the Union make it necessary to adopt diversified measures and tools: a sort of “toolbox” of proposals, the Churches said. The first thing to do is to increase resettlement quota of refugees and humanitarian admission. Resettlement enables refugees, in temporary flight from another Country, to transfer to a third Country, where they will be given permanent protection. To date every EU Member Country establishes the quotas independently, but EU institutions’ activities could contribute to achieving more ambitious targets through additional funding and efficient policy coordination to encourage pledging of higher numbers in case of emergency, as called for on several occasions by UNHCR, which has tabled the issue for debate during the Conference for Syria Donors, held December 9 in Geneva. It is equally necessary “to interpret more broadly” the concept of family in situations of reunifications, in order to ensure that not only the nuclear family but also other relatives comply with the requirements lay down in EU jurisprudence to this regard. “This would enable a considerable number of persons in need of protection to come to Europe in a safe and organised way”. Rights above all. Another necessary measure is the rapid release of humanitarian visas in embassies or consulates of Member States in countries of origin or transit authorizing travel to the Member State where asylum procedures will be undertaken. Another possibility is to “eliminate the visa requirement”, especially “for cases in which a large number of people are forced to abandon their home countries seeking protection abroad.” All this would ensure that people spend their money to travel safely instead of foraging smuggling and risking their lives. A further possibility, which cannot be abused, is that of private sponsorship, whereby NGOs, associations, churches, provide a “invitation” for people seeking protection and become responsible also at economic level for the persons arriving, but the risk is that the protection of refugees could depend on private sponsorship. In spite of the proposed solutions it would be “unrealistic to assume that with the development and implementation of such a ‘toolbox’ it would be possible to suppress all irregular migration”, concludes the Churches’ document, reiterating the belief that “persons seeking or granted protection as well as migrants in irregular situations must never be left in destitution and excluded from enjoying their human rights; instead, they must be treated as what they are: Human beings with dignity who are right-holders”.