Respecting human rights involves making choices. These choices require more resources to accommodate and house people, to register asylum applications, and to conduct a high-quality review at all stages of the process.
While the Asylum and Immigration Bill is being debated in the National Assembly, Amnesty International France is raising concerns about three measures in this new reform, which it considers particularly dangerous.
The asylum system in France has been dysfunctional for many years, despite consecutive reforms. The excessively long delays to register applications and the always insufficient number of accommodation places, just to name these issues, are not attributable solely to the recent increase in asylum applications. These problems have existed for more than twenty years, to varying degrees. And this bill still does not address them.
“The stated objective of efficiency outweighs that of respecting rights. If this law is adopted in its current form, some measures, notably those that reduce the timeframes for asylum procedures and extend the detention period of exiled persons, endanger the human rights of refugees and migrants,” says Jean-Franรงois Dubost, head of the Population Protection Program at Amnesty International France.
A more difficult appeals process
Appealing a rejection decision from the OFPRA (French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons) is the very last chance for an asylum seeker who fears persecution if returned to their country. If this bill is adopted, only 15 days will be granted to appeal to the CNDA (National Court of Asylum). This is four times shorter than the time allowed to appeal an administrative decision under common law. Above all, it is too short to understand and respond to the reasoning of the first decision, after a often traumatic migratory journey. Most often, applicants have no assistance in making the appeal, and more so in a language they do not always master.
In 2016, 17% (6,446 people) of those who obtained protection in France did so following an appeal against an initial rejection.
The new bill thus endangers the possibility to appeal a first decision and increases the likelihood of sending thousands of people back to countries where their lives are at risk.
Being sent back even before a final decision
The bill provides that certain individuals, particularly those from a country considered “safe” by France, may be sent back to their country following a first negative decision from OFPRA, even if they have filed an appeal and it is still under review by the CNDA.
“In 2017, 1,131 people from ‘safe’ countries of origin obtained protection following an appeal. If the measure provided in this bill had been applied, these people could have been returned to their countries while they were in danger,” highlights Jean-Franรงois Dubost.
Being detained without having committed a crime
The bill would allow authorities to deprive foreign individuals of liberty for more than four months while awaiting deportation to their country or to the country they transited through.
Detention of people before deportation is increasingly common. This practice contravenes the respect for individual freedom guaranteed by international law.
Detention is a real trauma. People, and increasingly families with young children, are deprived of liberty solely due to an administrative issue. The bill plans to extend this duration, normalizing this practice and prolonging the suffering of those who endure it.
Setting refugees against migrants
Moreover, the reform dangerously pits refugees against migrants. It is indeed clearly stated that to protect refugees, migrants must be sent back. Curtailing migrants’ rights, such as depriving them of liberty, is thus cynically legitimized by a “humanitarian” end.
Abolishing the “crime of solidarity”
Amnesty International France also calls for the modification of French law to end criminal prosecutions against people who assist undocumented foreigners. The bill does not address this issue, whereas French law does not comply with the provisions of the Palermo Protocol: no prosecutions possible as long as the aid did not aim to result in a financial or other material benefit.
