News

Securitization of migration: national security or business?

Posted on

The social representation of migrants as a threat to national security is the result of the criminalization process to which they are subjected

Newton’s Third Law is categorical: For every action there will be a reaction with the same and proportionally opposite force. And it happens in all human phenomena, including politics. For every action an equal reaction is expected. Today, the problem is that there are hegemonic instances that, unable to execute actions that favor their particular interests, because they are unpopular, anti-democratic or contrary to the law, consequently design “actions” that will justify eventual “reactions”, which will then be socially accepted as necessary, expected and urgent.

The same thing is happening in the world of geopolitics and international relations. In recent years, States dominated by neoliberal and nationalist governments have sought to respond forcefully to situations that were precisely discursively constructed, both by themselves and by their strategic allies, in the media and other spaces of political interaction, such as international forums and multilateral organizations. One of these “created” situations, whose hidden purpose is to justify radical policies and measures, is the consideration of mass migration as a threat to the national security of the receiving countries. And the solution proposed by the States is the socalled securitization of migration.

The social representation of migrants as a threat to national security is a direct result of the criminalization process to which they are subjected. It is a discursive construction promoted by those States that seek to restrict the entry of migrants from other countries and justify the enormous amount of financial resources allocated annually to design and implement policies that, in the eyes of national and world public opinion, are necessary to protect those nations from the danger posed by migration.

In the book Pensar las migraciones contemporáneas (To think the contemporary migrations), coordinated by researchers Cecilia Jiménez Zunino and Verónica Trpin (Teseo, 2021), in the article Securitization of migrations, signed by Andrés Pereira and Eduardo Domeche, it establishes that the term securitization of migrations is a category produced “within the framework of the process of political production of migration as a security issue at the international level and in a context of tightening of migration and border controls in the North Atlantic area, both in the United States and Canada and in the European Union”.

The authors warn that, in Latin America, the application of the securitization of migration varies according to the nature of migration policies and the forms that inequality and violence against migrants have taken in each country or region. “In general terms, in Mexico and Central America, it has been used to account for the externalization of U.S. border control policies and the experiences of disappearance, kidnapping and death of migrants on their way north.

Pereira and Domenech emphasize that, with some exceptions, the use of the category is associated with changes in national migration policies, especially since the so-called “shift to the right” in the region, with which a generic use of the term prevails to denote migration regulation schemes associated with “national security” and linked to processes and practices of criminalization of migration.

This underscores the imposed logic of action-reaction to justify ever harsher border security and surveillance policies. In other words, migrants are criminalized (in some cases also the solidarity groups that assist them), thus becoming a threat to national security and, consequently, justifying the measures.

These measures range from the promotion of legislation that serves as a legal framework for the design and execution of public policies on migration issues, to the allocation of financial resources to make possible the expenses involved in the creation of public and private institutions, the acquisition of surveillance equipment, the hiring of personnel and the execution of practices or operations such as the detection, capture and deportation of migrants. The latter are the most criticized because, in most of the cases recorded, they limit or violate the human rights of migrants.

As has been pointed out, the most notorious case and the one that serves as the most tangible example of what is understood by the securitization of migration is what happens at the southern border of the United States, the point of entry of the intense and permanent migratory flows that, from all parts of the world, try to enter the North American nation.

An emblematic date that marked a milestone is September 11, 2001. Researcher Javier Treviño Rangel, in his academic article “What are we talking about when we talk about the securitization of international migration in Mexico? A Critique, indicates that despite the fact that such practice already existed, 9/11 (as Americans identify the event) justified before public opinion the authorities’ power “to detain migrants who cannot accredit their legal stay in the country or to promote centers where migrants are deprived of their freedom.”

For the authors, this event also initiated, like no other, the belief that undocumented international migration is a threat to national security and served to make not only the US but also other states -Canada, for example- radically harden their policies towards international migration.

 In fact, as a result of 9/11, institutions were created in the U.S. that today are the main executors of the harshest immigration policies on the southern border and where the greatest amount of financial resources are concentrated.

An exponential budget According to a report by the EFE news agency, in 2003 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created, which currently controls and administers a budget of US$381 billion, through border surveillance and immigration management agencies.

A report released in 2020 by the American Immigration Council indicates that immigration enforcement is carried out by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the “dreaded” Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), both agencies under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and whose primary function is the detention and deportation of undocumented immigrants.

According to the report reported by EFE, ICE and CBP currently employ more than 84,000 officers, of which more than 50,000 (55.5%) perform specific law enforcement duties.

The budgets of both agencies have experienced exponential growth since their creation. For example, since 1993, according to the report, “when the current border enforcement strategy was initiated along the U.S.-Mexico border, the annual budget of the Border Patrol, which is now part of CBP, increased more than 10-fold, from $363 million to nearly $4.9 billion”.

Also, planned spending for ICE between 2003 and 2020 increased from $3.3 billion annually to $8.4 billion. According to the American Immigration Council, the funds were earmarked primarily to “increase the agency’s capacity to confine detained immigrants at sites across the country.

The importance of the securitization of migration in the U.S. is reflected not only in the funds allocated to the erection of fences and fences, surveillance technology, unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) and the construction of buildings for detainees, but also in the increase of Border Patrol agents, which went from 4,139 to 19,648 in the 2019 fiscal period, “still below the authorization of Congress for the hiring of 23,645 agents,” notes EFE.

Policy continuity?

Security and investment It is possible that with the departure of Republican Donald Trump from the U.S. presidency it was naively believed that migration policies would be relaxed, but this was not the case. Although on his first day in the White House, Democrat Joe Biden revoked the executive order issued by his predecessor on January 25, 2017, which, among other issues, criminalized the undocumented stay of migrants as a threat to public and national security, he nevertheless reiterated that his administration’s policy would focus on protecting national and border security.

According to an analysis made by the Latin American Strategic Center for Geopolitics (Celag), entitled The Biden Doctrine in Central America, migration policies are a clear example of the permanent U.S. policy of securitization of migration to justify not only national security policies but also, and above all, economic investment.

“It is assumed that Biden will go for a comprehensive immigration policy, but that it will not necessarily be less securitized. The Comprehensive Strategy for Central America has a projected budget of four billion dollars, obtained through Security funds and private sector investment, as well as greater participation of the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) in the development of infrastructure and FDI in the region,” reads the Celag analysis.

It is important to clarify that FDI is the acronym for Foreign Direct Investment, that is, the economic intervention made by the U.S. in other countries and in which it holds not only the power to choose the companies (almost always associated with the government of the day) but also to maintain operational and financial control of such investments. In other words, the securitization of migration has as its background an economic interest, which is what Democrats and Republicans always agree on.

For such reason, Celag warns in its analysis how on February 2, 2020, Biden ratified, through three executive orders: 1) the migration measures linked to family reunification, 2) the creation of a comprehensive regional framework to address the causes and improve the management of migration flows from North and Central America, and 3) the possibility of providing safe and orderly processing of asylum seekers of those migrating across the US southern border, but that same day they clarified that these actions did not mean “that the borders are open” but were “one more step in the strategy that aims to stop forced migration through cooperation in the fight against corruption and impunity.” We see here how migration continues to be associated with crime, in this case institutional or governmental.

Throughout the electoral campaign, Biden presented himself as opposed to Trump’s management of migration issues. However, it was Obama who proposed the so-called Alliance for the Prosperity of the Northern Triangle of Central America as a solution to the humanitarian crisis resulting from the increase in migration and Biden as its main articulator, meeting intensively with leaders and officials of the Northern Triangle countries to draft and implement the guidelines of the Alliance, policies that were announced as part of a regional security plan but that also meant a significant financial investment in countries of the Mesoamerican region.

In other words, the securitization of migration in the Central American region will continue to be presented as an urgent and necessary reaction to the threat to national security posed by the massive exodus of migrants, but which in essence justifies a significant economic investment, both abroad and in U.S. territory, which translates into benefits for those in power in the nation of the American dream.

For this reason, the discourse of criminalization of migrants will surely be maintained in order to continue legitimizing a reaction “with the same force and proportionally opposed” in terms of security, albeit with very high financial and economic implications for the U.S. government of the day.

Frontex and violations of migrants’ human rights

Posted on

Frontex is the enforcement arm of EU migration policy, and is responsible for coordinating, promoting or executing clearly illegal actions of force

Introduction

In recent months, Frontex has come under increasing criticism due to its responsibilities and links to human rights violations against migrants heading towards the European Union. However, it is possible that the seriousness of the matter is not perceived by the public, despite the denunciations of civil society organizations and even UN agencies.

Unfortunately, it is possible that Frontex’s actions, far from being a deviation from its mandate, clearly respond to European Union policy, especially in the context of the rise of extreme right-wing movements with access to spaces of power, as well as with the consolidation of an Islamophobic vision derived from the 2015 refugee crisis and the terrorist attacks perpetrated on European soil in recent years.

In the following, a brief reference will be made to Frontex, as well as to the Schengen Treaty on which it is based. We will then go on to briefly review the performance of Frontex over the last few months, in line with the complaints that have been made public in the press. Finally, we will give an account of the reaction of the European institutions to the criticisms received.

¿What is Frontex?

It is the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, which was created in 2004 and reformed only in 2016, in order to extend its functions to surveillance and rescue tasks with its own personnel. It is made up of the various security bodies of the Schengen Treaty member nations with border control responsibilities, in addition to its own personnel and equipment. Among its tasks is the collection and sending of information to the security forces of member countries, analysis of vulnerabilities of the external borders with special emphasis on the risks of terrorism and cross-border crime, among others [1].

In turn, the Schengen Treaty is the legal instrument that allows many European countries to share border control procedures. Although the Schengen Treaty dates back to 1985, it was not until March 1993 that it came into force for the first group of countries, including Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, France, Italy and Spain [1].

The text of this treaty establishes the concepts of internal and external borders. Thus, internal borders are those shared by two-member countries of the treaty, as well as airports and ports, provided that the points of origin and destination of travel are within the territories of the member countries. External borders are defined by corollary, so that we are talking about the boundaries between member countries and non-member countries [1].

This imposes a substantive change in the traditional conception of borders, which has enormous consequences from the administrative point of view. From then on, the member states of the Schengen Treaty will reorganize the control and surveillance of their borders, as well as everything related to the granting of visas, with a single codification, the creation of a list of inadmissible persons, among others [1].

Likewise, the member countries ceased to carry out surveillance and control tasks on their common borders, while concentrating personnel and resources on greater control of their external borders. Thus, instead of devoting efforts to controlling the border between France and Spain, or between Germany and the Netherlands, the focus was on the Mediterranean basin, the Balkans or Eastern Europe.

In principle, neither the Schengen Treaty nor Frontex should pose any human rights problems, except for the fact that the control and surveillance of external borders have been based exclusively on a conception centered on security, on the prevention of terrorism and transnational crime, as well as on a markedly racist and aporophobic vision, while considerations of people’s rights to seek asylum or refuge, and even to be treated in accordance with the law, have been relegated to the background.

 Over the last five years, and as a consequence of the reform, Frontex has evolved from a coordination mechanism between police forces to a multinational security force in its own right, with its own identity, which has not gone unnoticed by those committed to the protection of human rights [2].

A report by the Pro Causa Foundation reported in June that Frontex went from having 50 employees and 6 million euros in budget in 2005 to becoming the decentralized EU agency with the most staff and the largest budget in the European Union, with a total of 1,200 employees and the management of 460 million euros. The Foundation complains that Frontex “seems to have taken on a life of its own, acting without transparency or control, taking over executive functions from member states and turning the securitization of migration into a self-fulfilling prophecy,” and adds that the agency has embarked on recruiting, deploying and equipping (including weapons) 10,000 border guards [3].

¿What is the problem with Frontex?

Frontex is the enforcement arm of EU migration policy, and is responsible for coordinating, promoting or executing clearly illegal actions of force against irregular migrants trying to enter European territory.

According to the Abolition of Frontex network, an estimated 45,000 people have died between 1993 and 2021 due, directly or indirectly, to the actions of this agency, as well as associated law enforcement agencies in each member country [4], which can be broken down as follows:

• People drowned in the Mediterranean Sea or in the Aegean due to a combination of factors such as the use of unsuitable vessels, the refusal to provide support or coordinate rescue actions at sea, the obstacles encountered by nongovernmental rescue organizations and hot returns. The estimates do not consider the so-called invisibles sinking’s, which are not reported.

• The suicides that many people commit due to the desperate situations in which they find themselves as a result of refoulement in highly vulnerable conditions and internment in detention centers.

• People killed as a result of shooting at the external borders. This estimate does not include those people who could have been killed by shots fired by the Libyan coast guard, a country that has agreements for migration control with the European Union, in exchange for money [5] [6]. In 2020, due to the situation generated by the pandemic, the number of asylum applications in EU countries fell to 2013 levels, before the refugee crisis resulting from the war in Syria. However, the flow of migrants through the Balkans increased, due to the large number of people being held beyond the external borders. The enormous difficulties for the transit of these migrants, as well as the appalling conditions in which they survive, are nothing but the consequences of an iron control device installed by countries such as Hungary and Croatia on their respective borders with Serbia, among other cases, all with the support of Frontex [7].

The non-governmental organization Save the Children recently denounced that Croatian police are involved in the use of violence against migrant minors, as well as in the murder of at least one of them, in transit to the European Union, which is particularly serious [8].

Even more serious are reports of forcible returns by Greek border authorities at Evros, the land border between Turkey and Greece. According to an Amnesty International report, hundreds of people have been forcibly returned between June and December 2020. It is known that there is a strong Frontex presence in this area which supports the Greek authorities in some way [9].

In addition, the Greek authorities are also accused by the Turkish government of preventing boats with migrants from reaching their shores, leaving them adrift and in danger of sinking. On occasion, the Greek coast guard has disabled boats to prevent their movement, leaving people to their fate [10].

These unlawful actions have attracted the attention of multilateral organizations. Recently, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, pointed out that certain actions were undermining Europe’s reputation, referring to the illegal and indiscriminate refoulement of migrants at the Union’s external borders [11].

¿What is the EU doing in relation to Frontex?

However, in view of this situation, it is worth questioning the EU’s plans in relation to migration. Far from taking note of reports of human rights violations against migrants, and taking measures to ensure their protection, there have been certain restrictions on the movement of people at internal borders, given the increase in the number of asylum seekers since 2015, which compromises the economic functioning of the Union. Due to this situation, there are plans to strengthen the external borders through Frontex with a state-of-the-art digital entry and exit system, as well as more cooperation between police and national security agencies, all aimed at increasing confidence in each member country that the others are ensuring common security in the face of threats such as terrorism and transnational crime [12].

Technology seems to be the most relevant change that will be experienced in relation to external borders in the coming years. Currently, at the border between Greece and Turkey, as well as in countries such as Latvia and Hungary, a security network is being tested with long-range cameras and night vision, as well as different sensors whose information will be analyzed through artificial intelligence to detect movement of people on land, or boats at sea. Likewise, lie detectors with artificial intelligence, automated border interview systems, integration of satellite images with images taken by drones on land, in the air and under the sea, as well as biometric readers that register the pattern of the veins in people’s hands for their correct identification have been tested. This is a set of projects for which the EU has invested more than 3 billion euros in research into security technologies that will make it increasingly difficult for asylum seekers to reach safety [13].

On the positive news side for migrants. The European Commission launched a program called “Partnerships for Talent”, through which it seeks to address the shortage of skilled labor to boost innovation [13]. Unfortunately, those we have been talking about are precisely the poor and low-skilled migrants, victims of human rights violations by Frontex, and who are likely to continue to receive the same treatment as they have to date.

Endnote

The future of Frontex’s performance does not give cause for optimism. There is no indication that the EU is reviewing in depth the allegations against Frontex in relation to the violation of human rights of migrants. On the contrary, a reinforcement of the agency’s capacities to effectively prevent irregular migration is announced, as well as the practical impossibility to apply for asylum in the EU.

Greater technological sophistication for the detection of irregular migrants will not prevent them from continuing to try to reach European territory, but the ways of gaining access will certainly be much costlier, and above all much more dangerous for the personal integrity and lives of people, including women and children under 18 years of age.

So, unfortunately, we will continue to see the consequences of a policy focused on security within borders, as well as the dehumanization of migrants and refugees from Africa and Asia.

Due to this situation, at Argos we advocate for a profound change in the European Union’s migration policy, and we join the campaign promoted by the Abolish Frontex Network, as well as many other organizations in solidarity with migrants and refugees around the world.

References

[1] http://www.interior.gob.es/web/servicios-al-ciudadano/ normativa/acuerdos-y-convenios/acuerdo-de-adhesion-deespana-de-25-de-junio-de-1

[2] https://apnews.com/article/noticias-b180ecee22689d0 6b7630014694f2b78

[3] https://www.eldia.es/canarias/2021/06/17/canarias-siguelampedusa-limbo-migrantes-53671814.html

[4] https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/eu-affairs/ngoslaunch-campaign-for-abolition-of-eu-

 [5] https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/crisis-migratoriamediterr%C3%A1neo_fiscal%C3%ADa-italiana-investigadisparos-de-guardia-costera-libia-a-migrantes/46757378

[6] https://apnews.com/article/8ea6dbded43d36efe61ed9 ececbcb84b

[7] https://elpais.com/internacional/2021-06-29/lassolicitudes-de-asilo-en-la-ue-se-desploman-a-niveles-de-2013. html

[8] https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/europamigraci%C3%B3n_save-the-children–cientos-deni%C3%B1os-sufren-violencia-en-fronteras-deeuropa/46712178

[9] https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/grecia-refugiados_aidenuncia-a-grecia-por-las-sistem%C3%A1ticas-devolucionesilegales-de-migrantes/46727382

[10] https://www.europapress.es/internacional/noticiaturquia-rescata-cien-migrantes-frente-costas-maregeo-20210622153049.html

[11] https://www.nacion.com/cables/acnur-pide-a-paiseseuropeos-que-cesen-devolucion/2RPEPAQJTBA7DPREJS AGI5KAJA/story/

[12] https://www.diariolasamericas.com/mundo/ union-europea-planea-reformar-zona-cruces-libresfronteras-n4224334

[13] https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/ue-migraci%C3%B3n_lace-lanza-una-iniciativa-para-atraer-migraci%C3%B3n-laboralcualificada-a-la-ue/46697732

Death and profit in U.S. immigration detention | By Adrienne Pine

Posted on

Paper Presented at the Side Event “Human Rights Situation in USA: Immigration Detention Centers,” 47th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council. July 2, 2021

Paper Presented at the Side Event “Human Rights Situation in USA: Immigration Detention Centers,” 47th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council. July 2, 2021

Continue reading “Death and profit in U.S. immigration detention | By Adrienne Pine”

Darien: Latin America’s most critical and forgotten migratory zone

Posted on

Because of its dangers, mysteries and stories, it is considered an emblematic place on the route of migrants from all over the world

Draws attention the invisibility of migratory phenomena that, due to their dimensions and impact, it should occupy a prominent place not only in public opinion but also in the agendas of States and international organizations.

A clear example of this is the dramatic situation in the so-called “Forgotten Border” between Panama and Colombia, a winding line 266 kilometers long, located in a wild and inhospitable area, which leaves at the mercy of the dangers of the jungle, organized crime and drug cartels to thousands of migrants attempting to cross this dangerous sector on their way to the United States.

It is the so-called Darien Gap, an area almost inaccessible due to its extremely dense jungle that interrupts the extensive Pan-American Highway and separates Central America from the southern region of the American continent. Because of its dangers, mysteries and stories, it is considered an emblematic place on the route of migrants from all over the world, mostly Haitians, Africans and Cubans, in their desperate search to reach the “American dream”.

It is known as “El Tapón” because it is a jungle block of 5,750 square kilometers, located between the Panamanian province that gives it its name and the Department of Chocó in northern Colombia, which can only be crossed by air or water and serves as a natural barrier between the two nations. In addition, the area is known worldwide as “the most dangerous jungle in the world”.

The area is so rugged that it could only be traveled in its entirety by road, between 1959 and 1960, in an expedition formed by the British Richard Bevir and the Australian Terrence Whitfield, aboard a rustic European-made van. However, the vehicle could only make part of the journey, as they had to use improvised bridges and boat transfers to complete the trip, which took almost five months and ended on May 13,1960. Bevir and Whitfield achieved what was impossible for the first Spanish explorers who arrived in the area in 1510, precisely because of the dense vegetation and dangerous fauna, threats that even today loom over the hundreds of migrants who cross El Tapón every day to continue on to the United States.

In recent years, the Darien Gap has begun to be talked about a little more, not only because of its multiple dangers, ranging, as has been noted, from ferocious jungle animals, highly violent plagues, the impassable nature of its topography, to its risks as an area of drug trafficking and organized crime, but also because of the high rates of human mobility in the midst of the global pandemic and the number of children who undertake the dangerous journey, often unaccompanied, between winding waters, swampy areas and jungle forest, in a journey that today can be done in a period of seven to ten days. It may not seem long, but according to testimonies it is a traumatic experience.

In fact, in the latest report on Extra-regional Migration in South America and Mesoamerica: Profiles, Experiences and Needs[1], published by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) in April 2020, the organization recommends improving psychosocial care after crossing the jungle border, since “the migrant population, after crossing the Darien Gap, presented conditions of vulnerability, deterioration and psychological affectation, in addition to the loss of their economic resources for the trip”.

The same report states that this rugged point between the border of Colombia and Panama was identified by migrants as the most risky place for their journey due to geographical and climatic conditions, as well as the presence of organized crime networks. “Likewise, there is a worrying increase in the number of minors under 18 years of age at this crossing point,” the text reads.

According to data[2] from the United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef), in 2019, nearly 24,000 migrants of more than 50 nationalities, from countries as far away as India, Somalia, Cameroon, Congo and Bangladesh, crossed the Darien Gap on foot. Of these, 16% were children, mostly under the age of six.

For Unicef, the most worrying factor was to identify that the number of children migrating through this route increased sevenfold in one year, from 522 children in 2018 to 3,956 in 2019. There were also 411 pregnant women and 65 unaccompanied children reported. From January to March 2020, Panama’s National Migration Service recorded the entry of 4,465 people, of which 1,107 were under 18 years of age.

“The number of children of Chilean (411) and Brazilian (192) nationalities is significant. The closing of borders in Central America as a result of COVID-19 left 2,522 extra-continental persons in migratory transit through Panama confined in the Migratory Reception Stations (ERM), of which 27% are children and adolescents, including four unaccompanied adolescents”, states a report[3] by the Unicef Office in Panama, published in April 2020.

But the plight of the migrants and the minors accompanying them does not end when they cross the jungle and circumvent its dangers. It is no coincidence that Unicef uses the term “confinement” to identify the state of the more than 2,500 migrants who occupy the facilities of the Panamanian ERM. In these facilities of the National Border Service (Senafront), specifically in Puerto Peñita, the migrants are held while migration authorities coordinate with their Costa Rican counterparts the resumption of their transit through both countries. At that checkpoint, they participate in interviews, fingerprinting and other biometric records, which takes up to a week, although some people report that they have been waiting for a month and without the possibility of leaving in sight, due to the large number of requests and the fact that Panamanian and Costa Rican authorities agreed on a limited number of daily authorizations, according to reports received by the IOM.

The task is also made difficult by language barriers. According to official data from Panama’s National Migration Service, 57% of the migrant population in transit is of Haitian origin, many of them fleeing the economic and political situation in their country. The rest (43%) come from Africa (22%) and Asia (17%), with the remaining 4% coming from South America, which makes it difficult to attend to those in transit.

The IOM reports in the aforementioned report[4] that “the lack of information on the origin of the migrants and the language barrier were obstacles to personalized assistance to the groups by the authorities. In addition, they pointed out that the centers were conglomerating people from very different cultural and educational backgrounds, and that in some cases this generated conflicts among migrants, since many of them preferred to be grouped with people of the same nationality.

The origins are so varied that according to a report[5] in the Spanish newspaper El País, “in Bajo Chiquito, the Emberá indigenous community that is the first contact with something resembling civilization after days of trekking through the jungle, the Senafront post has a blackboard where he points out the different nationalities that appear: Congo, Bangladesh, India, Cameroon, Nepal, Angola, Pakistan, Burkina Faso, Sri Lanka, Eritrea, Guinea, Ghana, Sierra Leone…”. These citizens, as well as Haitians, use countries such as Ecuador to enter the American continent to then embark on their journey to the United States or Canada.

Crime and death in the jungle

In addition to the dangers of the jungle and the intense transit of migrants from all over the world in the area, as mentioned above, there is also the risk posed by organized crime operating in the Darien Gap region.

According to the IOM, in addition to reported vulnerability, due to language difficulties, access to information and medical services, migrants have lost money, identity and travel documents due to theft during their journey through the jungle. “The loss of these documents implied difficulties in accessing financial services, as it is usually a requirement to receive money. According to the people interviewed, this forced them to take various measures to access the money sent by their relatives or friends, such as requesting that private individuals carry out the transaction, and this increased their risk of suffering fraud,” the IOM report states.

Added to this are the dangers of criminal violence by criminals involved in human trafficking, such as sexual abuse against migrant women and the disappearance of migrants, statistics that are difficult to calculate since there are data on the arrival of foreigners in Panama, but not on the number who enter the jungle to cross the border.

Likewise, crime in the Darien region has increased in the last decade at the hands of drug cartels, which began to use this rugged route due to intensified surveillance in other previously used corridors and as a remnant of Colombian mafias that have concentrated on other forms of transportation.

“The drug traffickers come here. They offer considerable sums of money to our young people to work,” Trino Quintana, head of the Emberá ethnic group, which inhabits an area located in the Yaviza region and the northern part of the Darién Gap, a semi-autonomous indigenous territory, told the BBC[6] in 2014.

Abandonment by the authorities and solidarity

With the headline “Darien: border crossing that continues to cause the death of migrants”, in June 2021, the newspaper La Estrella de Panama reported the latest deaths of migrants registered between April and May of this year, due to the dangerous conditions of the jungle.

On May 30, 2021, three victims were found by Senafront on the banks of the Marraganti River, in the Emberá Wounaan comarca (Panama). In April, another four bodies were found in the Turquesa River, between the Wargandi and Wounann comarcas, in the jungle region of Darien. All the victims, according to the authorities, had perished by immersion. However, it is not possible to calculate, as mentioned, the disappearances due to criminal violence and diseases caused by the precarious climate of the region.

According to the IOM, 20% of those interviewed on the Panamanian side reported having suffered hunger and thirst during the crossing and 77% indicated that their children suffered from some health condition during the journey, mainly gastrointestinal infections, skin rashes and fever.

In short, the multiple failures in the attention given to extraterritorial migrants on the Colombian-Panamanian border, together with the extremely high risks of the Darien jungle and the threats of organized crime, make this group of migrants a highly vulnerable sector, which continues to experience a dangerous media silence or, at least, a timid news treatment, in favor of other issues that are beneficial to impose more radical migration policies or for the frantic search for funding in other areas of migration management such as securitization and border surveillance.

“And no one is helping them. They are overcharged, mistreated; they sleep in the streets and go hand in hand with coyotes linked to armed groups. However, here there is no sign of humanitarian organizations or the State,” concludes a report by[7] BBC Mundo on the migrants trying to cross the “most dangerous jungle in the world”: the Darien Gap.

Massive repatriation of Venezuelan migrants from Trinidad via Plan Vuelta a la Patria

Posted on

The voyage was the first “Plan Vuelta a la Patria” trip to be made by sea since the repatriation program began in 2018

On Sunday, July 18, the largest trip of Venezuelan repatriates took place since the beginning of the Venezuelan Government’s Plan Vuelta a la Patria (Return to the Homeland) program. A total of 700 people who for various reasons had been displaced to the neighboring islands of Trinidad and Tobago decided to return voluntarily, in a trip organized for this purpose in the vessel “Paraguaná”.

It was also the first trip of the program to be made by sea since the beginning of “Vuelta a la Patria”, a program for the return of Venezuelan people to their country initiated on August 27, 2018, since the rest of the trips of this type had been made by air and land. To date, 149 flights have been carried out.

The group of 700 Venezuelans, registered and registered of their own free will to return, represents 5.3 percent of the total number of Venezuelans still living in Trinidad and Tobago. Prior to this act of repatriation by sea, there had been a Return to the Homeland flight from Trinidad, in which 96 Venezuelan nationals traveled.

The registration process continues, so that the number of Venezuelan nationals willing to return to their country of origin will increase in the coming months. The number of Venezuelans in Trinidad is approximately 11,800.

It will be easier and easier to return

Ricardo Sanchez, Minister Counselor and head of the Venezuelan consular section in Trinidad and Tobago, was part of the official delegation that organized the voluminous trip, which included entire families, single individuals and people in different socioeconomic situations.

When asked about the process to be followed by the citizens who wish to return, he revealed that it is a very simple and transparent procedure: “The persons concerned express their wish to return by sending an e-mail or using the telephone numbers provided for that purpose. Subsequently, they are summoned to our embassy headquarters to fill out some forms, a file is opened for each one and the waiting period begins, until we have the date of the next trip”.

He also commented that, in view of the fact that Trinidad has announced the opening of its borders, it is probable that those interested will have at their disposal quick, simple and inexpensive options for their return, since the eventual normalization of flights and shipping activity between the countries is foreseeable.

The pandemic situation had encouraged human smuggling networks, and this would also be more controllable in a normalization scenario.

Officials of the Consular Relations Office of the Venezuelan Ministry of Foreign Affairs revealed that, with this contingent of 700 people repatriated, Vuelta a la Patria now totals more than 26,000 people brought back to their homeland in almost three years of operation (as of July 2, date of the last flight, 25,705 people had returned to their homeland).

Of the Venezuelans who were part of this group of 700, more than half are inhabitants of eastern states.

The National Institute of Aquatic Spaces participated in the repatriation operation.

Migration in the Americas: economics and neocolonial practices as drivers of this phenomenon

Posted on

Neoliberal measures and interference strategies condemn millions of people in the American continent to poverty and exclusion.

Deliberately promoted policies, mainly in the economic sphere, and neocolonial practices are, among others, the main causes of migration in the Americas, especially in countries such as Venezuela and Colombia, which have experienced a continuous migratory flow in both directions of the border shared by the two countries.

Academics and specialists agreed on this argument during the development of the webinar “Migratory Flows in the Americas: Structural Causes and Challenges”, an event parallel to the 47th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council and co-organized by ARGOS – International Observatory on Migration and Human Rights; the American Association of Jurists (AAJ) and the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL).

Micòl Savia, permanent representative of IADL to the UN in Geneva and ARGOS researcher, explained in her introductory remarks that neoliberal measures and interference strategies condemn millions of people in the American continent to poverty and exclusion.

The jurist suggested that in order to rigorously address the issue of migration, the structural causes that force hundreds of thousands of people to leave their homes and risk their lives in search of new opportunities must be identified, analyzed and denounced.

“The structural causes of migration and forced displacement are too often neglected,” she emphasized.

Armed conflict and Colombian migration

In the case of Colombia, the migration phenomenon is intrinsically related to the historical armed conflict and the implementation of military security plans, such as the so-called Plan Colombia, according to the analysis of Giovanni Libreros, a researcher at Colombia’s Center for Thought and Political Dialogue.

Starting in the 1990s, the escalation of this conflict led to a significant wave of migration of Colombian citizens to Venezuela, said Libreros.

However, he pointed out that the continuous and “two-way” flow of Colombian-Venezuelan migration for economic reasons, the Colombian conflict and Latin American geopolitical interests has been present since 1950.

Citing figures from state bodies and international agencies, Libreros stated that Colombian migration has been directed mainly towards Venezuela (33.23%), followed by the United States (27.82%) and Spain (12.82).

“Venezuela continues to be the first country of reception of Colombian emigrants […] The migration of Venezuelans to Colombia does not compare with the migration from Colombia to Venezuela. Although the current numbers of Venezuelans who have migrated to Colombia are high, if we look in historical terms, Venezuela has been a receiving country of Colombian migration”, he expanded.

A recent phenomenon

Venezuela has historically been a recipient country of migrants; however, the oil country has experienced in recent years an atypical migratory phenomenon, mainly to countries such as Colombia, Peru and Ecuador. 

From Caracas, Giordana García, researcher of the Non-Governmental Organization Sures, argued that the Venezuelan migration is a migration induced by the current economic crisis in the country, derived from the application of a scheme of unilateral coercive measures.

“It is not political, so it is far from being a refugee crisis,” she emphasized.

The researcher denounced that, to date, more than 100 formal unilateral coercive measures and another 300 informal ones have been applied to Venezuela. Likewise, she denounced the confiscation of assets abroad and the blocking of more than 7 billion dollars of the Venezuelan State in international banks.

Last February, at the conclusion of a visit to Venezuela, the UN Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, Alena Douhan, denounced the “devastating effect” of these measures on the Venezuelan population.

The UN expert noted that the sanctions have exacerbated the Venezuelan economic situation, and their application would have limited the country’s income by 99%. Among other consequences, this situation has led to an increase in the number of Venezuelan migrants.

According to Giordana García, Venezuelan migration is also induced through an activist discourse with political purposes and economic objectives.

In this sense, the Sures researcher questioned the figures of international agencies -and studies that lack objectivity- regarding this phenomenon.

Biden continues Trump’s policies

In North America, President Joe Biden’s administration is continuing some of the “worst policies” of his predecessor Donald Trump, specifically Title 42, according to the assessment of Marjorie Cohn, professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law.

Since Trump implemented Title 42 in March 2020, more than 630,000 people have been expelled from the United States, 240,000 of them during the Biden administration, she said.

The U.S. professor also questioned the White House’s criteria for granting Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

“Venezuela was designated for TPS before Haiti, when this country has worse conditions and this is due to the fact that the U.S. government opposes the Venezuelan government, but supports the Haitian government”, she added.

At the closing of the webinar, Taroa Zúñiga, ARGOS researcher in Chile, denounced the racist and classist bias in the migration policy of the southern nation, which has been evidenced in the recent expulsions of Venezuelan migrants.

Title 42: A lingering threat to migrants trying to enter the USA

Posted on

Between October 2020 and April 2021, more than half a million people, specifically 536,793 migrants, have been removed under Title 42

To the multiple and diverse threats that permanently hover over the thousands of migrants who try to cross the dangerous border between Mexico and the United States on a daily basis, for a little over a year now, one more has been added, which also encourages or favors both the abuses of the US government and the reprehensible actions of organized crime that revolve around the phenomenon of human mobility in the region. This is the application of the little-known health provision known as “Title 42”, which was strategically invoked in March 2020 by the Republican administration of Donald Trump and which, erroneously, it was thought would be annulled with the arrival of the Democratic administration of Joe Biden. Sadly, that has not happened.

According to the US migrant relief organization American Immigration Council[1], despite the existence of the historic right to seek asylum for people arriving at the southern border from Mexico, this fundamental right was abruptly suspended as of 20 March 2020.

In a document released[2] on the one-year anniversary of the implementation of the much-criticized measure and in the absence of rectification by the Biden administration, the American Immigration Council explained that migrants attempting to enter the United States, as well as those seeking asylum, have been systematically rejected and expelled back to Mexico or their countries of origin under an ancient and little-known provision of the 1944 Health Care Act, Section 265 of Title 42, which Trump invoked to achieve his long-desired goal: closing the border.

“With this provision, hundreds of thousands of people have been expelled since the beginning of the pandemic, even though ports of entry remain open with nearly nine million people crossing the southern border in December 2020 and thousands of people flying into the US every day,” the organization denounces in the document.

This situation, which threatens the flow and lives of migrants attempting to enter the US, began on 20 March 2020 when the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), under the guise of a global COVID-19 emergency, issued an emergency regulation to regulate the flow of migrants. This situation, which threatens the flow and lives of migrants attempting to enter the US, began on 20 March 2020 when the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), under the guise of the global emergency over COVID-19, issued an emergency regulation[1] to activate a specific aspect of the US Health Act. According to the legislation invoked, section 265 of Title 42 authorizes the directors of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to prevent the entry into the United States of persons when it suspects “a serious danger of introduction of a communicable disease into the United States”.

The provision allows any border official, including Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers and Border Patrol agents, to enforce the order given to the CDC, i.e. to act in their discretion and prevent entry into the US on suspicion of being a COVID-19 carrier, of persons from any country who are attempting to enter via Canada or Mexico and who would normally “be introduced in a congregate environment” at a port of entry or port of entry or border patrol agent. This affects persons from any country attempting to enter the US via Canada or Mexico who would normally “be brought into a congregate environment” at a port of entry or Border Patrol station on suspicion of carrying COVID-19. This affects persons who are regularly detained after arriving at the border, including asylum seekers, unaccompanied children, and persons attempting to enter the country without inspection.

According to statistics from the US Bureau of Customs and Border Protection[2], between October 2020 and April 2021, more than half a million people, specifically 536,793 migrants, have been removed under Title 42 at the southern border alone. Between October 2020 and April 2021, more than half a million people, specifically 536,793 migrants, have been removed under Title 42 at the southern border alone.

Source: USBureau of Customs and Border Protection.[1]

From the very moment of the activation of Title 42 of the US Health Care Act, the measure was labelled as a political action and not a health measure. The measure was described as a political action rather than a health measure. Despite the claim that the order was necessary to “protect the United States from a public health problem”, a year after its implementation, the American Immigration Council denounced that public statements, denunciations, press reports and scientific reports showed that the origin of this measure came from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the White House.

Nevertheless, the measure was upheld. In March 2020, then-Republican Vice President Mike Pence ordered the Agency for Disease Control to “use its emergency powers to effectively seal the borders of the United States”, in order to override the publicly expressed opinion of some scientists at the agency who said there was no evidence that the action would stop the coronavirus, according to an AP report[1] released in October last year that revealed the Trump administration’s moves to maintain the measure despite scientific criticism.

What is difficult to understand, both for Americans and the international community, is that despite the criticisms made by the Democratic Party in 2020, the election promises made before the November 2020 elections and the first statements upon taking office in January 2021, the Democratic administration of Joe Biden has shown no change to the policy imposed by Trump.

Although in May 2021 the Biden-Harris administration announced a radical increase in the annual quota for granting refugee status to 62,500 people, which was kept by Trump at 15,000, for the independent news organization Truthout[1], such a move “does not change the other massive structural ways in which the Biden-Harris administration continues to perpetuate the crisis at the border”.

In an article[2] by US academic MarjorieCohn[3], spokespersons describe what is happening at the border as a genuine humanitarian and human rights crisis. “There is no crisis at the border caused by migrants. There is a humanitarian and human rights crisis because the US government has effectively closed the border to asylum seekers and has not allowed them to apply for asylum since March 2020,” said Nicole Phillips, legal director of the Haitian Bridge Alliance[4], an NGO that provides assistance to Haitian immigrants in California.

According to Truthout, the Biden-Harris Administration’s continued implementation of the Title 42 measure continues to cause family separations and threaten the lives of children, adolescents and adults, as documented in an April 2021 report published by migration NGOs Human Rights First, Haitian Bridge Alliance and Al Otro Lado. According to the document, the measure drives families to send their children across the border to protect them from kidnapping, sexual assault and other forms of violence.

It is clear that this measure makes migrants “easy targets” for kidnappers and others when they are returned to Mexico. This was denounced by the Los Angeles Times in an article published[1] last April based on testimonies.

For its part, HumanRightsFirst[2], citing Truthout, identified at least 492 reports of violent attacks since 21 January 2021, including kidnappings, rapes and assaults on people stranded at the border or expelled into Mexico.

In addition to the obvious dangers caused by organized crime surrounding migration south of the US border, which has intensified with the implementation of Title 42, there has also been an increase in the mistreatment of migrants by the US authorities. In addition to violent arrests, arbitrary detentions and deportations without the right to apply for asylum, there is poor humanitarian care.

According to the Human Rights First report cited by Truthout, people who are not sent to Mexico and who are detained by the Border Patrol suffer multiple abuses, are denied emergency medical care, have their belongings stolen, and their deportations are carried out at night to dangerous border cities.

In conclusion, non-governmental organizations, multilateral agencies and the international community at large expect an immediate rectification by the Biden administration on US southern immigration policy and specifically on the application of Title 42, which experts say violates the Immigration and Nationality Act as well as the Refugee Convention, which grant non-citizens the right to asylum if they can demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. It also violates the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which contains a non-refoulement provision.

Finally, it contravenes the provision of the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), which has repeatedly stated that, during the pandemic, asylum seekers and refugees should not be expelled in border areas without an individualized analysis of their protection needs, as this violates international law.

Descarga

Deaths in the Mediterranean: among the violence of war, the danger of the sea and the neglect of the authorities

Posted on

Between January and May 2021, the arrival of migrants from North Africa to Europe has increased by 170 %

To speak of human mobility is to speak of stories of change, transformation, flight, rescue, encounters and misencounters. Likewise, to approach the information generated on the permanent migratory flows around the planet is to come across statistics that move the soul, trigger alarms and reveal a stark reality: the death of hundreds of migrants in their attempt to find a new life.

Continue reading “Deaths in the Mediterranean: among the violence of war, the danger of the sea and the neglect of the authorities”

Cause and Effect: The Arrival of Venezuelan Migrants to the U.S. via the Rio Grande River

Posted on

President Joe Biden’s Administration announced the TPS benefit for Venezuelan migrants shortly after the White House renewed the validity of the Executive Order signed by former President Barack Obama in 2015, according to which the situation in Venezuela constitutes “an unusual and extraordinary threat” to the national security of the United States.

A group of Venezuelan migrants, around 50 people including children, arrived in recent days in the United States after crossing the Rio Bravo, according to a video captured by the US news channel Fox News, which has been replicated by other international media and agencies.

Continue reading “Cause and Effect: The Arrival of Venezuelan Migrants to the U.S. via the Rio Grande River”

Secretary of the Committee for the Defense of Human Rights in Colombia assures that the Government has failed to comply with the Peace Agreement

Posted on

Since 2016, armed violence against women, children, peasants, social leaders and human rights defenders in Colombia has resumed.

In an interview granted to the International Observatory for Migration and Human Rights ARGOS, the executive secretary of the Permanent Committee for the Defense of Human Rights in Colombia, José Rubiel Vargas, asserted that the Government’s failure to implement the commitments assumed in the Peace Agreement, signed in November 2016, generated since that year a new wave of violence and systematic human rights violations throughout the country.

Continue reading “Secretary of the Committee for the Defense of Human Rights in Colombia assures that the Government has failed to comply with the Peace Agreement”