26 Amendments of Charlie WEIMERS related to 2019/2208(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 6
Citation 6
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 22
Citation 22
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Citation 31 a (new)
Citation 31 a (new)
- having regard to the Australian migration model;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. Whereas migration to the Union has increased since the common European asylum system was launched;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Deplores the lack ofNotes that a recent implementation assessment and calls on the Commission tohas not been carryied out such an assessment, which has been overdue since 2017, as a matter of urgencyby the Commission;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Stresses that the Commission’s statement that the return rate decreased from 46 % in 2016 to 37 % in 2017 may not present the full picture, as people who received a return decision were not necessarily returned within the same year, some Member States issue more than one return decision to one person, or to people whose whereabouts are unknown, and return decisions are not withdrawn if the return does not take place owing to difficulties in cooperation with third countries or for humanitarian reasons;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses the importance of improving the effective implementation of the directive; highlights that such effectiveness should not only be measured in quantitative terms by referring to the return rate, but also in qualitative terms, such as the sustainability of returns and fundamental right and increase cooperation with third countries to ensure effective returns;
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the importance of ensuring compliance withof return decisions and recalls the key principle enshrined in the directive that voluntary returns should be prioritised over forced, including the need to ensure swift return procedures and substantially increase the rate of returns;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5 a (new)
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Stresses the need for further measures to be introduced concerning the forced return of persons and suggests that Member States should acquire more freedom to control suspected illegal migration for their status;
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Highlights that under Article 7 of the directive, a return decision shall provide for an appropriate period for voluntary departure, which Member States have to extend where necessary, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case; stresses that a relatively short period for voluntary departure may hinder or altogether prevent voluntary departure;
Amendment 110 #
7. Stresses that a broad definition of the risk of absconding may lead to, if there is a risk of absconding, if an application for a legal stay has been dismissed as manifestly unfounded or fraudulent or if the person concerned poses a risk to public policy, public security or national security, Member States frequentlmay refraining from granting a period for voluntary departure; recalls that lifting the voluntary departure period also leads to the imposition of an entry ban, which may further undermine voluntary departure, or may grant a period shorter than seven days;
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Notes that some Member States have regulations that cancel return decisions after a certain period of time and believes that such decisions undermine the objectives of the directive;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that return and entry-ban decisions on removal should be individualised, clearly justified with reasons in law and in fact, issued in writing, and complete with information about available remediesmay be implemented as provided for in national legislation;
Amendment 132 #
9. Highlights that the directive allows for the temporary suspension of the enforcement of a removal, pending a decision relating to return; underlines the importance of such suspensive effect in cases where there is a risk of refoulement; notes that in most countries, appeal against return is not automatically suspensive, which may diminish protection and increase administrative burde under certain conditions;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Notes with regret the limited use of Article 6(4) of the directive; is concerned about the failure of Member States to issue a temporary residence permit where return has proven not to be possible; underlines the fact that granting residence permits to individuals who cannot return to their country of origin could help to prevent protracted irregular stays and facilitate individuals’ social inclusion and contribution to society by Member States; believes it does not contribute to a long- term solution to illegal migration;
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Notes with regret that the use of Article 6(4) by some Member States leads to the granting of permanent residence permits, even in cases where the obstacle to a return is temporary;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes with concernWelcomes the widespread automatic imposition of entry bans, which in some Member States are enforced alongside voluntary departure; stresses that this approach risks reducing incentives to comply with a return decision;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Stresses that although the threat of imposition of an entry ban may serves as an effective incentive to leave a country within the time period of voluntary departure, once imposed, entry bans actually reduce the incentive to comply with a return decision and may increase the risk of absconding;
Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
Paragraph 14
14. Notes differences in the transposition into national legislations of the definition of the ‘risk of absconding’ and reiterates that Article 3(7) of the directive provides that the existence of such a risk should always be assessed on the basis of objective criteria defined by law;
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. Notes that the directive establishes that returnees may lawfully be detained where other less coercive measures cannot be applied; expresses regret that despite the obligation to apply detention as a measure of last resort, in practice, very few viable alternatives to detention are developed and applied by Member States; calls on Member States, as a matter of urgency, to offer viable community-based alternatives to detention;
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17 a (new)
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17a. Condemns the fact that thousands of migrants have posed as children even though they were adults, thereby unfairly invoking rights granted under the UN Convention on the rights of the Child;
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on Member States to ensure the proper implementation of the directive in all its aspectswhile fully respecting the transposition of the directive in each Member State; calls on the Commission to continue monitoring this implementation and take action in the event of non- compliance;
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Calls on Member States to ensure the proper implementation of the directive in all its aspects; calls on the Commission to continue monitoring this implementation and take action in the event of non- compliance;
Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19