Activities of Christine REVAULT D'ALLONNES BONNEFOY related to 2015/2095(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
The situation in the Mediterranean and the need for a holistic EU approach to migration (A8-0066/2016 - Roberta Metsola, Kashetu Kyenge) FR
Amendments (16)
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. whereas safe and legal routes for refugees to access the EU are limited, and many continue to take the risk of embarking on dangerous routes; and whereas the creation of new safe and lawful routes for asylum seekers and refugees to enter the EU, building on existing legislation and practices, would allow first and foremost to save thousands of lives, while helping the EU and the Member States to have a better overview of the protection needs and of the inflow into the EU and to undermine the business model of the smugglers;
Amendment 462 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 22
Paragraph 22
22. Points out that, given the unprecedented flows of migrants that have reached and continue to reach the Union’s external borders, and the steady increase in the number of people asking for international protection, the Union needs a binding and mandatory legislative approach to resettlement, as set out in the Commission’s agenda for migration; recommends that, to have an impact, such an approach must provide for resettlement of a meaningful number of refugees, by fixing annual targets that should be flexible enough so as to be adaptable to the circumstances, with regard to the overall numbers of refugees seeking international protection in the Union;
Amendment 476 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 23
Paragraph 23
23. Underlines that there is a need for a permanent Union-wide resettlement programme, with mandatory participation by Member States, providing resettlement for a meaningful number of refugees, by fixing annual targets that should be flexible enough so as to be adaptable to the circumstances, having regard to the overall number of refugees seeking protection in the Union;
Amendment 505 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 26 a (new)
Paragraph 26 a (new)
26a. Considers that persons seeking international protection should be able to apply for a European humanitarian visa directly at any consulate or embassy of the Member States, and if granted, such a humanitarian visa would allow its holder to enter the territory of the Member State issuing the visa for the sole purpose to lodge therein an application for international protection; believes, therefore, that it is necessary to amend the Visa Code by including more specific common provisions on humanitarian visas;
Amendment 548 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30
Paragraph 30
30. Observes that the operation of the Dublin III Regulation10 has raised many questions linked to fairness and solidarity in the allocation of the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection; notes that the current system does not take into sufficient consideration the particular migratory pressurely important influx of refugees and migrants faced by Member States situated at the Union’s external borders; believes that the European Union needs to accept the on- going difficulties with the Dublin logic, and to develop options for solidarity both among its Member States and the migrants concerned; __________________ 10 Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person (recast) (OJ L 180, 29.6.2013, p. 31).
Amendment 551 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 30 a (new)
Paragraph 30 a (new)
30a. Stresses further that the premise for Dublin is outdated and based on a very different geo-political environment than the one faced today; Calls for an overhaul of the archaic Dublin System into a system which deals with the registration of asylum seekers separately from asylum claims, under the provisions granted by the Common European Asylum System; Highlights that the "irregular entry" criterion should no longer be taken into account to determine which Member State shall be responsible for the examination of an asylum claim, but that the responsibility for the examination of an asylum claim should be made through a centralised system in a way that ensures no Member State's reception capacities are disproportionately affected; calls for the allocation of technical and financial resources and support to Member States of first arrival in order to ensure the swift and effective registration of asylum seekers in full respect of fundamental human rights of refugees;
Amendment 599 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
Paragraph 35
35. Points out that one option for a fundamental overhaul of the Dublin system would be to establish a central collection of applications at Union level – viewing each asylum seeker as someone seeking asylum in the Union as a whole and not in an individual Member State – and to establish a central system for the allocation of responsibility for any persons seeking asylum in the Union; suggests that such a system could provide for certain relative thresholds per Member State, above which no further allocation of responsibility could be made until all other Member States have met their own thresholds, which could conceivably help in deterring secondary movements, as all Member States would be fully involved in the centralised system and no longer have individual responsibility for allocation of applicants to other Member States; believes that such a system could function on the basis of a number of Union ‘hotspots’ from where Union distribution should take place, and that it should be supervised by and placed under the authority of a fully-fledged European asylum agency (for example by reinforcing EASO); underlines that any new system for allocation of responsibility must incorporate the key concepts of family unity and the best interests of the child;
Amendment 788 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51
Paragraph 51
51. Suggests that any attempt by Member States to ‘push back’ migrants who have not been given the opportunity to present asylum claims runs contrary to Union and international law, which applies to the situations where migrants are judged guilty for having crossed a border in an irregular way, following summary trials, and are sent to prison subsequently, without even having the possibility to ask for asylum; and that the Commission should take appropriate action against any Member State that attempts such ‘push backs’;
Amendment 790 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 51 a (new)
Paragraph 51 a (new)
51 a. Raises the problem of administrative detention, often used in a systematic and abusive way by some Member states, while it should be a solution of last resort; underlines that the use of detention very often leads to violations of migrants and asylum seekers' fundamental rights, including minors; demands more transparency with respect to the current situation in detention centres (through a better access for civil society, journalists and parliamentarians); calls on the Member States to make a better and more systematic use of existing alternatives to detention;
Amendment 846 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 58
Paragraph 58
58. Recommends that EASO be developed, in the long term, into a principal coordinator of the CEAS with a view to guaranteeing common application of the rules of that system; reiterates that, as the CEAS becomes genuinely European, EASO needs to develop from a collection of experts from Member States into a fully- fledged Union agency, providing operational support to Member States and at the external borders, and monitoring the new European asylum system that would replace Dublin III; emphasises, in that regard, that it must be provided with the necessary funding and human resources in the short, medium and long term;
Amendment 864 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 60 a (new)
Paragraph 60 a (new)
60 a. Points out that Frontex's activities and operations should be better monitored through a genuine parliamentary control, more transparency, as well as a robust complaints mechanism to ensure protection of fundamental rights, including within the framework of the working arrangements concluded between the Agency and the competent authorities of third countries; underlines that serious consideration has to be given to Frontex's competences, by delimiting unequivocally the scope of its accountability (in relation to the Member States') and ensuring that it assumes its responsibilities with respect to human rights;
Amendment 973 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 76
Paragraph 76
76. Believes that such a revision is necessary and should consider introducing a systemhange the underlying philosophy of the current directive, meaning that victims of human trafficking should be able to receive a residence permit for protection and assistance, even if they can't cooperate with the competent authorities; believes then that a new system should be introduced allowing for victims of trafficking and criminal smuggling to come forward and aid in the effective prosecution of a trafficker or criminal smuggler without fear of being prosecuted themselves;
Amendment 1198 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 111
Paragraph 111
111. Takes the view that, in the long run, the Union will need to establish more general rules governing the entry and residence for those third-country nationals seeking employment in the Union to fill the gaps identified in the Union labour market; stresses that the EU should overcome the too restrictive and fragmented approach of its policies in terms of legal labour migrations;
Amendment 1202 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 111 a (new)
Paragraph 111 a (new)
111a. Encourages the development of international labour matching mechanisms, which would extend the current EU and Member States job intermediation mechanisms to third country nationals, so as to provide the latter with information about job vacancies in Europe, and the corresponding job intermediation services; believes, in that regard, that EURES, the European Job Mobility Portal, should be made available in third countries, or, alternatively, linked to the labour market information systems of public employment services in partner countries;
Amendment 1203 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 111 b (new)
Paragraph 111 b (new)
111b. Calls for the creation of a EU Job Search visa, within the framework of the legal migration package to be presented by the Commission, which would be a visa granted to specific categories of potential labour migrants for a certain period (six months) to look for a job in the whole European Union; underlines that this system could be modulated so as to apply it only to certain occupations or professions (depending on EU labour market needs), and that the beneficiary should leave EU territory, were he or she not to get a job offer or work period within the time given by the visa; suggests that another version of this system could be the development of an EU-wide traineeship for third-country nationals, either already living in the EU (such as foreign students) or not, which would grant them a temporary work permit for the period of traineeship plus some additional months in order to be able to look for a job; believes these mechanisms should be accompanied by comprehensive information campaigns in the countries of origin on the real opportunities to find employment and vocational training in the EU;
Amendment 1245 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 121 a (new)
Paragraph 121 a (new)
121a. Believes that the Blue Card should become a single permit allowing for free movement and the right of establishment within the EU labour market; underlines that access to the labour market of other Member States should be automatically granted for beneficiaries of the Blue Card, after a period of one year in the first job from which the Blue Card was granted (instead of the current two years), and that there should be no need for another administrative procedure to apply for it (as it is now);