9 Amendments of Malin BJÖRK related to 2016/2047(BUD)
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Reiterates its belief that EU funding for reception and integration of migrants and asylum seekers should be substantially increased, as opposed to the priority which is given today to border control and other costly security measures, such as administrative detention, which have not shown their effectiveness and often contravene the rights of migrants; calls on the Commission to primarily allocate additional resources for earmarked specific actions to Member States that volunteer for actions geared towards reception and integration of migrants and asylum seekers, as proposed in the LIBE opinion for the 2016 Budget1a; _________________ 1a §1 of EP budget opinion 2016
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Recalls that the fair and transparent distribution of funding between the different objectives of the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund was a priority for Parliament during negotiations leading to the adoption of that fund; calls on the Commission accordingly to increase the number of budget lines under the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund to facilitate a better readability and transparency of how the financial resources allocated to the different objectives and thus to those budgetary lines will be spent; calls, in particular, on the Commission to separate expenditure on enhancing fair return strategies from expenditure on legal migration and promoting the effective integration of third-country nationals in all future draft budgets as proposed in the LIBE opinion for the 2015 Budget 1a _________________ 1a §12 of EP budget opinion 2015
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. SupportNotes the budget increase of the efficient JHA agencies involved with migration and security; requests the Commission to further justify the dramatic (+92%, EUR +73 million €)increase of the budget of EU-LISA for the Entry Exit System and the revision of Dublin legislation as well as to explain break-down of appropriations between EU- LISA budget and the ISF; notes that the Commission's impact assessment on the Smart Borders proposal has failed to demonstrate its cost-effectiveness, proportionality and practical feasibility and raises severe data protection concerns.
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Reiterates its call for specific funding to be allocated to tackle growing antisemitism, islamophobia, afrophobia and antiromism in Member States; calls in particular for the Union to support projects aiming at the empowerment of women and girls from the communities concerned, as proposed in the LIBE opinion for the 2016 Budget 1a. _________________ 1a §12 of EP budget opinion 2016
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 b (new)
Paragraph 6 b (new)
6 b. Believes that a coherent European response to search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean must be independent from border management and control missions, and designed as a stand-alone mission; Reiterates its call for a more long-term approach to search and rescue operations, necessary also through a new budget line for an EU Search and Rescue Fund as proposed in the LIBE opinion for the 2016 Budget 1a _________________ 1a §4 and §8 of EP budget opinion 2016
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 c (new)
Paragraph 6 c (new)
6 c. Calls for EU development funds and humanitarian aid not be linked to partner countries' capacity and/or willingness to collaborate in migration control e.g. through readmission clauses
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 d (new)
Paragraph 6 d (new)
6 d. Insists that projects that run against fundamental rights of migrants and give legitimacy to dictatorial regimes should not be supported.
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 e (new)
Paragraph 6 e (new)
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 f (new)
Paragraph 6 f (new)
6 f. Believes that civil society, including Non-Governmental Organisations, plays a significant role in safeguarding, promoting and implementing migrants' rights. Hence, such NGOs should be supported in playing their role as watchdogs and promoters of fundamental rights as direct service providers and innovators in developing new tools and building capacities of various stakeholders. Therefore, effective partnership principles for civil society organisations should be established, securing their involvement in preparation, planning, monitoring, implementation and evaluation of funding at both national and EU levels. Such principles should be mandatory.