8 Amendments of Maria WALSH related to 2019/2208(INI)
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses the importance of ensuring compliance with return decisions and recalls the key principle enshrined in the directive that voluntary returns should be prioritised over forced returns as these return decisions are more sustainable in the long-term;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6a. Underlines that not every return decision is followed by swift return and readmission procedures due to practical and legal obstacles and notes with concern that this can cause serious strains, not only on the local facilities, but on the people involved;
Amendment 147 #
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, particularly in cases of non-refoulement involving vulnerable persons and groups; 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;
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Notes with concern 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 and urges Member States to consider reviewing this practise;
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
Paragraph 13
13. Stresses that entry bans have particularly disproportionate consequences for families and children; welcomes the option introduced by some Member States to exempt children from the imposition of an entry ban and encourages others to adopt similar policies, but stresses that children’s interests should also be a primary consideration when deciding on the entry ban of their parents;
Amendment 189 #
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 that clarification on this is needed to ensure grounds for detention are clearly defined; 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 209 #
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; applauds Member States who have introduced legislation clearly stating that detention is not justified if there is no reasonable prospect of removal;
Amendment 220 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Notes that a significant number of children are still detained in the European Union as part of return procedures, which constitutes a direct violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has clarified that children should never be detained for immigration purposes, and detention can never be justified as in a child’s best interests, particularly as it can have incredibly damaging effects on their mental health;