8 Amendments of Roselyne LEFRANÇOIS related to 2008/2181(INI)
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Points out that, although the proposed system and alert information might help to deter third-country nationals (TCNs) from overstaying, as well as provide data and information on patterns,Is not convinced that the proposed system would deter third-country nationals (TCNs) from overstaying, and believes that, on the contrary, it could encourage those whose situation has become irregular to remain on EU territory for fear of being arrested at the border; stresses, in addition, that further contact with law enforcement is still necessary for the individual who overstays his or her period of admission to be apprehended, and therefore does not believe that the proposed system will put an end to the 'overstay' phenomenon as such;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3a (new)
Paragraph 3a (new)
3a. Recalls that the correct functioning of the entry/exit system will depend both materially and operationally on the success of the VIS and SIS; points out that these two instruments are not yet fully operational and that it has thus not yet been possible to evaluate them properly; stresses that in the case of the SIS the prior tests of the national systems have thus far yielded negative results, since many of the Member States are not yet ready in technical terms;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that, without a doubt and following the lessons learned in the US, it is more challenging to implement exit capability than entry, and in particular with regard to sea and land exit; has furthermore, following the same lessons learned, considerable concerns about the cost-effectiveness of such a system, since it requires major investment for results which so far do not appear to be of great usefulness for fighting either illegal immigration or crime;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Supports in principle the concept ofRecognises that should an entry/exit system be established, an RTP for TCNs, whether or not subject to visa requirements, and the possible use ofwould help speed up traveller flow and prevent congestion at entry and exit points; supports, in principle, the idea of using automated gates byfor EU citizens, since Community law as it stands does not allow the simplification of borders checks except in the case of TCNs residing in border areas;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6a (new)
Paragraph 6a (new)
6a. Is concerned that this programme could create a form of discrimination between travellers, especially if participation is made conditional on payment of a membership fee, as is the case in the US and the Netherlands;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 11
Paragraph 11
11. Finds it unacceptable that the Commission failed to consult either the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and, who had nonetheless expressed a number of concerns, or the Article 29 Working Party prior to the adoption of the Communication entitled 'Preparing the next steps in border management in the European Union'; requests the Commission, to do soherefore, to consult both in respect of any action under that Communication, as the proposed building blocks entail the processing of vast amounts of personal data;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16a (new)
Paragraph 16a (new)
16a. Deplores, furthermore, the notion of grounding the EU's border management policy in the idea that all travellers are potentially suspect and have to prove their good faith;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19a (new)
Paragraph 19a (new)
19a. Expresses doubts concerning the necessity and proportionality of the proposed measures, given their expensive nature and the potential risks they pose for data protection;