it Is duty of Government to defend borders, and ir obligation to do so under law and respect for human rights. But in very argument that he has used Executive of Pedro Sanchez to justify expulsion of 116 immigrants just 24 hours after his jump at fence of Ceuta is huge weakness of his approach. The Government has alleged “aggression and violence” that employed immigrants to apply expeditiously an Agreement signed with Morocco in 1992 which had been used in very limited occasions.
The Agreement includes certainly possibility of readmission by Morocco of immigrants from third countries in ten days after its entry in certain circumstances: in identification, as y do not have visa or permit of stay, or wher y are refugees, or citizens of third countries who have border with Spain. At no time speaks of Agreement of a response action or retaliation against violence used, or or considerations that are in a State of law require evidence, legal procedures, and not quick value judgments. Justify that 116 have been expelled because Government is not going to consent to risks of aggression in its borders, as said yesterday vice-president Carmen Calvo, involves marking of those 116 people without trial, and remember sadly famous phrase of José María Aznar when, after ejecting handcuffed and in some cases drugged, 103 immigrants in five flights to Africa, in 1996, stated: “we Had a problem and we have solved”.
But re are or weaknesses, very serious actions taken by Government to expel 116 people of african origin. The European Convention on Human Rights explicitly prohibits “collective expulsions of aliens”, that is definition closest to what happened on Thursday. The Government did in addition in less than 24 hours, using a dozen legal aid lawyers who were mobilized to attend to 116 and that this Friday is raised to appeal against expulsions that y mselves were unaware that y were going to produce. The necessary guarantees of legal assistance and availability of translators were widely debatable.
The Agreement with Morocco can be legal and is in force, although it is questioned by organizations such as Amnesty International. But ir collective application, expeditiously, and at night, in retaliation for an aggression not documented it has appearance of a possible violation of law of human rights.
The Government shows a logical wariness of use to which right is making immigration. The aggressiveness of border is sensitive material is concerned, with reason, and may not be permitted. But to proclaim himself a supporter of a european immigration policy that would allow defending borders and respect for human rights should not be a question of words or of gestures valuable, as reception of Aquarius, but of facts. The expulsion – of 116 is not one of m.
you Can follow THE COUNTRY’s Opinion on Facebook, Twitter or subscribe here to Newsletter.
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter OtrosCerrarCompartir in LinkedinCompartir in GooglePlusCompartir on Pinterest //if(typeof EPETMail != “undefined”) new EPETMail ( document.getElementById(‘inferior_enviar’), document.getElementById(‘inferior_capaEnviarCorreo’)); if(typeof EPETTwitter != “undefined”) new EPETTwitter ( document.getElementById(‘inferior_twit’), params ); if(typeof EPETFacebook != “undefined”) new EPETFacebook ( document.getElementById(‘inferior_fb’), params ); if(typeof EPETGooglePlus != “undefined”) new EPETGooglePlus ( document.getElementById(‘inferior_gp’), params ); if(typeof EPETLinkedin != “undefined”) new EPETLinkedin ( document.getElementById(‘inferior_linkedin’), params ); if(typeof EPETPinterest != “undefined”) new EPETPinterest ( document.getElementById(‘inferior_pinit’), params );
