Loading...

Boat Refugees in the Mediterranean: Tackle the Root Causes or Build Fortress Europe?

Textbook 2013 49 Pages

Politics - International Politics - Region: Western Europe

Excerpt

Table of Contents

Abstract

Tables

Illustrations and Pictures

Abbreviations

Research Question:

Hypothesis

Introduction

Boat People – Policies of Italy and the EU
1. Push and Pull Factors
1.1 Problems in the Countries of Origin
1.2 Europe’s Attraction
2. Attack at the „Fortress Europe“
2.1 Drama at the Fence: Ceuta and Melilla
2.2 Lampedusa
3. The Policy of Italy
3.1 The Legislature
3.2 In Practice: Calculated Chaos?
4. The EU Policy
4.1 Adjustment of the EU Migration Laws
4.2 The Frontex Agency
4.3 The case of Libya: Criminal Collaboration with the EU and Italy
4.4 Development Cooperation: Blackmailing or the Solution?

What Next?

Sources

Appendix

Tables

Table: Arrival of Immigrants at the Southern Italian Coasts

Illustrations and Pictures

Picture 1: Fenced and Controlled Frontiers against Migrants of Economical Reasons and Asylum seekers

Picture 2: The Schengen Territory and its Victims

Picture 3: Testimony of a Refugee in Sovereto, Italy

Picture 4: The Schengen Territory holds unwanted Migrants under Detention

Abbreviations

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Abstract:

In this study about the boat people in the Mediterranean an emphasis lies on Italy and further on the EU policy on refugees in the Mediterranean under cooperation with African states. Regarding the EU policy it is especially about the border security agency Frontex that has available a rapidly growing budget coming from the EU funds.

The protagonists of the EU politics like to stress that their policies are for the best of the migrants themselves as well as their countries of origins and the ones they are going to, so that they could produce a “triple win situation”. But refugee aid and other human rights organizations criticize harshly that refugees are criminalized and do not get their legitimate rights guaranteed. The NGOs collected numerous examples of inhumane policies against “illegal” migrants in countries around the Mediterranean.

By bringing together the current events, the author wants to describe state networks about illegal migration and follow the question if there is the wish of the EU to accord the refugees their rights at all.

Research Question:

How does the EU and especially Italy cope with the Illegal Immigration of refugees over the Mediterranean Sea? How does the political position of the EU influence the refugees’ problematic situation and which (other, better) possibilities of policies would exist to help refugees, further legal immigration and hinder illegal immigration with the loss of many lives?

Hypothesis:

The position of the EU is to rather defend against refugees than anything else. Furthermore it strengthens its forces at its borders so to build the often described „Fortress Europe“. A substantial solution for the refugees problem is not in sight. There is no purpose to help the „illegal“ migrants, more the opposite. On the search for solutions the EU concentrates on the strengthening of the border control first of all in the first place and less on long term strategies to fight the problem at its roots e.g. through development cooperation.

Introduction

The EU countries Spain, Italy, Greece and Malta as Mediterranean countries do have heavy problems through the immigration of refugees on boats at their coasts. Especially Spain cannot cope with the arrivals of refugees that come over the Atlantic Ocean to its overseas territory Canary Islands. The fate of the migrants, who die at high numbers in the sea, is a constant tragedy of an unimaginable scale.

In this study about boat people at the Mediterranean Sea I am going to emphasize on Italy and furthermore the EU policies about refugees in the Mediterranean area under cooperation with African states. Concerning the EU policies I am going to tell something about the EU border surveillance agency Frontex which has got a fast growing budget from EU funds[1].

The actors of the EU polity like to stress that their policies are best for the migrants themselves and their countries where they come from and where they are heading to. Therefore they call it a „triple-win-situation“[2]. But refugee aid and other human rights organisations criticize harshly that refugees would become criminalised and would not have the possibility to enjoy their rights.[3] The NGOs collected numerous examples of a policy not respecting human beings regarding „illegal“ immigrants in Mediterranean Countries. Through this study I want to describe governmental networks. Thus through collecting the present time incidents. Furthermore I want to clarify the question if it is a goal of the European countries at all to let the refugees have their rights.

Boat People – Policies of Italy and the EU

In the main part of this study I am going to explain in chapter 1 the push and pull factors that have influence on migrants from African countries heading to the Mediterranean area. Those are reasons for exhausting foot trails through the North African Dessert and the crossing of the sea of crowds in boats not built for the sea. This is the topic of chapter 2. In chapter 3 I am going to stress a core topic of this study namely the policy of Italy concerning the boat people. The last big chapter (No. 4) goes about the EU policy with the border patrol agency Frontex and the case of Libya as subtopics. The terms boat people, (illegal) migrants and (illegal) refugees are used nearly synonymous here. The reason for me is that I did not see myself able to conduct a clarification of terms within the framework of this study. As well as I doubt about the sense of such a categorization which in practice would mostly be difficult anyway.

1. Push and Pull Factors

Push factors means reasons of migration that lye in their country of origin. In opposition pull factors are reasons that make a country attractive for immigrants.

1.1 Problems in the Countries of Origin

Bade made a general statement and was telling firstly about population growth reasons in combination with economic ones. He sees a “Gap between high population growth rates and stagnating or even shrinking job offering rates“. Bade particularly sees the agriculture sector being in a rising crisis partly for reasons of globalization. From „growing Slums of the `Mega Cities` to where the rural population flees „new movements [escape] again“.

As further reasons for migration in the developing countries beneath others Bade names desertification through „climatic and [man made] destruction of the environment“, political conflicts „that partly occur out of indigenous developments and partly colonial respectively postcolonial conditions“ as well as civil wars that „[in] the nineties [were becoming] the most important reasons for refugee movements in the `Third World` [...]“.[4]

Bade furthermore draws the attention to the fact that „the panicking Europe is only concerned with about 5 percent“ of the „worldwide movements of estimated 120 billion people“. There would be „namely a gapping difference between global dramas within the refugees world and European stage play with the setting of `being concerned` through a rising worldwide `pressure by migration`, which is estimated in quite different ways. The history of the south north migration towards Europe would be „at the bottom line, rather a history of being afraid of it and of defence against it than a history of migration movements.“[5]. This gives somehow evidence to my hypothesis, which says that on behalf of the government they see the refugees as enemies who they need to fight. However, I wonder about Bade's opinion nowadays looking at the rising numbers of the boat people that head towards Europe since the year 2000. The documentary film „Au clair de la lune [...]“ from Leona Goldstein about western African countries of origin of refugees in Europe underlines the direction of Bade's statement whereas the entire number of refugees differs. There would currently be 40 billion people fleeing worldwide. About 32 to 34 billion of them stay within their home countries. Less than 200,000 people were applying for asylum in Europe in 2006 of whom meanwhile 5 percent were able to get recognition.[6]

Texeire from the Science Po in Rennes, France counts as main countries of origin in Africa in the cases of heading to Malta: Eritrea, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, Congo and Liberia. About Africa she states in general that corruption and a lack of democracy in the former colonised countries mean severe problems. Many politicians had used their powerful positions to fuel ethnical conflicts that had been made worse or even been triggered in the colonial time[7]. Furthermore Texeire says that false governmental policies and corruption had been the reason for starvation catastrophes and a system of distribution that is not feasible to give enough nutrition for the survival of the people. HIV/AIDS she named in addition. As countries with severe human rights violations she counts: The Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Sudan and the Ivory Coast[8]. An example for human rights violation on a higher political level can be the murder of Norbert Zongo. In the cited documentary of Leona Goldstein Zongo is shown as „main speaker of the intellectual opposition movement [comment: in Burkina Faso] and editor of the weekly newspaper `L’independent`”. It is told that he was been stopped on his way home and burnt in his car at the 13th of December 1998 investigating in a murder case in which the brother of the president of Burkina Faso was said to be involved.[9]

The Austrian journalist Milborn explains the reasons of fleeing the country Burkina Faso in depth and states that „only a minimal part“ of the eight billion „Burkinabe“ are heading to Europe[10]. As further countries of origin „at the borders of Europe“ Milborn names: Mali, Senegal, Togo, Niger, Guinea Bissau[11]. She writes that European countries „as former colonial and profit winning power and trigger of poverty in Africa […] [are] quite involved in the causes that make Africans emigrate.”[12] As well as she writes about the attractiveness of the immigration countries: „The enormous differences between the rich Europe and the misery in Africa are offered daily on TV in the café around the corner.”[13]

Within the pull factors Milborn writes explicitly about the climate change, problems in connection to the growing of cotton especially combined with the phenomenon of the debt trap for such countries. With the example of the village Tolo in the north of Burkina Faso she shows how the countryside in its district dries down. The rainfall becomes rarer and in single cases heavier whereby it gets more dry over all and the torrential rain falls destroy the fields in addition. A high tide caused a hole in the dam near the village[14]. Burkina Faso emphasizes the cotton growing sector too much following the orders of the IMF and the Worldbank so that the last trees are cut and pesticides are used. This lasts as long as the country is rotten and only dessert remains. Instead of growing corn as their own food base the farmers favour to grow the export ware cotton. In addition the US penetrates the world market with its subsidised cotton through WTO regulations so that the price for cotton in Burkina Faso goes below the production cost.[15] During 2005 there was a big starvation catastrophe in the area where Tolo lies[16].- „Many young men left the village to earn the money for their families elsewhere.”[17]

Milborn took Burkina Faso as an example for a country that is not damaged through a war in the recent history, but nevertheless makes clear how Europe (the EU is besides the US the strongest power within Worldbank, IMF and WTO) is involved in the reasons of emigration from the countries of origin.

1.2 Europe’s Attraction

It is easy to grasp that the welfare continent Europe has got an immense attractive power in the eyes of African people who suffer from the problems I described above. Surely some illusions that are caused by the TV or emigrated relatives are vanishing into the air after the arrival in the immigration country. And who of the emigrated ones wants to show the impression that the decision about to emigrate had been wrong and that the new home country is not a good place to stay. However, the migrants have got at least the possibility to earn money and help their relatives with cash transfers as long as they are not hindered from it, because they end up as prostitutes or are bound to other forms of exploitation. “Everyone at the border knows that he or she finds a job in Europe within a few weeks: Some entire economic sectors depend on the – de facto tolerated – illegal hired illegal immigrants“, says Milborn in her book. Furthermore she writes about a “lower class of ten million illegal immigrants“, that for example would hold the economic sectors agriculture, construction, restaurants and hotels alive[18]. It may seem exaggerated that those branches are completely dependent on the illegal migrants. Nevertheless it seems to be possible that they give their not too less important contribution and that without them we would maybe have to expect quite some trouble.

The number of illegal workers is of course difficult to estimate. Milborn says that the EU estimates that 500.000 illegal migrants come to the EU every year to work there. In Italy 2 billion “clandestine” are living regarding estimations of the government, though here it stays unclear regarding Milborn’s book if it is the entire number of persons with an illegal status or the number of illegal workers.[19]

Currle writes that human trafficking and smuggling was becoming big business for the organized crime in Italy[20]. […] „The illegal hiring of foreigners looks like more or less tolerated“, says Currle[21]. The German representative of the UNHCR Stefan Berglund is cited in „Migration und Bevölkerung“ 2003 (migration and population 2003) as follows: „The Mafiosi in the world switch to human trafficking.” This business would be now more profitable than drug dealing.[22]

Besides the possibility to go to Europe to work there lawfully there are two more possibilities. Either an immigration after some relatives already are residents in the EU or the marriage with a EU citizen. All three possibilities are handled stricter and stricter by time says Milborn. About the example of Austria she reports that only high ranking business men have the possibility to come to Austria to work there subsequent to the laws.[23]

So how do refugees movements of Africans towards the Mediterranean look like? In the following chapters I am going to write more about two locations in the focus at the European borders.

2. Attack at the „Fortress Europe“

The German refugee aid organisation „Pro Asyl“ counts the following locations as the most important border crossings for refugees in the Mediterranean on its map of Europe:

- Canary Islands and the exclaves Ceuta and Melilla (Spanish)
- Italy (for sure because of the situation in Lampedusa and Sicily)
- The island state of Malta south of Sicily
- Greece (because of the Aegean Islands)[24]

For Italy here a table with the numbers of arrivals of immigrants at the southern Italian coasts:

illustration not visible in this excerpt

Table: Arrival of immigrants at the southern Italian coasts

Source: Ministero degli Interni, „Lo Stato della Sicurezza in Italia“, 15/08/2004, here from Puggioni 2006, 179, translated by the author

Through the growing strength of power of armed forces in Apulia the human traffickers had been forwarded to Calabria and later Sicily, mainly to Lampedusa and Pantelleria as Puggioni writes.[25]

2.1 Drama at the Fence: Ceuta and Melilla 2005

In autumn 2005 the attack of thousands of migrants against the controlled borders of the Spanish enclaves Ceuta and Melilla at the Moroccan Mediterranean coast caused much attention from the media in Europe. It seemed as if the refugee problem in the Mediterranean would move nearer into the focus of the European journalism for the first time including the aspect of the boat people. And if since then the topic had been repeated again and again.

Whereas the phenomenon that migrants try to cross over the then three to six meters high fences around the two Spanish cities at the African continent each of a length of 10km was not new. During the first eight months of the year 2005 they counted about 11,000 cases in which someone tried to cross the border at Melilla regarding to the newsletter “Migration und Bevölkerung” which received the data from the Guardia Civil. It was special then that big crowds of up to 500 people together attacked the fences for the first time. The Spanish border police and the Moroccan military was not prepared for that attack of this masses of people. According to the newsletter more than 3,000 African people tried to reach the two Spanish enclaves illegally between the 27th of September and the sixth of October 2005. More than 900 of them had been successful. That period is said to be the time of the most intensive attacks.

Hundreds hurted themselves with the blades at the doubled fence, or because they had fallen down from the fence, or because following persons run them over. 14 people died partly because of wounds from gunfire. The surveillance personnel at the border would use rubber bullets only in exceptional cases according to „Migration und Bevölkerung“[26]. However, Milborn, who was also doing research about those causes, seems to implicitly write that the Moroccan military used lethal ammunition regularly in cases of gunfire on refugees. It shot to death at least a dozen of refugees at the border to Ceuta and Melilla Milborn wrote regarding to newspaper articles.[27] The documentary of Goldstein shows a feature of the Spanish children aid organisation Asociación Pro Derechos de la Infancia (PRODEIN) with a witness’ statement about one case concerning grave mistreatments by the Guardia Civil of three Africans of whom one died[28].

After the heavy attack in 2005 there had been also more incidents. According to that the speaker for European affairs of the refugees aid organisation Pro Asyl Karl Kopp reports in his article „Hart an der Grenze“ („firm at the border“ or also „near to the limit“) that in July 2006 three human beings had been shot to death in Melilla during their attempt to climb over the fence. “There was no enquiry conducted about the deaths at the border between Spain and Morocco” says Kopp in 2007[29]. Spain had established a “new iron curtain“ at its border in Melilla reports Kerstin Böffgen after an excursion to Melilla at the beginning of February 2007. Meanwhile a fourth fold defence apparatus has to be crossed from Africa: A fence which is six meters tall, with flexible wings on top so that you have to fall down to the ground as soon as you reach them. Afterwards they fall on the “Sirga” a chaotic element of ropes which was introduced after the incidents in 2005 and causes grave injuries. In Addition they activate tear gas and pepper spray. Afterwards you are confronted with a lower fence, but also built with flexible wings and NATO wire (with Z-blades). And last there is again a six meters tall fence. Deep cuts are not easy to avoid.

As soon as the refugees reach the Spanish territory they are often caught by the Guardia Civil and forced to go back to morocco instantly according to Böffgen. That is a clear violation of the Genf refugees convention which says that there has to be the right to get an asylum process at the border and also a violation of the Spanish law about foreigners.[30] Milborn writes that a refugee who had reached European territory through climbing over the first fence „normally [is] rejected”. She illustrates that with a cause of “Doctors without borders”. A patrol of the Guardia Civil caught a Cameroonian between the then two fences on the third of January 2005. The officers had bound his hands to his back, beaten him up until he lost consciousness and thrown him back to the Moroccan side of the fence through a door in the fence.

You can add deportations of refugees to the Saharan desert by the Moroccan authorities to the human rights violations at the border. Milborn reports for example that 1,200 of those that had not made it across the fences during the heavy attack 2005 had been brought to the Algerian border in busses chained to each other in midst of the Saharan desert.

“`Doctors without borders` that followed the Convoy found over 200 refugees searching their way through the desert, but many died dehydrated. During several weeks afterwards members of the `Frente Polisario` that fight for the independence of the Saharouies reported about findings of dead bodies.”[31]

In the documentary of Goldstein the migrant Bandou Keita who was repelled at the Spanish border reports that „comrades“ had been abandoned in the desert. There were injured people that got their arms or legs broken and were not able to walk any longer. As soon as they were thrown to the desert they had to wait for their death.”[32]

The European Council on Refugees and Exiles ECRE criticizes Spain for its misuse of its old contract with Morocco about welcoming back refugees to repel Sub-Saharan refugees without looking for reasons of their emigration.[33]

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Picture 1: Fenced and Controlled Frontiers against Migrants of Economic Reasons and Asylum Seekers – “Le Monde diplomatique” / taz Verlags- und Vertriebs GmbH 2006, p. 50

After writing about the sad incidents at the Spanish-Moroccan border (not to name the numerous refugees drowning year for year in the sea near Gibraltar) I am going to write about refugees problems regarding to Lampedusa (Italy) in the next chapter.

2.2 Lampedusa

According to Milborn there is a list of documented deaths of migrants and refugees who died during the attempted crossing of the European borders[34]. For the period from 1993 to April 2005 the total sum of 6,366 deaths is resulting, of which 90 percent had been deaths on sea. It is said that a third of all dead bodies gets found. Those proposed facts would mean that the term “Lethal Trap Mediterranean Sea” (Milborn) is correct.[35] The newsletter „Migration und Bevölkerung“ reported in 2003 that each year several hundred people had drowned during the attempt to move from Northern Africa to Spain or Italy. Spain is not the favourite destination any more. Because of the Schengen Aquis the border between Spain and Morocco had become a high security border. Still numerous refugees make it to the Canary Islands, but the main destination would be Italy. The Italian coast guard (Guardia Costiera) would find overcrowded refugees boats daily and often had to rescue them from emergency on sea.

The Italian island Lampedusa south of Sicily and south west of Malta is Europe’s southernmost territory and situated nearer to Tunisia than to Italy. Because of that it is one of the most favourite destination of the boat people in the Mediterranean. Milborn gives the population of the Island with 6,000 inhabitants. Yearly there would be 150,000 tourists at the Island on holidays. 1992 the first 71 boat people were rescued there and brought to firm ground.

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Picture 2: The Schengen Territory and its Victims – “Le Monde diplomatique“ / taz Verlags- und Vertriebs GmbH 2006, p.60

Meanwhile a refugees camp has been established at Lampedusa. It is organized by the Carabinieri and the relief organisation “Misericordia”. Neither NGOs nor lawyers, MPs or the UNHCR would have an allowance for entry to the camp as Milborn reports about the situation of those days. The camp is built for 200 people according to Milborn[36], according to the newsletter „Migration und Bevölkerung“ of 2003 for 250 people. It would now be the home for 500 people as the newsletter reported in those days. “Because of that the newcomers are brought to the continental territory of Italy immediately.”[37] About the time after the article in the newsletter Milborn reports that hardly any refugee had been leaving the camp in the direction to Italy since October 2004. In that month the first deportation of masses of refugees to Libya had been taking place. Over 1,200 persons had been transported to Libya by plane without proving their reasons of their immigration as asylum seekers. Italy played a trick hereby: Because the boats often are getting fetched in international zones of the sea it would not be a deportation and refusing of asylum, but simply a deportation at the border. Milborn criticizes that hereby it is avoided to tell that someone is allowed to seek for asylum at the border, too and that numerous of the repelled refugees crossed the border de facto. Because the deportations had been against the Genf convention about refugees the UNHCR was protesting. Nevertheless since then such mass deportations took place regularly and strictly clandestine.[38] In midst of May 2005 there had been taking place rebellions inside the camp because within 24 hours over 1,000 migrants were coming as newcomers and because of that there were created disastrous circumstances especially concerning the hygiene in the camp according to a report in „Migration und Bevölkerung“[39] Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Abbildung in dieser Leseprobe nicht enthalten

Picture 3: Testimony of a Refugee in Sovereto, Italy[40]

On the one hand Milborn wrote that MPs had not had permission for entry into the camp at Lampedusa, but at the 28th of June 2005 there must have been a visit of MPs of the EU Parliament to the camp. Judith Gleitze from Pro Asyl cited an email of the EU MP Gabi Zimmer to her. The parliamentarian describes the existing status quo at that time in the camp at Lampedusa as scandalous. Shortly before the visit at least 800 people had been deported from the camp that was built for 190 persons without informing them about the destination. Zimmer reports furthermore that the camp was overcrowded for a longer period before the visit and that some people had to sleep outside on concrete often only with a towel. For to wash oneself there had been only a thin running of water. Although there was a heavy heat the people under detention in the camp had got only a one litre bottle of water two people together. A doctor beneath the MPs had described the supplement of the medical department as disastrous, basic medicine and other medical material had not been existing.[41]

After this description of the status quo at the borders between Europe and Africa with explosive contents I am now going to write about the policy that the illegal migration in Italy is handled with.

3. The Policy of Italy

Italy was a net emigration country after the second world war until the mid seventies. Afterwards more people emigrated than immigrated – Italy became an immigration country and during the nineties the main immigration country of southern Europe[42] and had to cope with the situation.

3.1 The Legislature

Currle wrote at the beginning of her comments about main laws in Italy about the “[structural] contradiction between lawful norms and how they are set forth.[43] She cites Zincone who even says that “[this] discrepancy [...] between laws and their administrative implementation is typical of the Italian political system.“[44]

The general awareness about the refugees problems must have started in Italy during the eighties of the 20th century. Currle wrote that between 1984 and 1989 about 700,000 to 800,000 migrants had been coming to Italy and a bigger part of them had not been receiving a residence permission. “The need for migration and integration policies got clear, because the immigrants of those days were coming to a country with almost no existing laws relevant to migration.“[45] “It was not before mid-1980s that the country stated to realise that an immigration policy needed to be formulated […]”, as Puggioni writes.[46]

Seen from a historical view point the first experiment of an immigration law apparatus was made in Italy 1931 according to Ventrella McCreight who has written about the laws from a martial law perspective. Immigration was detected as a problem of the public safety in those days. Above that you must be repelled as a foreigner if you were facing prison of one year or more or did attack the Italian State. According to decree 50/1948 from 1948 everybody who did not tell the identity of a foreigner or a state less within 24 hours to the security institutions was to punish. The law 152 from 1975 said that migrants could be repelled who cannot show evidence for their financial safety in terms of their daily needs.[47]

The therefore following laws from the eighties onwards are described by Puggioni[48] as real beginning of immigration laws in Italy and Currle did not write about laws from the time before 1986. The decree 416/89 from 1989 defined the status of refugees for the first time. It became converted to the law 39/90 (Legge Martelli) in 1990 which meant to be a turn in terms of laws about asylum seekers. I am going to write more about that in the following chapters. With the decree 489 from 1995 the law about the substantial evidence to be shown by a migrant about his or her ability to make a living in Italy was withdrawn. Because of that Ventrella McCreight wrote that the social aspect was been emphasized more than the one of martial law until then. According to her the martial law aspect began to become a priority with decree 286 from 1998. The supreme court (Corte di Cassazione) had called decree 286/1998 oppressive compared to the laws existing before that decree.[49]

Decree 286 is valid for non EU citizens and stateless people. It contains the punishment for persons who allow non EU citizens to come to Italy with up to three years in prison and the payment of up to 30 billion Lire. If the violation of the law took place by three or more people or with the goal to profit financially and if five or more people are smuggled the decree foresees a prison penalty between four and twelve years and the payment of 30 billion Lire per smuggled person. Police and jurisdictional collaboration on EU level had not been foreseen explicitly in decree 286.

[...]


[1] see Fortress Europe 2007, p.3, from the internet, filed under: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/nov/fortress-europe-libya-report.pdf

[2] see Rede des deutschen Innenministers Wolfgang Schäuble am 19. November 2007, from the internet, filed under: http://www.bmi.bund.de/nn_662956/Internet/Content/Nachrichten/Reden/2007/11/BM__EuroMed.html

[3] see Gleitze / Schultz 2006, pp.16-22, from the internet, filed under: http://www.proasyl.de/fileadmin/proasyl/fm_redakteure/Broschueren_pdf/Zonen_der_Rechtlosigkeit_04.pdf

[4] see Bade 2000, pp.10ff.

[5] the same, p.13

[6] see in the appendix « ‘Au clair de la lune...’ - … » … transcription of subtitles

[7] see Texeire 2006, pp.21ff., from the internet, filed under: http://www.alternattiva.org.mt/filebank/documents/Fiona%20TEXEIRE-%20At%20the%20Gate%20of%20Fortress%20Europe.pdf

[8] the same, p.24

[9] see in the appendix « ‘Au clair de la lune...’ - … » … transcription of subtitles

[10] Milborn 2006, p.209

[11] the same, p.195

[12] the same, p.195

[13] the same, p.210

[14] the same, pp.195ff.

[15] the same, pp.200f.

[16] the same, p.197

[17] the same, p.196

[18] the same, pp.9f.

[19] the same, p.73

[20] Currle 2004, p.281

[21] the same

[22] „Italien: Hilfe bei Grenzsicherung gefordert“, in: „Migration und Bevölkerung“ 9/2003, from the internet, filed under: http://www.migration-info.de/migration_und_bevoelkerung/artikel/030906.htm

[23] the same, pp.73f.

[24] see Pro Asyl without year: map “Europa Mit den wichtigsten Grenzübergängen“

[25] see Puggioni 2006, p.178

[26] „Migration und Bevölkerung“, 9/2005, p.1, from the internet, filed under: http://www.migration-info.de/migration_und_bevoelkerung/archiv/ausgaben/ausgabe0509.pdf

[27] Milborn 2006, p.17

[28] see in the appendix: « ‘Au clair de la lune...’ - … »… transcription of subtitles

[29] see Pro Asyl (Ed.): “Tag des Flüchtlings 2007“, p.32, from the internet, filed under: http://www.proasyl.de/fileadmin/proasyl/fm_redakteure/Archiv/HTdF_Hefte/Webversion_Heft_komplett.pdf

[30] see the same, pp.40f.

[31] Milborn 2006, p.13

[32] see in the Appendix: « ‘Au clair de la lune...’ - … »… transcription of subtitles

[33] see Pro Asyl: Newsletter 105, October 2005, from the internet, filed under: http://www.proasyl.de/de/informationen/newsletter-nr-105/index.html#c821

[34] Unite, from the internet, filed under: www.united.non-profit.nl/pdfs/deathlist2005.pdf (via sea and over land), here according to Milborn 2006, p.43

[35] Milborn 2006, pp.42f.

[36] the same, pp.55f.

[37] „Mittelmeerraum: Wieder zahlreiche Bootsflüchtlinge gelandet“, from: „Migration und Bevölkerung“ 6/2003, exclusively in the internet, filed under: http://www.migration-info.de/migration_und_bevoelkerung/artikel/030608.htm

[38] Milborn 2006, pp.56f.

[39] „Aufstände auf Lampedusa“, from: „Migration und Bevölkerung“ 6/2005, from the internet, filed under: http://www.migration-info.de/migration_und_bevoelkerung/artikel/050608.htm

[40] Gleitze / Schultz 2006, p.26, from the internet as mentioned above

[41] „E-Mail der Europaabgeordneten Gabi Zimmer nach dem Besuch im Lager Lampedusa am 28.6.05“, from: Flüchtlingsrat Brandenburg: Italia-Info 16.9.2005, without given pages, from the internet, filed under: http://www.proasyl.de/fileadmin/proasyl/fm_redakteure/Newsletter_Anhaenge/105/Italien_info.pdf

[42] see Currle 2004, pp.281f.

[43] see the same, p.285

[44] Zincone 1995, p.139, here according to Currle 2004, p.285

[45] Currle 2004, p.282

[46] Puggioni 2006, p.173

[47] Ventrella McCreight 2006, pp.143f.

[48] see Puggioni 2006, p.173

[49] Ventrella McCreight 2006, pp.144f.

Details

Pages
49
Type of Edition
Erstausgabe
Year
2013
ISBN (eBook)
9783954895984
ISBN (Book)
9783954890989
File size
1.7 MB
Language
English
Catalog Number
v287431
Grade
Tags
Refugees Mediterranean Africa EU Frontex

Author

Previous

Title: Boat Refugees in the Mediterranean: Tackle the Root Causes or Build Fortress Europe?