ISSUE 1) MIGRI
DECISIONS ARE FAULTY
ISSUE: Migri has been unprofessional with the decisions, and
this leads to life-dangering deportations. Migri’s faulty procedure cannot be
corrected in the courts. The court system does not secure that legal rights of
asylum seekers will be met.
DEMANDS AND SOLUTIONS: 1) Migri needs to admit that inexperienced staff
and poor country reports have led to faulty decisions, 2) These decisions need
to reviewed again in order to prevent refoulement, 3) There needs to be
an independent outside review of the quality of the asylum process in Migri to
prevent further mistakes and misconduct, 4) Migri needs to update the sources
of the country reports and make them, and the sources behind them, public
compare them internationally
DETAILS OF THE ISSUE:
- In 2015, Migri hired a lot of people who don’t have
experience in asylum matters. This led to very different problems in quality of
the asylum process:
- there has been serious problems with interview protocols: 1)
typing up of the interviews has been with mistakes, 2) People did not have the
chance to check what was written
- the faulty interview records and protocols are also what the
court is relying on, so the faulty interviews corrupted the whole process. On
the court level, they cannot be corrected.
- in many cases, individual evidence has not been used, and
asylum seekers’ individual need for international protection have not been
investigated
- there have been very serious problems with the translators,
from mistranslation to lack of understanding (for instance the dialect of the
asylum seeker);
- there have been reported cases of “predator lawyers” who
have not actually represented their clients.
- The Country of Origin Information (COI) reports are
seriously misleading, outdated, politically motivated and life threatening.
- The COI reports that Migri produces are very different from
the COI reports in other countries, for instance Sweden (for Iraqis, the
average rate for some type of international protection is 62% in the whole of
EU, significantly higher than in Finland);
- the statistics and information used are not up to date. In
war-like situation, a report from 2013 is not good for decisions in 2016-7;
- inclarity on sources that are used. For instance, relying on
reports by the Iraqi and Afghan governments, that are known to be corrupt, is
problematic;
- decisions are problematic and controversial when in some
cases Migri does not even follow the reports it has itself produced.
- The option of internal flight is seriously problematic and leads to life dangering situations: 1)
“safe zones” within a country does not provide safety from individual
persecution in a nearly failed state, 2) Exceptions to the internal
flight option are not clear. For instance, when it is ruled that Sunnis from
Mosul are not safe in Baghdad, but a Sunni who lives a few kilometres from
Mosul is sent to Baghad.
- The concept of family used by Migri is extremely problematic, when for
instance some members receive international protection but others dont. The
country reports need to acknowledge different family systems in the Middle
East, according to which danger to the head of the family may mean danger to
his adult children.
ISSUE 2) DEPORTATIONS LEAD TO LIFE THREATENING SITUATIONS
ISSUE: Because of the above mistakes in Migri’s work, people
are deported to life-threatening situations. Migri needs to take
responsibility for its role in the process leading to unjust deportations.
DEMANDS AND SOLUTIONS: All deportations must be stopped immediately, for
both Iraqis and Afghans, until the demands of issue 1 have been met.
DETAILS OF THE ISSUE:
- Police is executing the deportation for reasons that trace
back to the faulty asylum process as described above;
- there is a cycle of avoiding responsibility between Migri,
the police and the court. When none of them admit to faulty process, the asylum
seeker faces deportation and refoulement;
- the psychological and physical violence and brutality, and
financial bribery by the police (as reported by Finnish media) is a further
proof that deportations must cease immediately.
ISSUE 3) EVICTIONS FROM RECEPTIONS CENTERS ARE ARBITRARY AND PROBLEMATIC
ISSUE: The guidelines of the Ministry of Social Affairs and
Health have led to serious confusion over responsibility between the reception
centres, the municipalities, and the state. As a result, people who have fallen
victims to the faulty process of Migri are evicted from the camps with no
shelter and the minimum income and protection as guaranteed in the law.
DEMANDS AND SOLUTIONS: 1) Migri needs to use its political power to
guarantee that the right to shelter and subsistence of people will be
guaranteed by municipalities. 2) Migri needs to instruct the Finnish Red Cross,
Luona, and other service providers that people are allowed to stay in reception
centres until proper shelter, that is not short term, is guaranteed. 3) All
people in Finland are entitled to urgent health care. We demand precise
definition of exactly what is considered urgent.
DETAILS OF THE ISSUE:
- The policies of providing shelter to people evicted from
reception centres is different in each municipality;
- All municipalities do not follow the guidelines and people
are forced to leave from centres with no information where to go;
- It is illegal to evict children on the streets, and children
with families need to stay together with their parents;
- At the moment, particularly in the capital region, much of the care
for evicted has been outsourced to the NGOs, church and volunteers;
- There are cases in which people have evicted while they are
still waiting on the court’s decision on the right to appeal against the second
negative decision;
- It is not clear that what exactly is considered as "urgent" health care.
TO SUM UP: We have demands for different levels of
authorities as follows. In addition to above demand Migri to use its power
and political pressure for these demands on all levels of governance:
POLICE: not to execute violent deportations
MUNICIPALITIES: To fulfill their obligation to guarantee
shelter, helathcare, schooling, and subsistence to everyone in need
PARLIAMENT: To discuss a long-standing solution that will 1)
Uphold the good international reputation of Finland as a country that guarantees
human rights 2) Discuss the possibility of reintroducing humanitarian
protection without the demand to participate in so-called “voluntary return”
scheme
GOVERNMENT: To acknowledge its responsibility in bringing
about an unprecendet situation in which Finland cannot guarantee that people’s
basic rights are met and that they face refoulement.
