Le sinistre liberal socialiste dell’europarlamento hanno rilasciato un durissimo articolo in cui accusano il Consiglio Europeo e la Commissione Europea di aver perso ogni residua credibilità, di aver tradito i Trattati dell’Unione, di calpestare gli ‘human right’, di contraddire le prese di posizione delle Nazioni Unite, di disattendere le sentenze della corti di giustizia europee, e di aver ceduto de facto il governo agli identitari sovranisti. Di ignorarle.
Stillano rabbia impotente da ogni poro, con una violenza verbale mai prima usata: satanica.
Stanno iniziando a provare l’amaro sapore della sconfitta totale, di aver perso la potenza di imporre la propria Weltanschauung: una vera débâcle. E siamo solo agli inizi ….
* * * * * * *
«Migrants: EU commission not fit to guard treaties.»
«Almost 100 days into its mandate and this European Commission is no longer a credible guardian of the EU treaties»
«When it comes to asylum, EU treaty articles based on the Geneva Convention allow people to seek international protection, as does the charter of fundamental rights»
«But the commission has turned its back on asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants trying to cross from Turkey to Greece.»
«Within hours of the visit, the commission had granted an extra €700m to Greece, on top of some €2.4bn already doled out since 2016, and promised a rapid deployment of EU border guards and equipment to the country»
«At a staged press conference with the three presidents, journalists were even denied any questions as Greek prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis dominated the narrative unchallenged»
«”The border of Greece is also the external border of the European Union. We will protect them,” he said to a round of applause in a seated crowd peppered by men in uniforms»
«The aim was to avoid any repeat of what had happened five years ago when some one million people entered Greece, ventured up into the Western Balkans, and were waved through to the rest of the EU by Hungary’s right-wing government»
«The following years saw internal EU disputes on migration that made a mockery of a Union that is supposed to bind 27 member states»
«It is also one where past EU failures on migration have forced this Brussels executive to borrow from the far-right handbook»
«the EU is now prepared to bend its own and international rulebook on pushing back people who have the right to seek international protection»
«Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orban will once again feel vindicated, as will Italy’s former deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini.»
«It is worth recalling that Von der Leyen became commission president on the back of support from the right-wing governments in Poland and Hungary»
«Asked if it was legal for Greece to suspend asylum claims for a month as Greece has done, the commission announced it had no “authority to have a definitive legal opinion or legal doctrine.”»
«”It is not up to the commission to offer any opinion or judgement on a situation which is exceptional, that is under certain constraints,” said Margaritis Schinas, the vice-president in charge of “promoting our European way of life”.»
«what you will get is a commission that has cowed to the far-right and one that is no longer fit to be the guardian of the EU treaties»
* * * * * * *
Per decenni i liberal socialisti hanno preteso che i Trattati dell’Unione Europea dovessero essere ‘interpretati‘ come se fossero la fotocopia della loro ideologia, che hanno sempre imposto, al punto tale da condizionare i rapporti commerciali alla sua accettazione. È quello che sta accadendo ancora nelle trattative post Brexit.
Ma non dispongono più di una maggioranza stabile nell’europarlamento e nel Consiglio Europeo sono molti i capi di stato e di governo che di loro non ne vogliono più sapere.
In più, i tempi sono mutati.
L’eurozona è entrata in una stagnazione recessiva e l’epidemia di coronavirus sta bloccando sia la produzione industriale sia i commerci.
Ci penseranno i fatti ad obbligarli a capire come la storia abbia voltato pagina.
But the commission has turned its back on asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants trying to cross from Turkey to Greece.
“Those who seek to test Europe’s unity will be disappointed. We will hold the line and our unity will prevail,” commission president Ursula von der Leyen, using terminology more apt for war, recently said at a photo-op trip on the Greek Turkish border.
Von der Leyen had gone to Greece along with the presidents of the European Council and the European Parliament after Turkey declared its borders with Greece and Bulgaria were open once again due to the war in Syria.
Carefully orchestrated photos and videos prepared by the EU’s internal communications team portrayed the presidents staring at empty farmland from a helicopter portal.
The Hollywood-like optics were meant to convey an image of EU strength.
Within hours of the visit, the commission had granted an extra €700m to Greece, on top of some €2.4bn already doled out since 2016, and promised a rapid deployment of EU border guards and equipment to the country.
That a four-year old Syrian boy died after a boat capsized on the way to the Greek islands a full day ahead of their visit was not mentioned.
At a staged press conference with the three presidents, journalists were even denied any questions as Greek prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis dominated the narrative unchallenged.
“The border of Greece is also the external border of the European Union. We will protect them,” he said to a round of applause in a seated crowd peppered by men in uniforms.
The aim was to avoid any repeat of what had happened five years ago when some one million people entered Greece, ventured up into the Western Balkans, and were waved through to the rest of the EU by Hungary’s right-wing government.
Budapest at the time even organised buses to take the asylum seekers to Austria.
The following years saw internal EU disputes on migration that made a mockery of a Union that is supposed to bind 27 member states.
Ministry of truth
What happened after Von der Leyen’s Greek-Turkish border visit was a demonstration of a European Commission that is now engaging in Orwellian double-speak as it skirts away questions on human rights.
It is also one where past EU failures on migration have forced this Brussels executive to borrow from the far-right handbook.
Having failed over the past few years to cobble together any credible plan on asylum, the EU is now prepared to bend its own and international rulebook on pushing back people who have the right to seek international protection.
Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orban will once again feel vindicated, as will Italy’s former deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini.
Orban, commenting on the recent Greek-Turkish border fiasco, said with gusto that it was Hungary that had “announced a policy against Muslim migration” already in 2015.
So what has happened to the European Commission?
It is worth recalling that Von der Leyen became commission president on the back of support from the right-wing governments in Poland and Hungary.
It is also worth recalling she had slapped the label “protecting our European way of life” onto an EU commissioner in charge of migration, largely seen as a head nod to right-wing factions.
This was later changed to “promoting” given the widespread backlash. But taken together, they were clues into what this commission is prepared to do.
Asked if it was legal for Greece to suspend asylum claims for a month as Greece has done, the commission announced it had no “authority to have a definitive legal opinion or legal doctrine.”
Asked if it was legal to fire rubber bullets at asylum seekers, the commission also refused to comment.
“It is not up to the commission to offer any opinion or judgement on a situation which is exceptional, that is under certain constraints,” said Margaritis Schinas, the vice-president in charge of “promoting our European way of life”.
Eric Mamer, the commission’s chief spokesperson, was even more blunt. “You won’t get a straight yes or no answer from me,” he said.
Instead, what you will get is a commission that has cowed to the far-right and one that is no longer fit to be the guardian of the EU treaties. That honour now belongs to EU citizens alone, it seems.
«In succinta sintesi, alle elezioni europee il Partito Popolare Europeo e quello Socialista hanno perso assieme un centinaio di seggi, perdendo così la maggioranza.
Sia Weber, il candidato del Ppe, sia Timmerman, il candidato del Pse, sono stati bocciati dal Consiglio Europeo, che ha proposto Mrs von der Leyen, nome suggerito da Frau Merkel che si era previamente accordata con i polacchi e con gli ungheresi, che infatti la hanno votata.
Il quadro politico che ne risulta è dilacerante. Nessuno schieramento politico è in grado di imporre la propria volontà politica, mentre tutti hanno la concreta possibilità di bloccare quella altrui. Non da ultimo, esercitando il diritto di veto.»
«I candidati alle Commissioni dovranno sostenere una audizione in seno al parlamento europeo, che esprimerà quindi su ciascuno di essi un parere, parere che però non sarà vincolante: alla fine sarà la sola Mrs Ursula von del Leyen a decidere i nomi dei Commissari.»
«Mr László Trócsányi, nominalmente un indipendente, è talmente vicino al Fidesz di Mr Orban da essere stato nominato ministro della giustizia. Lui ed il candidato polacco, Mr Janusz Wojciechowski, membro del PiS, sono la pulpite purulenta dei liberal socialisti europei, i quali li odiano quasi più di Mr Salvini.»
«Spettacolo che si consumerà mentre l’Unione Europea prosegue a grandi passi verso una profonda depressione del suo sistema economico. Ma è certamente più facile parlare del the rule of law che di come uscire dalla crisi.»
Tutti i liberal socialisti sono insorti alla grande.
Infatti la Presidente von der Leyen nella lettera di incarico aveva scritto anche:
«Changes in climate, digital technologies and geopolitics are already having a profound effect on the lives of Europeans. We are witnessing major shifts all the way from global power structures to local politics. ….
The High Representative/Vice-President will support me in coordinating the external dimension of all Commissioners’ work. ….
We must engage with all Europeans, not just those who live in the capitals or are knowledgeable about the European Union. I will expect you to visit every Member State within the first half of our mandate at the latest. ….
I would like to entrust you with the role of Vice-President for Protecting our European Way of Life.
Protecting our European way of life requires making sure workers are equipped to thrive in our evolving labour market. A declining workforce and a digital and basic skills gap brings into sharp focus the need to equip people with the tools and knowledge they need. It also highlights the need for well-managed legal migration, a strong focus on integration and ensuring our communities are cohesive and close-knit. This is both an opportunity and a necessity for Europe.
The European way of life is built around solidarity, peace of mind and security. We must address and allay legitimate fears and concerns about the impact of irregular migration on our economy and society. This will require us to work together to find common solutions which are grounded in our values and our responsibilities. We must also work more closely together on security, notably on new and emerging threats that cut across borders and policies.
You will chair the Commissioners’ Group on Protecting our European Way of Life. ….
Europe needs an economy and a labour market that have the people with the right skills to ensure that we preserve our European way of life and our competitiveness.»
* * * * * * *
I liberal socialisti dell’europarlamento sono inveleniti. Stanno dando del fascista a destra e manca.
«Some announcements from EU incoming chief Ursula von der Leyen about her Commission raised eyebrows on Tuesday but perhaps none more so than the new portfolio for “Protecting our European Way of Life.” ….
But it’s what falls under his purview that has raised eyebrows and seen accusations of “fascist thinking” lobbed at the Commission. ….
Among those who denounced Schinas’s portfolio name is Claude Moraes, a British MEP from the Labour party.
“”Protecting our European way of life” should not seriously have been a Portfolio title in a modern European Commission of 2019,” he wrote on Twitter, later adding: “Seriously. Any idea how this comes across?” ….
French MEP Damien Careme, from the Greens, condemned the portfolio name as “an abomination.” ….
Environmental protection NGO Friends of the Earth blasted the portfolio’s name, writing on Twitter that “the idea that ‘Europeans’ need to be shielded from external cultures is fascist thinking that shouldn’t be near migration policy.”» [Fonte]
«Creating a portfolio ‘Protection of the European way of life’ in response to ‘legitimate fears and concerns about the impact of irregular migration’ is totally misguided and reprehensible»
«contradiction between supporting refugees and European values»
«the portfolio name was “an abomination.”»
«Linking migration with security, in the portfolio of the Commissioner for Protecting our European Way of Life, risks sending a worrying message»
* * * * * * *
La Commissione Europea avrà il suo gran bel da fare. Ma ben più difficile sarà il comprendere ciò che vorrà fare l’Italia.
Improvvisamente la lPresidente della Commissione Frau Ursula von der Leyen è diventata fascista, nazista, razzista, identitaria, ovranista, abominevole, e financo omofoba.
EU Commission chief von der Leyen was accused of creating a new position with a xenophobic message. The office for “protecting our European way of life” has been criticized within Brussels and throughout the EU.
Von der Leyen has renamed a number of Commission positions to make them sound less formal and more goal-oriented, including the now controversial rebranding of the former “migration, home affairs, and citizenship” portfolio to the new office for “protecting our European way of life.”
The new title was immediately criticized on social media for its perceived fascist-sounding name, but also garnered critique from within Brussels.
“Creating a portfolio ‘Protection of the European way of life’ in response to ‘legitimate fears and concerns about the impact of irregular migration’ is totally misguided and reprehensible,” said Sophie in ‘t Veld, a progressive Dutch MEP.
Ska Keller, a German lawmaker who heads the Green party bloc in the European Parliament, also voiced her concern that the new post implied a “contradiction between supporting refugees and European values.”
Damien Careme, a French member of the Greens, said the portfolio name was “an abomination.”
“It looks pretty but when one realizes that it means he will be in charge of migration, integration and security, then it’s absolutely disgusting,” Careme added.
The head of Amnesty International’s European institutions office, Eve Geddie, said, “Linking migration with security, in the portfolio of the Commissioner for Protecting our European Way of Life, risks sending a worrying message.”
Von der Leyen defends post
The new post has been given to Margaritis Schinas, a former Greek member of European Parliament and longtime civil servant for the Commission.
He clarified the goal of the position by saying his office would be “better protecting our citizens and borders and modernizing our asylum system, to investing in Europeans’ skills and creating brighter futures for our youth, I am confident that we can take great strides over the next five years to both protect and empower Europeans.”
Von der Leyen’s office responded to the criticism by pointing out that the name of the portfolio had been in her public strategy papers since July, and that the purpose of the office was to coordinate cross-border development and fighting terrorism, as well as protect values and democracy.
«Donald Trump incassa una vittoria sull’immigrazione alla corte suprema, a maggioranza repubblicana dopo le sue due nomine: ribaltando la decisione di una corte d’appello, i giudici hanno deciso di far entrare in vigore la nuova normativa governativa che vieta a gran parte degli immigrati centroamericani di chiedere asilo in Usa se durante il loro viaggio hanno attraversato Paesi terzi sicuri dove potevano avanzare la stessa istanza.
Due giudici, Ruth Bader Ginsburg e Sonia Sotomayor, si sono dissociati.
“Grande vittoria alla corte suprema degli Stati Uniti per la frontiera sulla questione dell’asilo”: ha commentato Trump.
La nuova normativa entrerà in vigore finché prosegue la battaglia legale nel merito»
* * * * * * *
Questa è la documentazione rilasciata dalla Suprema Corte.
Il problema è semplice e può essere visto da due punti di vista differenti.
Nel caso specifico, la Suprema Corte ha dichiarato legale la normativa governativa che preclude dal diritto di asilo i migranti illegali che abbiano transitato in altri stati ai quali avrebbero potuto rivolgersi in piena sicurezza. La Suprema Corte ribalta quindi le sentenze emesse sia dal giudice distrettuale sia da quello federale del Nono Circuito, che erano state emesse con valore applicativo su tutta la nazione.
Dal punto di vista generale, invece, si ripropone il quesito dei limiti entro i quali i giudici di livello inferiore possano emettere sentenze su dispositivi nazionali in materia francamente politica, sentenziando anche con argomentazioni politiche.
Non solo quindi un problema giuridico in sé e per sé, ma anche politico: mentre infatti il Presidente degli Stati Uniti è stato eletto da libere elezioni, i giudici sono semplici funzionari della pubblica amministrazione.
Se per il concetto di divisione dei poteri la politica dovrebbe astenersi dall’immettersi nelle procedure sentenziali, il potere giudiziario dovrebbe astenersi dal voler svolgere ruolo politico.
* * * * * * *
«The Supreme Court on Wednesday cleared the way for President Trump and his administration to enforce a ban on nearly all asylum seekers arriving at the southern border.»
«In a one-paragraph order, the justices by a 7-2 vote granted an emergency appeal from Trump administration lawyers and set aside decisions from judges in California who had blocked the president’s new rule from taking effect.»
«While it is not a final ruling on the issue, the decision is nonetheless a major victory for Trump and his effort to restrict immigration because it allows the asylum ban to be enforced at the southern border while the dispute wends its way through the courts. That potentially could last for the remainder of Trump’s current term in office.»
«Wednesday’s order is further evidence that Trump is changing how the Supreme Court works. Prior to 2017, it was rare for federal judges to issue nationwide orders that blocked actions of the federal government. And it was also rare for the high court to intervene in such pending cases with emergency orders, rather than holding oral arguments and releasing written decisions.»
«In late July, the justices cleared the way by a 5-4 vote for Trump to spend $2.5 billion from the military budget to pay for border wall construction. Congress had refused to appropriate the money, and a federal judge in Oakland and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco blocked the transfer.»
«U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar in San Francisco agreed and issued a nationwide injunction that barred enforcement of the new rule. The 9th Circuit Court upheld this order, but restricted its reach to California and Arizona.»
«U.S. Solicitor Gen. Noel Francisco filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court in late August in the case of Barr vs. East Bay Sanctuary Covenant. He urged the justices to lift the injunction and allow the new rule to take effect immediately. Doing so would “alleviate a crushing burden on the U.S. asylum system,” he said.»
The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. The district court’s July 24, 2019 order granting a preliminary injunction andSeptember 9, 2019 order restoring the nationwide scope of the injunction are stayed in full pending disposition of the Government’s appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of the Government’spetition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought. If a writ of certiorari is sought and the Court denies the petition, this order shall terminate automatically. If the Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, this order shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment.»
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to allow a rule limiting asylum claims to go into effect nationwide while a lower court ruling blocking it is appealed.
A federal judge had blocked the Trump administration rule, which dramatically limits the ability of Central American migrants to claim asylum if they enter the US by land through Mexico, nationwide. Earlier this month, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals dialed back the nationwide injunction, saying that it can only apply to migrants claiming asylum in California and Arizona, states that fall under the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction.
In its filing Monday, the administration laid out its case for the rule, arguing that, among other things, it “alleviates a crushing burden on the US asylum system” and deters migrants from coming to the US.
“The injunction now in effect is deeply flawed and should be stayed pending appeal and pending any further proceedings in this Court,” the filing reads.
The Trump administration has rolled out a slew of policies in recent weeks to try to curb migration to the United States amid high border apprehension numbers. The solicitor general acknowledged the uptick in illegal border crossings in Monday’s filing.
The rule, which was issued from the departments of Justice and Homeland Security in July, would prohibit migrants who have resided in or traveled through a third country from seeking asylum in the US, therefore barring migrants traveling through Mexico from being able to claim asylum. The result would be a severe limiting of who’s eligible for asylum.
Immigrant advocacy groups have claimed the rule is unlawful and leaves migrants in harm’s way.
In his July ruling, US District Judge Jon Tigar, a Barack Obama nominee, in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, wrote, “This new rule is likely invalid because it is inconsistent with the existing asylum laws.”
“An injunction,” Tigar added, “would vindicate the public’s interest — which our existing immigration laws clearly articulate — in ensuring that we do not deliver aliens into the hands of their persecutors.”
The US District Court for the Northern District of California will hold a hearing in early September.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is allowing nationwide enforcement of a new Trump administration rule that prevents most Central American immigrants from seeking asylum in the United States.
The justices’ order late Wednesday temporarily undoes a lower-court ruling that had blocked the new asylum policy in some states along the southern border. The policy is meant to deny asylum to anyone who passes through another country on the way to the U.S. without seeking protection there.
Most people crossing the southern border are Central Americans fleeing violence and poverty. They are largely ineligible under the new rule, as are asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and South America who arrive regularly at the southern border.
The shift reverses decades of U.S. policy. The administration has said that it wants to close the gap between an initial asylum screening that most people pass and a final decision on asylum that most people do not win.
“BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!” Trump tweeted.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the high-court’s order. “Once again, the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” Sotomayor wrote.
The legal challenge to the new policy has a brief but somewhat convoluted history. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco blocked the new policy from taking effect in late July. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed Tigar’s order so that it applied only in Arizona and California, states that are within the 9th Circuit.
That left the administration free to enforce the policy on asylum seekers arriving in New Mexico and Texas. Tigar issued a new order on Monday that reimposed a nationwide hold on asylum policy. The 9th Circuit again narrowed his order on Tuesday.
The high-court action allows the administration to impose the new policy everywhere while the court case against it continues.
Lee Gelernt, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is representing immigrant advocacy groups in the case, said: “This is just a temporary step, and we’re hopeful we’ll prevail at the end of the day. The lives of thousands of families are at stake.”
Donald Trump incassa una vittoria sull’immigrazione alla corte suprema, a maggioranza repubblicana dopo le sue due nomine: ribaltando la decisione di una corte d’appello, i giudici hanno deciso di far entrare in vigore la nuova normativa governativa che vieta a gran parte degli immigrati centroamericani di chiedere asilo in Usa se durante il loro viaggio hanno attraversato Paesi terzi sicuri dove potevano avanzare la stessa istanza.
Due giudici, Ruth Bader Ginsburg e Sonia Sotomayor, si sono dissociati.
“Grande vittoria alla corte suprema degli Stati Uniti per la frontiera sulla questione dell’asilo”: ha commentato Trump.
La nuova normativa entrerà in vigore finche’ prosegue la battaglia legale nel merito.
Croatian President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarovic will not sign the UN’s Global Compact for Migration (GCM), Croatian newsportal Direktno reports.
The website bases the decision on a Facebook post by Croatian TV journalist Velimir Bujanec. He asked her position on the GCM after a lot of people we’re interested in her stance.
In the answer his editorial board received, President Grabar-Kitarovic literally states: ‘Be assured I will not sign the ‘Marrakech Agreement’, Bujanec writes on Facebook.
The President’s reply was forwarded by her spokeswoman, Mrs. Ivana Crnić, and among other things, she states:
“Your concern about illegal migration and the ‘Marrakesh Agreement’ is absolutely understandable, however, in this case it is not about accepting illegal migrants, the Office of the President is in any form involved in the negotiations on the Declaration and you can refer to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Affairs, which is the holder of all activities, in the sense of details … Be sure I will not sign the “Marrakech Agreement” … ”
Croatia joins a growing number of countries that have decided to not sign the UN migration pact. Earlier the United States, Hungary and Austria refused to sign it.
Countries like Poland and the Czech Republic are mostly opposed to it as well.