Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-12-Speech-2-123"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010612.6.2-123"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Today the Commission has put before us regulations against trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation which we cannot but approve of, though at the same time noting that they hide a less praiseworthy objective concerning the issue of illegal immigration. In effect, the Commission, which is frequently accused of using its new powers of initiative, which it derives from the Treaty of Amsterdam, in a way that is too favourable towards immigration (in particular the proposals on reuniting families and on temporary protection), is seeking to clear its name by including, under the heading of trafficking in human beings, trafficking in human beings for the purpose of labour exploitation. It claims that this is a contribution to the campaign to halt illegal immigration.
In reality, however, this is an alibi. If we examine the text more closely, we can see that the approach favoured by the Commission is to defuse the repressive measures. The offence of trafficking in human beings for the purpose of labour exploitation, as described in Article 1, does not require the illegal crossing of a border, and yet that is precisely the primary criterion in a case of illegal immigration. The result is that this offence is defined in a vague manner, so that it can cover very different types of cases, and not just illegal immigration. Under the pretext of this broad definition, the person who is the object of the trafficking is presented, in the Commission’s explanatory statement, as a ‘victim’. Therefore, in order for an offence to have been committed, that victim must have suffered a constraint, which does not correspond to the case of illegal immigrants, who generally come voluntarily.
In these circumstances, these supposed provisions against illegal immigration, buried as they are in the campaign against exploitation of all kinds, including child pornography, cannot possibly be effective. They serve merely to provide a
counterpart to other texts on immigration which are extremely lax.
Fortunately, Member States, and in particular France, have used the powers of initiative which they still posses, until 1 May 2004, to put forward other proposals which are more precise, better targeted, and therefore more effective. There is a proposed framework decision aimed at reinforcing the penal code to stop the facilitation of unauthorised entry into and residence in the Union, a draft directive which seeks to improve the definition of ‘facilitation of unauthorised entry, movement and residence’, and a draft directive on hauliers’ liability if they carry illegal immigrants. If Member States had not taken these initiatives in order to restore the balance, the texts currently being proposed by the Commission would be more or less pointless, at least as far as illegal immigration is concerned."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"trompe-l’oeil"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples