|
Undesirability, and its corollary active rejection,
characterizes more and more the policies relating to
migrants, as often for the homeless leaving in the street in
extreme situation of poverty and abandonment. The
humanitarian welcome/acceptance and the principle of
solidarity and civic integration remain at level of good
intentions, while exclusion and discrimination feed the
political discourse as well the reactions of citizens.
The punitive measures to control denounced by European
Parliament (2005), continuing to be the main initiatives of
migration policy: “The European Parliament regrets
that so far the measures adopted by the Council and Member
States have been primarily punitive measures to control
migration flows rather than proactive in third countries. It
recalled its view that strategies to reduce poverty, improve
living conditions and working to create jobs and develop
training in countries of origin, contributed to normalising
migration flows in the long term. For the European
Parliament, it is also imperative to take full account of
the potential of immigration in a context of co-development.
In this context, it encourages the integration of migration
in EU foreign policy while recalling that the use of
development aid is not enough to address the root causes of
migration”. (09/06/2005 - EP: non-legislative
resolution)
The ‘illegal’ (so called ...) migrants, and
other marginalized populations, are only the tip of the
iceberg of a social structural phenomenon handled often
inadequately and sometimes inconsistently by the political
class in Europe.
In a way, these other and different, require
us to consider the situation scandalous and untenable.
The marginal and excluded people: undocumented,
without permit, care, home …less, are
increasingly discriminated against, exploited and often
actively rejected.
In addition, because of their status - so-called illegal -
these people are seen as a threat to public order and
therefore any means, (both administrative and policing) seem
justified to counter this threat. Undocumented migrants have
no other means to protect themselves but to hide at the risk
of remaining without identity and without social aid rather
than risk being expelled. As a result they remain without
any law and are thus vulnerable to exploitation and
arbitrary decisions.
In such a context, is it possible for an NGO and
Association, for a social and health worker, to give meaning
to their work when they are permanently faced with programs
and political decisions which are quite contrary to
fundamental law and professional ethics?
|