Italy to begin expulsion of "dangerous" EU migrant

[Dawie]

The Italian government was expected Friday to issue the first expulsion orders for foreigners from European Union member states living in Italy who are deemed a threat to public safety.

A decree on the expulsions was approved by Prime Minister Romano Prodi's centre-left cabinet late on Wednesday in the wake of a brutal attack in Rome on a 47-year-old woman allegedly by a Romanian man.

Interesting to see how they are going to do this without violating EU law...

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/euro ... U_migrants

[avjones]

You can expell EU citizens, it's just not easy to do so. But not impossible.

The test is much stricter than for non-EU non-citizens, of course.

the regulations in question ("the 2000 Regulations) by reg. 21(3)(b) permit the removal from the United Kingdom of a foreign national who is a member of the family of a qualified person - which the appellant's wife is - if "the Secretary of State has decided that his removal is justified on grounds of public policy, public security or health". By reg. 23 it is provided, in relation to these grounds, that:

(b) a decision taken on one or more of the relevant grounds must be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual in respect of whom the decision is taken;
(c) a person's previous criminal convictions do not, in themselves, justify a decision on grounds of public policy or public security;

…………..
(f) a person is to be informed of the grounds of public policy, public security or public health upon which the decision taken in his case is based ….

9. The 2000 Regulations are made in the exercise of ministerial powers under s.2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 "in relation to measures relating to rights of entry into, and residence in, the United Kingdom", and under s.80 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which relates to the appeal rights of EEA nationals and their families. The explanatory note to the Regulations indicates that among their purposes is to give effect to Council Directive 64/221/EEC on the co-ordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. By art. 1 these govern among other things the expulsion of spouses of nationals of EU states residing in other states. The provisions of reg. 23(b) and (c) - ante - are required by art.3 of the Directive; those of (f) by art. 6. Art. 8 requires access to "the same legal remedies … as are available to nationals of the State concerned in respect of acts of the administration".

[Docterror]

Amanda, while it is impossible to differ with your opinion, I cannot help wondering why it is based on the 2000 Regulations and not the newer ones.

[Dawie]

You can expell EU citizens, it's just not easy to do so. But not impossible.

The test is much stricter than for non-EU non-citizens, of course.

the regulations in question ("the 2000 Regulations) by reg. 21(3)(b) permit the removal from the United Kingdom of a foreign national who is a member of the family of a qualified person - which the appellant's wife is - if "the Secretary of State has decided that his removal is justified on grounds of public policy, public security or health". By reg. 23 it is provided, in relation to these grounds, that:

(b) a decision taken on one or more of the relevant grounds must be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual in respect of whom the decision is taken;
(c) a person's previous criminal convictions do not, in themselves, justify a decision on grounds of public policy or public security;

…………..
(f) a person is to be informed of the grounds of public policy, public security or public health upon which the decision taken in his case is based ….

9. The 2000 Regulations are made in the exercise of ministerial powers under s.2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 "in relation to measures relating to rights of entry into, and residence in, the United Kingdom", and under s.80 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which relates to the appeal rights of EEA nationals and their families. The explanatory note to the Regulations indicates that among their purposes is to give effect to Council Directive 64/221/EEC on the co-ordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. By art. 1 these govern among other things the expulsion of spouses of nationals of EU states residing in other states. The provisions of reg. 23(b) and (c) - ante - are required by art.3 of the Directive; those of (f) by art. 6. Art. 8 requires access to "the same legal remedies … as are available to nationals of the State concerned in respect of acts of the administration".

Except the test in this case seems to be if you are Romanian or not. I'd find it hard to imagine citizens of the UK or France being targeted in this way. Certainly the UK and France wouldn't tolerate it.

[Docterror]

'Rome was the world's safest city until Romania's entry into the EU' in January, Rome Mayor Walter Veltroni was quoted as saying by the daily La Repubblica

While the case by itself could have the EEA national expulled, statements like these is giving ammo to the defense to outline an argument somewhere along the lines that you have just stated.

[avjones]

Sorry, my fault - I clicked on the older, not hte newer, regs.

But you can still expel, under the newer ones.

[Dawie]

One also has to wonder why a decree had to be issued by the Italian government in order for expulsion orders to be issued. You might infer from this that the expulsion orders must be contrary to EU law if a special decree had to be issued.

Will be interesting to see in the coming months how many of these expulsion orders are challenged in the courts.

The phrase "deemed a threat to public safety" does have some Orwellian overtones to it as well. Who exactly decides what a "threat to public safety" is?

[avjones]

I'm not sure about that - it might jsut be their equivalent on a deportation order made by the SSHD.

[archigabe]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 788922.ece

[quote]Corriere della Sera said that Romanians had “replaced Moroccans and Albanians as Italians’ No 1 nightmare. The difference is that Romanians are now Europeans like us.â€

[JAJ]

One also has to wonder why a decree had to be issued by the Italian government in order for expulsion orders to be issued. You might infer from this that the expulsion orders must be contrary to EU law if a special decree had to be issued.

Will be interesting to see in the coming months how many of these expulsion orders are challenged in the courts.

I fail to see why the EU saw fit to allow free movement of criminals in the first place. There is absolutely no reason why those who have serious criminal records should have an entitlement to live in any EU state other than the one of which they are a citizen.

[joesoap101]

Ireland deported approximately 100 Romanians recently- the issue here is that when an EU citizen is deported or asked to leave voluntarily they can return almost immediately- not much point really.

[JAJ]

Ireland deported approximately 100 Romanians recently- the issue here is that when an EU citizen is deported or asked to leave voluntarily they can return almost immediately- not much point really.

They could be stopped at passport control, now that Immigration have actually started checking the passports of those from EU states.

[joesoap101]

Ireland deported approximately 100 Romanians recently- the issue here is that when an EU citizen is deported or asked to leave voluntarily they can return almost immediately- not much point really.

They could be stopped at passport control, now that Immigration have actually started checking the passports of those from EU states.

That would require that their passports are swiped, which in reality never happens. I believe they randomly swipe passports however that is not routine- the EU citizens line at border crossings would quickly swell if they did swipe everyones passport.

Also, I don't think exclusion orders are issued if an EU citizen is removed/deported, so even with a swipe they would still be able to enter.

[archigabe]

Just read in the Irish times today that an NGO reported two of the deported romanians back in Dublin O'connell street.Just goes to show the government can't do much when it comes to E.U citizens.

Associated Press seems to have more details of the blowback on the Romanians in Italy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071103/ap_ ... _crackdown

Authorities in Milan said that four Romanians with criminal records were put on a flight to Bucharest on Friday night, and that deportations for 12 other Romanians had been authorized.

They were the first reported expulsions since Premier Romano Prodi's center-left government approved a decree Wednesday night allowing the deportation of European Union citizens deemed dangerous.

Pressure on authorities to crackdown on immigrants rose after the wife of a top navy commander was beaten to death near a Gypsy camp on Rome's outskirts earlier this week. A young Romanian man who lived in the camp was arrested for the attack.

Romanians have poured into Italy since their country joined the European Union at the start of year, taking jobs as bricklayers, maids and janitors. Romanians number some 560,000 in Italy, or roughly 1 percent of the population.

Italian Foreign Minister Massimo D'Alema condemned the mob attack in Rome as "gang aggression unworthy of our country."

But he also told Sky TG24 TV there was "an emergency linked to the flood of people from Romania," referring to a spate of violent crimes.

Two other Italians have been killed in recent attacks blamed on Romanians: a woman stabbed in the eye in a Rome subway and a cycler beaten by suspected Romanian muggers. Three Romanians were also arrested in the mugging of Oscar-winning director Giuseppe Tornatore in Rome.

In a northern Italy, a young Romanian man was arrested last month for the rape of a woman on the steps of a church. In Milan, the 75-year-old owner of a coffee bar in Milan was beaten and her daughter raped behind the counter during a robbery allegedly committed by four Romanians.

As part of the crackdown, bulldozers in Rome for a second day knocked down shantytowns where thousands of foreigners live without permits.

[joesoap101]

To be honest, everyone knew the party would end once Romania and Bulgaria join. I mean just the fact that they were required to obtain visas to travel to Britain/Ireland almost right to the point of joining the EU showed the prevailing attitude to these countries, only their hands were forced in the end.

Id say labour market restrictions will be implemented as long as they possibly can.

[Docterror]

[quote]Despite fears that Romanians would flood into Britain after their country joined the EU, most have headed for Southern Europe, especially Italy, because of affinities of language and culture.......Romanians had “replaced Moroccans and Albanians as Italians’ No 1 nightmare. The difference is that Romanians are now Europeans like us.â€

[Dawie]

One also has to wonder why a decree had to be issued by the Italian government in order for expulsion orders to be issued. You might infer from this that the expulsion orders must be contrary to EU law if a special decree had to be issued.

Will be interesting to see in the coming months how many of these expulsion orders are challenged in the courts.

I fail to see why the EU saw fit to allow free movement of criminals in the first place. There is absolutely no reason why those who have serious criminal records should have an entitlement to live in any EU state other than the one of which they are a citizen.

So with that logic would you also be against people with serious criminal records from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being allowed to live and work in England? Or perhaps the line could be drawn even more locally and we could prevent people from different English counties being able to move from Surrey, say to Berkshire if they have a serious criminal record.

A dangerous line is crossed when freedoms and rights are selectively dished out to those who "qualify".

[JAJ]

So with that logic would you also be against people with serious criminal records from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being allowed to live and work in England?

The difference is that these people are British citizens.

Those from other EU states are not.

[Dawie]

So with that logic would you also be against people with serious criminal records from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being allowed to live and work in England?

The difference is that these people are British citizens.

Those from other EU states are not.

They are EU citizens, but I guess that's the whole argument. Just how much say should the EU have over who can enter individual member's countries.

[Marco 72]

So with that logic would you also be against people with serious criminal records from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being allowed to live and work in England? Or perhaps the line could be drawn even more locally and we could prevent people from different English counties being able to move from Surrey, say to Berkshire if they have a serious criminal record.

That wouldn't be such a bad idea, IMHO...

[Christophe]

They are EU citizens, but I guess that's the whole argument. Just how much say should the EU have over who can enter individual member's countries.

And therein lies a topic for huge discussion, not to say argument, and one that could well become more heated before it dies down - whatever the outcome of any such discussions might be...

[Richard66]

It would be good to remember that Directive 2004/38/EC does allow for the expulsion of Union citizens:

Article 27
General principles
1. Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, Member States may restrict the freedom of movement and residence of Union citizens and their family members, irrespective of nationality, on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. These grounds shall not be invoked to serve
economic ends.

2. Measures taken on grounds of public policy or public security shall comply with the principle of proportionality and shall be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned.
Previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures.
The personal conduct of the individual concerned must represent a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. Justifications that are isolated from the particulars of the case or that rely on considerations of general prevention shall not be accepted.

And that this expulsion can last up to three years:

Article 32
Duration of exclusion orders
1. Persons excluded on grounds of public policy or public security may submit an application for lifting of the exclusion order after a reasonable period, depending on the circumstances, and in any event after three years from enforcement of the final exclusion order which has been validly
adopted in accordance with Community law, by putting forward rguments to establish that there has been a material change in the circumstances which justified the decision ordering their exclusion

The emergency legislation issued by the Italian goverment makes some ammendments to their implementation of the Directive and at first sight does not seem to be in conflict with the latter.

[Marco 72]

Had Italy been as poor as Romania, who would have been discriminated against more by another country?

Germany has been deporting Italian citizens for a long time, even when they committed no crime (see here and here, in German). Nilo Soppelsa, the man mentioned in the articles, was threatened with expulsion when his business failed and he could no longer support himself.

[Directive/2004/38/EC]

Germany has been deporting Italian citizens for a long time, even when they committed no crime (see here and here, in German). Nilo Soppelsa, the man mentioned in the articles, was threatened with expulsion when his business failed and he could no longer support himself.

These are relatively old articles, from 2000 and 2003. Is there any indication that this is still happening in Germany, especially since Directive 2004/38/EC made a lot clearer the requirements for and limited the opportunites for expulsion?

[Marco 72]

Is there any indication that this is still happening in Germany, especially since Directive 2004/38/EC made a lot clearer the requirements for and limited the opportunites for expulsion?

None that I know of (I should have said "had been" rather than "has been").