The right to education for children being evicted. Bruno Vanobbergen Flemish Children s Rights Commissioner

Transcription

1 The right to education for children being evicted Bruno Vanobbergen Flemish Children s Rights Commissioner

2 Overview What s the problem? Which stakeholders did we focus on? How did we proceed? Bringing stakeholders together Getting things clear Finding common ground Meeting authorities Obstacles we met Different perspectives among stakeholders Authorities perspectives How far did we get, so far? Or not that far?

3 Introduction (1) Belgium is a federal state (art. 1) Migration law & policy = federal competence Deputy-minister of asylum and migration Education, Welfare, Youth care, Sports = Competence of Communities (Flemish, French, German) No hierarchy in authority agreements needed Example: undocumented minors Right to education (enrolment, funding, ) Federal state cannot obtain information from schools on whereabouts of undocumented minors Police cannot arrest undocumented minors in or on the way to (nor back from) school (*)

4 Introduction (2) Flemish Children s Rights Commissioner s Office Founded by the Flemish parliament in 1998 Independent para-parliamentary institution Office = Commissioner + 13 employees Investigate complaints & mediate Monitor policies & formulate policy advise But also interventions with Flemish parliament Flemish government & ministries Federal institutions often in cooperation with French-speaking counterpart

5 What s the problem? Eviction of children & youngsters on the move Who have lived in Belgium for many years Some of them born here Unaccompanied or with family Some in foster care Attending Flemish school for many years Some of them close to finishing secondary school No residence permit for Belgium For a variety of reasons (never got one, lost) Eviction notice have to leave country in 30 days Some of them suddenly disappear Other ones live under the radar

6 What s the problem? Group Zonderwijs (activist teachers) complains: Uncertainty about future harms development of pupils, their psychological wellbeing, Abrupt disruption of schooling undermines students future prospects Investment of many years is lost Can continue schooling in country of origin? No opportunity to say goodbye disruption of normal school life Flemish Foster Care Agency report (2014): 90 undocumented children in foster care What after their 18th birthday?

7 Which stakeholders did we focus on? Children & youngsters involved, families, Group Zonderwijs (teachers) Federations of School Boards Catholic school boards City school boards Board of Flemish state schools All publicly funded, cath. privately run Federation of Secondary School Students Flemish Foster Care Agency (Pleegzorg Vlaanderen) Youth Care organisations Sports federations,

8 How did we proceed? Bringing stakeholders together Phase 1: educational stakeholders Phase 2: other stakeholders Getting things clear What are problems in daily work with these children? What changes do we want? Any proposals? What do they imply? Consequences? How do they relate to present legal procedures? Can we find some common ground? Meeting the authorities

9 Getting things clear Original proposal & arguments Argument: Those kids are so well integrated Proposal: educational stay = no eviction before schooling is finished Change in legal procedures re residence permit Eviction is only temporary postponed Conditions? children family members Work permit How to prepare them to return home? Other? Diploma / certificate Integration argument Permanent stay?

10 Obstacles we met Different perspectives among stakeholders For example: Some school boards federations: Talking about migration law is beyond our competence. We d rather stick to the rightto-education perspective. Other school boards federation: We shouldn t make distinctions between children depending on their legal status.

11 Obstacles we met Authorities perspectives (meeting July 15): Flemish Minister of Education: Allow pupils to finish the school year. Federal Migration office: Impossible to put into practice. Would leave no time window for repatriation. Unacceptable. Comes down to general pardon for all undocumented families. Would lead to massive increase of influx of refugees. We have to stick to the unity-of-family principle. We shouldn t make distinction between unaccompanied minors and other minors.

12 How far did we get, so far? Analysis & position paper June 2015 (quite detailed) 1st meeting with authorities (July 2015) Representatives Flemish Minister of Education Repr. federal Migration Office & Deputy-Minister More general platform text (June 2016) More room to negotiate Signed by organisations (some with additional comments) Hearing in Flemish parliament (June 2016) Informal contacts at federal and Flemish level Other actual issues as opener The usual stuff: Interviews & comments in media, year reports,

13 Platform text Basic principles Take diversity of situations into account Not just one rule for all illegal immigrants. Best interest of child as primary concern Unity of family : child s right not duty Predictions on outcomes empirically grounded Proposals re undocumented children Recently arrived & no perspective humane return policy A.o. more flexible regulations allowing finishing school year Been here longer finishing schooling trajectory (> 18 yr.) Differentiated + humane return (incl. good preparation / life project ) Thoroughly rooted permanent residence permit Under protective youth care measure temporary res. permit

14 Discussion Similar problems experienced re return policies involving undocumented minors? Is this an issue in your country? What are the perspectives taken by different stakeholders? Strategies to find common ground among stakeholders? Strategies to convince policy makers? Step-by-step. Can we agree with different policies answering different situations children and youngsters are in?