It was reported the EU Court of Justice (EUCJ) ruled that non-EU migrants who enter a Member State illegally should not face detention on those grounds – instead they should be returned to the country they came from under the “Return Directive”. But when each EU Member State has specific laws regarding illegal entrance in their territory and the EU Treaty says that National Law is sovereign: what did immigration-related IGOs and NGOs celebrate exactly?
The Legal Trigger
The EUCJ ruling was triggered by the case of a “Ghanaian migrant who was found to be using false Belgian travel documents by French police at the entrance to the Channel Tunnel” and therefore was detained (for more details click here). This detention was deemed unlawful and hence a French court referred the case to the EUCJ for consultation, but did it really need to?
The Return Directive prevents a national of a non-EU country who has not yet been subject to the return procedure being imprisoned solely because he or she has entered the territory of a Member State illegally across an internal border of the Schengen area, - Ruling of the EUCJ
First of all, 'A "directive" is a legislative act that sets out a goal that all EU countries must achieve. However, it is up to the individual countries to devise their own laws on how to reach these goals.' (in Regulations, Directives and other legal acts) therefore, France is to follow its own laws first regarding illegal migration.
Second, as reported, the Ghanaian migrant was found with fake travel documents – a punishable crime, in most countries, with jail sentences (up to 3 years). Thus, for this fact alone Selina Affum was lawfully detained (unless, the French police and the District Attorney forgot to include this crime in their charges). But even if France wanted to follow the directive of return and grant 30 days to Ms Affum to leave voluntarily, she could just disappear meanwhile (like it happened in Portugal with the 72 individuals who entered the country with fake Syrian passports)...
Fake Passports: a Terrorist's Gold Chain
Europe suffers from a deep Passport Counterfeit problem, which was highlighted after the migrant crisis started and the Paris terror attacks occurred (two terrorists, at least, got into Europe holding fake travel documents). It has been reported that groups of Pakistani, Afghani, Palestinian “migrants” have been caught (e.g. in Brazil, in America, in Portugal) with fake Syrian, Iraqi, Turkish and Greek passports that allowed them to either enter/return to Europe or attempt to enter the US. So, when a Ghanaian citizen tried to enter the UK through France with a fake Belgian passport, it immediately raised red flags.
Document fraud is an important enabler of organized crime and terrorism, clearly. There is a whole subset of criminal activity and a criminal sector that is involved in stealing passports and producing sophisticated passports and supplying them to the criminal market. — Europol Director Rob Wainwright
Not only did the French authorities have strong reasons to detain Ms Selima but they also had the obligation, within a context of high security alert, to detain her for questioning: where did she acquire the fake travel document, who was her contact, etc – vital questions to learn whether ISIS imported its counterfeit industry to Europe (a very strong one in Syria, Iraq and Libya) or if corrupt European Civil servants are aiding and abetting terrorist activities (in addition to the many other committed crimes: counterfeit of documents, document counterfeit practised by a state official, and [in some countries, like Portugal] crimes against the State).
Documents are rarely examined for authenticity – a risky oversight given the huge ISIS-based industry in falsified Syrian passports, a business which, in turn, helps fill Islamic State coffers. Indeed, one of the Paris bombers used such a passport to enter Europe, leading the former French intelligent chief to remark, "It's obvious now: amongst the migrants, there are terrorists." - Arrests Show Jihadists Infiltrating Syrian RefugeesA state's security must always supersede politicised interpretations of the law. The EUCJ's ruling was hailed by IGOs and NGOs (who obsess over “international standards” for Human Rights, an obsession that allows the enemy to use our laws and liberties against us) but the fact is national laws are supreme and if they grant the authorities the right to detain citizens who acquire fake documents and who enter countries illegally under false pretence, then they should do so for investigative purposes. Politics and special interests must not get in the way of National Security.
Each EU Member State has specific provisions – in their penal code and constitution - regarding the defence of human rights, the prohibition of the use of torture and of other sorts of violence against detainees and people of interest; so, why do they even need a EU Convention on Human Rights for? Why the need for repetitive legal instructions? The more we learn about the EU, the more we understand the growing discontentment with the Institution – which begins to sound more and more perfidious and working towards an evil paradigm called “Political Standardisation”.
The EU insists its Member States hold complete sovereignty over their decisions and legal proceedings but then it tries to interfere with the internal affairs of those same States when they simply enforce their own national laws.
There's nothing to celebrate about the EUCJ ruling because the court invoked a EU directive that is not even binding – as per the EU's guidelines. At least one crime was committed (e.g. possession of a fake document) therefore the French authorities made a lawful arrest. The EUCJ made a politicised analysis of the directive (not law) and therefore it should be questioned not hailed. Political Public Relations are putting the Security of the peoples at risk by shouting violation of human rights at every chance they get. Perhaps it's time to review the Conventions on Human Rights since they repeat existing national legislation in most of the world's countries (besides, the whole issue has turned into a mockery when countries that do not respect the human rights of their own citizens – i.e. they lack protective legislation – are heading Human Rights Councils in international bodies).
"Foreign officials in Western Europe ... said that already some asylum seekers had been identified as having potential terrorism ties," the report notes, "but by the time they were flagged the individuals had already left the area." As a result, "Europe's 26-country Schengen area is ground zero for the continent's terrorist travel woes." - Arrests Show Jihadists Infiltrating Syrian Refugees
[The views expressed in this publication are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dissecting Society]