Educationchildrenevicted eurochild2016 krc

The right to education for children being evicted

Bruno Vanobbergen Flemish Children’s Rights Commissioner

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?

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 (*)

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  Flemish parliament But also interventions with  Flemish government & ministries  Federal institutions often in cooperation with French-speaking counterpart

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’

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?

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 Youth Care organisations Sports federations, …

(Pleegzorg Vlaanderen)

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

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 children

family members Work permit

Eviction is only temporary postponed How to prepare them to return ‘home’?

Other?

Diploma / certificate

Conditions?

Integration argument Permanent stay?

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.’

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.’

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, …

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

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?