ABSTRACT: From a short comparison of the normative picture of the main European legislations concerning the repression of the – unfortunately increasing – phenomenon of clandestine immigration, it emerges a very diversified treatment. Moreover, the attempt of the national legislators to rule the matter in a single complete and homogeneous normative text meets the difficulty to uniform situations in practice very different one from each other (let us think to the differences between a clandestine immigrant and a regular immigrant whose permit to stay expires). From this short analysis emerges however that, besides the – even meaningful – normative differences between several European countries (e.g. between the countries that choose the criminal instrument for the repression of clandestine immigration and those that, instead, still rely on the single instrument of the administrative endorsement), a common line exists, consisting in the local adoption of the instruments that show to be the most effective to repress clandestine immigration, in accordance to the social and political implications of every State, as well as to the priority respect of the protection of the fundamental values of the person.
SUMMARY: 1. Introduction; 2. The English model; 3. The French model; 4. The German model; 5. The Spanish model.
1. Introduction
“Clandestine immigration” is the arrival of citizens from foreign nations in violation of the laws of immigration of the destination country.
In Europe, the phenomenon of clandestine immigration is repressed in strongly diversified ways, without however a single normative, eventually of communitarian derivation, that allows to harmonize the several national legislations. As it has also been remembered by the European Commission, this phenomenon is very complex and it demands attention and a variety of participations, with information and “ analysis of the effects of the measures ”, always assumed in the full respect of the human rights.
In the main European legislations it is possible however to notice the existence of a common background: all States seem to share the same aim, which is the adoption of the instrument that turns out to be in practice the most effective to assure the removal of the clandestine immigrants from the territory.
Currently, while in various countries like in Germany and in the United Kingdom, it is preferred to adopt a specific penal law of for the clandestine immigration, in other countries of the European Union this phenomenon is punished only under the administrative profile (in Spain and, until recent times, also in Italy). It is worth to notice then that in the United Kingdom and in France, differently from Italy, does not exist the principle of “obligatory nature of penal action”, in force of which the Judicial authority is ought to pursue every crime which notice has been taken of. Therefore, in such countries the application of crimes is more limited, being subordinated to an opportunity appraisal of the jurisdictional Authority, that can choose to protect the “integrity of the frontiers ” interest either through the penal instrument or through the easier instrument of the administrative expulsion.
Concerning the countries that have chosen to introduce an appropriate criminal provision that punishes the crime of clandestine immigration, we can first consider the English model.
2. The English model
In the United Kingdom, in fact, the Immigration Act of 1971 punishes the crime of clandestine immigration with the sanction of a fine or with the “ imprisonment for not more than six months ”, while much more severe penalties are reserved to whom facilitating the transit, the draft of the persons. The crime of clandestine immigration is described as the conduct of the alien who enters in the United Kingdom either in violation of a provision of expulsion, or without a legal title of income, or who stays beyond the validity of his title, or who does not respect the conditions to which it has been issued. It’s a model that follows the American system, in which the “Improper Entry by Alien” provides penalties or the imprisonment up to a maximum of six months, increasable up to two years in case of relapse (Title 8, Sec. 1325, U.S. Code).
Also in consideration of recent European tendencies, a further crime has been introduced with the “Asylum and Immigration Act” of 2004 (section 2). It is responsible for such crime the one who does not turn out to be in possession of a valid immigration document (a passport or an other document with equivalent value) that allows to satisfactorily establish his identity.
The same provision is also applied when the person is not in possession of a document for a minor with whom he is travelling. The crime is not shaped if, as a result of a control occurring after the entrance in the British territory, the person is in a position to producing a valid document within three days.
In the same way, the crime is not shaped if the person is citizen of the European Union or of one State belonging to the European economic space (SEE), or if he is member of the family of a citizen of the UE or of the SEE and exercises a right previewed by communitarian treatises.
From a statistical point of view, then, we could remember that, in the period January – October 2006, 868 subjects have been produced in front of Magistrates’ Court, and 67 among them have been declared guilty.
Also in other countries, the national legislator has joined to a criminal configuration of the clandestine immigration.
3. The French model
In France, the crime of illegal entrance appears in the articles L 621-1 and L 621-2 of the code that collects the dispositions in matter of immigration and asylum (Code de l’entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d’asile) and that in 2004 has replaced the decree n. 2658 of 2 November 1945, many times amended over the decades.
The stranger, non European Union citizen, commits the crime of clandestine immigration if he enters or stays in French territory without being in possession of the necessary documents or if he stays beyond the validity of the permit to stay. The penalty is a year of imprisonment plus a fine of Euro 3.750. The stranger who re-enters in France after the expulsion is punished with three years of imprisonment.
With the recent reform of the 25th of May 2008 (“Code de l’entrée et du séjour temporaire”), the same punishment is applied to the alien that has not respected the dispositions of the Treaty of Schengen.
It is also provided the possibility to prohibit to the condemned the return and the stay in France for at least three years (article 621-1 Code de l’entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d’asile). In this case, the alien is carried to the frontier (“reconduite à la frontière”), immediately or after having served the prison sentence, in case.
Under the statistical profile, in 2005, the “Annuaire statistique de la Justice” of the Department of Justice has indicated 4.186 sentences; but, also in this case, the number does not concern the crime of clandestine immigration only, but comprises various other violations (Code 7 of “Annuaire”, section Justice pénale).
However, we could remember that in a recent participation (cd. “Pact on Immigration”), the French President Nicolas Sarkozy has asserted that “Europe is more opened to immigration than the North America, even if it hasn’t financial means to receive all immigrates with dignity”.
In conclusion, as far as the French model to contrast the clandestine immigration is concerned , the criminal instrument goes to integrate the administrative measures of removal, but cannot replace them.
4. The German model
In Germany, the law about immigration of the 30th of July 2004 distinguishes the treatment between the citizens of the European Union and the citizens belonging to extra-communitarian countries.
The entrance and the stay of the extra-communitarian citizens in Germany are regulated by the “Aufenthaltsgesetz” (“Law on the residence, on occupation and on integration of the foreigners in Germany”), of the 30th of July 2004. The “Aufenthaltsgesetz” contains the main legal bases in matter of entrance, escape and stay of the foreigners in Germany. It is in force since January 2005, in replacement of the previous law “Ausländergesetz”.
The § 95 (Strafvorschriften) ratifies the imprisonment (Freiheitsstrafe) of the clandestine immigrant from one to three years, together with a pecuniary sanction (Geldstrafe). The imprisonment of one year is provided only for the first offender, while a repeat offender (that is the offender who, even if already expelled, comes back or stays again in Germany) is punishable by up to three years.
Sanctions up to three years of confinement are provided also for the foreigners that use or provide false information in order to get a permit to stay for themselves or for others.
It is also provided the automatic expulsion for the extra-communitarian, even if regular, who is condemned with a definitive sentence of three years of imprisonment (a two years sentence suffices in case of drug sale or of public nuisance).
Official statistics of the Bundeskriminalamt only report about persons subject to investigations for the crime of “ Smuggling of foreigns into federal territory ” and indicate that so much as 3.820 subjects have been involved in 2005.
5. The Spanish model
Vice-versa, in Spain, although during the last few years it has been recorded a strong increment of the phenomenon of clandestine immigration, the Ley Organica of 2004 entitled “Derechos y libertades de los extranjeros en España y su integración social” and its further modifications, have depicted one series of illicit cases only, with sanctions featured according to their gravity, without however any resort to the penal instrument.
The third title of the Organic Ley, rubricated ‘‘De las infracciones en materia extranjería y su regime sancionador’’, distinguishes three types of illicit, characterized as “slight” (art. 52), “serious ones” (art. 53) and “much serious” (art. 54).
With particular reference to the infractions qualified as “serious”, it is provided the hypothesis of “irregular stay condition” (under the hypothesis of expired permission or of working without a regular permit to stay) and it is punished with a sanction from 301 to 6.000 Euro (art. 55, 1° co., lett. b).
As an alternative to the administrative sanction it can be adopted an expulsion provision, for the “serious” violations reported by the art. 54 and the “much serious” ones at the art. 53, lett. a) b), c), d) and f) (art. 57).
It is interesting to notice that the art. 57, n. 2 specifies that it represents a cause of expulsion –besides the hypothesis reported as “many serious” or “serious”– the case of a foreigner, found guilty of a smaller infraction, who has been previously condemned for another crime, in or outside Spain, if the crime is provided to be punished with one year or more of confinement, unless that “los antecedentes penales [of the foreigner] hubieran sido cancelados”.
Precisely, the section 24 of Immigration Act del 1971 estabilish that “a person who is not [F1 a British citizen] shall be guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction with a fine of not more than [F2 [ F3 level 5]on the standard scale] or with imprisonment for not more than six months, or with both, in any of the following cases:—(a) if contrary to this Act he knowingly enters the United Kingdom in breach of a deportation order or without leave; (…) (b) if, having only a limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, he knowingly either—(i)remains beyond the time limited by the leave; or (ii)fails to observe a condition of the leave; (c) if, having lawfully entered the United Kingdom without leave by virtue of section 8(1) above, he remains without leave beyond the time allowed by section 8(1); (d) if, without reasonable excuse, he fails to comply with any requirement imposed on him under Schedule 2 to this Act to report to [F5 a medical officer of health] [ F5 the chief administrative medical officer of a Health Board] [ F6 or the chief administrative medical officer of a Health and Social Services Board], or to attend, or submit to a test or examination, as required by such an officer; (e) if, without reasonable excuse, he fails to observe any restriction imposed on him under Schedule 2 or 3 to this Act as to residence [F7 as to his employment or occupation] or as to reporting to the police [F8 , to an immigration officer or to the Secretary of State]; (f) if he disembarks in the United Kingdom from a ship or aircraft after being placed on board under Schedule 2 or 3 to this Act with a view to his removal from the United Kingdom; (g) if he embarks in contravention of a restriction imposed by or under an Order in Council under section 3(7) of this Act. [F9 (1A) A person commits an offence under subsection (1)(b)(i) above on the day when he first knows that the time limited by his leave has expired and continues to commit it throughout any period during which he is in the United Kingdom thereafter; but a person shall not be prosecuted under that provision more than once in respect of the same limited leave.] (…)”.
“(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts. Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties. Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of— (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection. Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed. (c) Marriage fraud. Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both. (d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud. Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both”.
The art. L. 621-1 code pénal estabilish that “l’étranger qui a pénétré ou séjourné en France sans se conformer aux dispositions des articles L. 211-1 et L. 311-1 ou qui s’est maintenu en France au-delà de la durée autorisée par son visa sera puni d’un emprisonnement d’un an et d’une amende de 3 750 euros.La juridiction pourra, en outre, interdire à l’étranger condamné, pendant une durée qui ne peut excéder trois ans, de pénétrer ou de séjourner en France. L’interdiction du territoire emporte de plein droit reconduite du condamné à la frontière, le cas échéant à l’expiration de la peine d’emprisonnement.Art. L. 621-2. – Les peines prévues à l’article L. 621-1 sont applicables à l’étranger qui n’est pas ressortissant d’un État membre de l’Union européenne :1° S’il a pénétré sur le territoire métropolitain sans remplir les conditions mentionnées aux points a, b ou c du paragraphe 1 de l’article 5 de la convention signée à Schengen le 19 juin 1990 , et sans avoir été admis sur le territoire en application des stipulations des paragraphes 2 ou 3 de l’article 5 de ladite convention ; il en est de même lorsque l’étranger fait l’objet d’un signalement aux fins de non-admission en application d’une décision exécutoire prise par un autre État partie à ladite convention; 2° Ou si, en provenance directe du territoire d’un État partie à cette convention, il est entré ou a séjourné sur le territoire métropolitain sans se conformer aux stipulations de ses articles 19, paragraphe 1 ou 2, 20, paragraphe 1, et 21, paragraphe 1 ou 2, à l’exception des conditions mentionnées au point e du paragraphe 1 de l’article 5 et au point d lorsque le signalement aux fins de non-admission ne résulte pas d’une décision exécutoire prise par un autre État partie à la convention”.
§ 95 (Strafvorschriften) estabilish that “(1) Mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder mit Geldstrafe wird bestraft, wer 1. entgegen § 3 Abs. 1 in Verbindung mit § 48 Abs. 2 sich im Bundesgebiet aufhält, 2. ohne erforderlichen Aufenthaltstitel nach § 4 Abs. 1 Satz 1 sich im Bundesgebiet aufhält, vollziehbar ausreisepflichtig ist und dessen Abschiebung nicht ausgesetzt ist, 3. entgegen § 14 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 oder 2 in das Bundesgebiet einreist, 4. einer vollziehbaren Anordnung nach § 46 Abs. 2 Satz 1 oder 2 oder § 47 Abs. 1 Satz 2 oder Abs. 2 zuwiderhandelt,5. entgegen § 49 Abs. 2 eine Angabe nicht, nicht richtig oder nicht vollständig macht, sofern die Tat nicht in Absatz 2 Nr. 2 mit Strafe bedroht ist, *) 6. entgegen § 49 Abs. 10 eine dort genannte Maßnahme nicht duldet, *) 6a.entgegen § 54a wiederholt einer Meldepflicht nicht nachkommt, wiederholt gegen räumliche Beschränkungen des Aufenthalts oder sonstige Auflagen verstößt oder trotz wiederholten Hinweises auf die rechtlichen Folgen einer Weigerung der Verpflichtung zur Wohnsitznahme nicht nachkommt oder entgegen § 54a Abs. 4 bestimmte Kommunikationsmittel nutzt, 7. wiederholt einer räumlichen Beschränkung nach § 61 Abs. 1 zuwiderhandelt oder 8. im Bundesgebiet einer überwiegend aus Ausländern bestehenden Vereinigung oder Gruppe angehört, deren Bestehen, Zielsetzung oder Tätigkeit vor den Behörden geheim gehalten wird, um ihr Verbot abzuwenden. (1a) Ebenso wird bestraft, wer vorsätzlich eine in § 404 Abs. 2 Nr. 4 des Dritten Buches Sozialgesetzbuch oder in § 98 Abs. 3 Nr. 1 bezeichnete Handlung begeht, für den Aufenthalt im Bundesgebiet nach § 4 Abs. 1 Satz 1 eines Aufenthaltstitels bedarf und als Aufenthaltstitel nur ein Schengen-Visum nach § 6 Abs. 1 besitzt. (2) Mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe wird bestraft, wer 1. entgegen § 11 Abs. 1 Satz 1 a) in das Bundesgebiet einreist oder b) sich darin aufhält oder 2. unrichtige oder unvollständige Angaben macht oder benutzt, um für sich oder einen anderen einen Aufenthaltstitel oder eine Duldung zu beschaffen oder eine so beschaffte Urkunde wissentlich zur Täuschung im Rechtsverkehr gebraucht”.
The artículo 52 (Infracciones leves) Ley Orgánica 4/2000 estabilish that “son infracciones leves: a. la omisión o el retraso en la comunicación a las autoridades españolas de los cambios de nacionalidad, de estado civil o de domicilio, así como de otras circunstancias determinantes de su situación laboral cuando les sean exigibles por la normativa aplicable; b. el retraso, hasta tres meses, en la solicitud de renovación de las autorizaciones una vez hayan caducado; c. encontrarse trabajando en España sin haber solicitado autorización administrativa para trabajar por cuenta propia, cuando se cuente con autorización de residencia temporal”. L’Artículo 53 (Infracciones graves) Ley Orgánica 4/2000 stabilisce che “son infracciones graves: a. encontrarse irregularmente en territorio español, por no haber obtenido la prórroga de estancia, carecer de autorización de residencia o tener caducada más de tres meses la mencionada autorización, y siempre que el interesado no hubiere solicitado la renovación de la misma en el plazo previsto reglamentariamente, b. encontrarse trabajando en España sin haber obtenido autorización de trabajo o autorización administrativa previa para trabajar, cuando no cuente con autorización de residencia válida; c. incurrir en ocultación dolosa o falsedad grave en el cumplimiento de la obligación de poner en conocimiento del Ministerio del Interior los cambios que afecten a nacionalidad, estado civil o domicilio; d. el incumplimiento de las medidas impuestas por razón de seguridad pública de presentación periódica o de alejamiento de fronteras o núcleos de población concretados singularmente, de acuerdo con lo dispuesto en la presente Ley; e. la comisión de una tercera infracción leve, siempre que en un plazo de un año anterior hubiera sido sancionado por dos faltas leves de la misma naturalezza; f. la participación por el extranjero en la realización de actividades contrarias al orden público previstas como graves en la Ley Orgánica 1/1992, de 21 de febrero, sobre Protección de la Seguridad Ciudadana; g. las salidas del territorio español por puestos no habilitados, sin exhibir la documentación prevista o contraviniendo las prohibiciones legalmente impuestas; h. incumplir la obligación del apartado 2 del articolo 4”. L’ Artículo 54 (Infracciones muy graves) chiarisce che “son infracciones muy graves: a. participar en actividades contrarias a la seguridad exterior del Estado o que pueden perjudicar las relaciones de España con otros países, o estar implicados en actividades contrarias al orden público previstas como muy graves en la Ley Orgánica 1/1992, de 21 de febrero, sobre Protección de la Seguridad Ciudadana; b. inducir, promover, favorecer o facilitar con ánimo de lucro, individualmente o formando parte de una organización, la inmigración clandestina de personas en tránsito o con destino al territorio español o su permanencia en el mismo, siempre que el hecho no constituya delito; c. la realización de conductas de discriminación por motivos raciales, étnicos, nacionales o religiosos, en los términos previstos en el articolo 23 de la presente Ley, siempre que el hecho no constituya delito; d. la contratación de trabajadores extranjeros sin haber obtenido con carácter previo el correspondiente autorización de trabajo, incurriéndose en una infracción por cada uno de los trabajadores extranjeros ocupados; e. la comisión de una tercera infracción grave siempre que en un plazo de un año anterior hubiera sido sancionado por dos faltas graves de la misma naturaleza. 2. También son infracciones muy graves: a. El incumplimiento de las obligaciones previstas para los transportistas en el artículo 66, apartados 1 y 2; b. El transporte de extranjeros por vía aérea, marítima o terrestre, hasta el territorio español, por los sujetos responsables del transporte, sin que hubieran comprobado la validez y vigencia, tanto de los pasaportes, títulos de viaje o documentos de identidad pertinentes, como, en su caso, del correspondiente visado, de los que habrán de ser titulares los citados extranjeros; c. El incumplimiento de la obligación que tienen los transportistas de hacerse cargo sin pérdida de tiempo del extranjero o transportado que, por deficiencias en la documentación antes citada, no haya sido autorizado a entrar en España, así como del extranjero transportado en tránsito que no haya sido trasladado a su país de destino o que hubiera sido devuelto por las autoridades de éste, al no autorizarle la entrada. Esta obligación incluirá los gastos de mantenimiento del citado extranjero y, si así lo solicitan las autoridades encargadas del control de entrada, los derivados del transporte de dicho extranjero, que habrá de producirse de inmediato, bien por medio de la compañía objeto de sanción o, en su defecto, por medio de otra empresa de transporte, con dirección al Estado a partir del cual haya sido transportado, al Estado que haya expedido el documento de viaje con el que ha viajado o a cualquier otro Estado donde esté garantizada su admisión. 3. No obstante lo dispuesto en los artículos anteriores, no se considerará infracción a la presente Ley el hecho de transportar hasta la frontera española a un extranjero que, habiendo presentado sin demora su solicitud de asilo ésta le es admitida a trámite, de conformidad con lo establecido en el artículo 4.2 de la Ley 5/1984, de 26 de marzo, modificada por la Ley 9/1994, de 19 de mayo”.
Condividi
