|
V. EXPULSION AND LEGAL RESIDENCE
Ayman M., sixteen, has lived in Melilla since he was eight years old. He was staying in a residential center and had temporary residence documents when he was expelled to Morocco along with several other children in July 2001. Interviewed later that month after he returned to Melilla, he told Human Rights Watch,
The children made their way back to Spanish territory several days later. When our researcher interviewed Ayman four days after his return to Melilla his left wrist was still visibly bruised with marks about one-half inch long. Between July 27 and September 18, 2001, authorities in Melilla conducted at least thirty-two expulsions using this summary procedure-which fails to comply with Spanish law-according to the local human rights organization Prodein (Asociación pro Derechos de la Infancia). The youngest of the children expelled was eleven years old; seventeen of those expelled were fourteen years of age or under. Human Rights Watch wrote to the Spanish government on October 12, 2001 requesting clarification of Spanish policies and practices affecting unaccompanied migrant children, including the legal authority for these expulsions and the steps the government had taken to ensure that the expulsions complied with Spanish law. We also raised these cases in meetings with officials at the Ministries of the Interior and Foreign Affairs in November 2001. At the time of this writing we had not received a response to our request. Prodein reported that the total number of unlawful expulsions had risen to at least seventy by February 2002.184 Table 1: Expulsions of Unaccompanied Children by Spanish Authorities in Melilla,
* Approximate age
The official term for the expulsions is "family reunification," in accord with the principle of Spanish law that unaccompanied children should be reunified with their family members if possible.186 The law provides that if reunification is not possible, Spanish authorities should place the child with a children's social service agency in the child's country of origin. The implementing regulations clarify that "[o]nce the child's family is located, or in its absence, the child protective services of [the child's] country, repatriation" may take place only "after verification that no risk or danger exists to the child's health and safety or of his persecution or that of his family members."187 Carlos Guervós Maillo, the Ministry of the Interior's deputy director of immigration, told us, "We consider that the priority is for returning children to their families, then to social services" in their home countries.188 Similarly, Enrique Fernández-Miranda, secretary of state for foreign affairs and immigration, declared in October 2001, "The first objective that has to take place is family reunification for these minors, because we believe that the place where these children can best develop themselves is within their families, within their own roots and their own cultures. If this family reunification were not possible from the administrative point of view after nine months of attempting it, Spanish authorities would move to document these children, to welcome and integrate them until they reach adulthood."189 Spanish officials frequently claimed that all of the children deported from Ceuta and Melilla were returned to family members. In a comment typical of those we heard, Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs official Concepción Dancausa Treviño told us, "Very few children are returned to their countries, and when we do, we make sure that they are returned to their families."190 Similarly, Rocío Rodríguez Bayón, the chief of staff of the office of the representative of the central government in Melilla, insisted "we always find the families before [sending children back to Morocco] . . . through the Department of Social Welfare we collaborate to find the family." Rodriguez Bayón then noted that Spanish law allows children to be returned to child welfare centers in their country of origin, but said "We only try to find families."191 In an off-the-record conversation, a Ministry of Interior official insisted to us that any child who was expelled was returned to his family. "The Moroccan police in Nador know the family of every child who is returned. The children come from Nador and the villages around it, and the police there know everyone," she said.192 Local officials offered a more realistic assessment of how expulsions take place. "The law is clear that a child should be returned to his family, or to a social service group, but it is very difficult to implement. For example, the border has many problems; there aren't enough Moroccan police at the border for them to take a child to his family. If the family is not known, we give the child to the police at the border. The police don't have the qualifications to reunite the child with his family," a fiscal for minors in Melilla told us.193 When Human Rights Watch told Rodríguez Bayón that our investigation indicated that unaccompanied migrant children were not being returned to their families, but only delivered to the Moroccan police, who then release them onto the streets, she contradicted her earlier statements, saying: "That's what they say. What is clear is that the Spanish police cannot enter Morocco like the Moroccan police cannot enter Spain. We just give them to the police and they know who the family is. It's not our fault if they escape from their family again. We suppose they are given to their families. It's an international thing; we cannot interfere. I'm convinced that all of them arrive to their families."194 Spain and Morocco have signed bilateral agreements on migrant workers and readmission of foreigners, but these instruments do not address the treatment of unaccompanied migrant children.195 A Ministry of Foreign Affairs official told us his ministry had no responsibilities for unaccompanied migrant children and that the Ministry of Interior was responsible for gathering information about their families. "I think that this should be included in our bilateral contacts with Morocco, and perhaps a separate agreement on children should be signed," he added. "[But] we haven't received any suggestions from the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs on actions to take. They have authority on this issue."196 Asked what Spanish officials do to verify that returning an unaccompanied migrant child to Morocco will not place him or her at risk, the director general of Melilla's Department of Social Welfare explained, "The north of Morocco is poor, and there are thousands of kids from abusive homes. We are not able to investigate cases of children's treatment in Morocco. It is up to the Delegate to do that and to take that information into account."197 A September 1999 Department of Social Welfare memorandum to the local representative of the central government listed twelve children, including Subhi S., Sha`ban M., and Asad R., whom the department sought to return to Morocco for family reunification.198 In the September memorandum, the department noted that it was "providing all information known by this Entity with respect to the parents" of each child. In the case of Subhi S., the department used copies of his parents' identity cards, issued in 1994 and 1995, to establish their domicile.199 A separate memorandum on Asad R.'s case set forth his parents' names, taken from an extract of his birth record, and recorded a Fés address for his parents, based on "information provided by the minor." On the basis of this information, the department requested that Asad be reunified with his family or turned over to a child welfare agency in Nador.200 In a declaration filed with the fiscal in October 1999, José Palazón, of the nongovernmental organization Prodein, described the expulsions and return to Melilla of three of the twelve children. "The three minors returned to Melilla [the following] Saturday in the morning [and] told us that the Moroccan police hit them to make them admit their real home addresses, `not those on the Spanish papers.'" According to Palazón, Sha`ban M., then fourteen, was beaten severely after telling the police that he did not know where his mother was. The second child, Asad R., could only give a telephone number of a neighbor in Fés; when the police called, they discovered that the boy's family had not lived in the neighborhood for many years. The third, Ziad I., was "left at the door of his house, and the police departed. On seeing him, his father and mother gave him a beating, not because he had run away but so that he would leave the house."201 Spanish officials continue to rely on outdated and unreliable documentation when determining to expel children, despite the new law's requirement that they locate children's families and verify whether a child may be safely returned to them. "They're using these documents eight years later, five years later," José Palazón told us. "These expulsions take place on the basis of a simple piece of paper, without any verification to see if the family is really there. There's no process in place for getting in touch with the family."202 The expulsions in Melilla lack due process protections provided for by Spanish law. All foreign nationals have the right to free legal assistance "in administrative or judicial proceedings that may lead to the denial of entry, to repatriation or expulsion from Spanish territory, and in all proceedings relating to asylum."203 Foreign nationals may designate a nongovernmental immigrant rights organization to intervene in administrative proceedings on their behalf.204 They have the right to an interpreter in such proceedings, and they are guaranteed the right to appeal all administrative decisions with the exception of those relating to expedited cases.205 Nevertheless, none of the children we interviewed had been given access to legal counsel or interpreters. They were not told about their right to appeal in terms that would be understandable to most children. We saw no evidence that Spanish officials regularly notify children that they are facing expulsion, and there appears to be no formal mechanism for children to contest their expulsion. The lack of procedural guarantees violates the right of these children to have "the opportunity to be heard in any judicial or administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law."206 More fundamentally, these expulsions have enormous consequences for the children who endure them. Removed from residential centers or rounded up on the street, many are then detained in inhumane conditions in Moroccan lockups and subjected to beatings. If they were attending school before their expulsions, they face interruptions in their education. Few are actually returned to their families; when they are, neither Spanish nor Moroccan authorities have determined whether they will be safe in their homes. Those who have lived in Spanish territory for years face deportation to a country that they barely remember. It is not surprising that many of the children we interviewed were visibly agitated at the thought that they might be expelled. Those who live on the streets felt particularly vulnerable. As Hafith A., seventeen, told us, "I spend every day running."207 Unaccompanied migrant children who cannot be reunited with family members or placed with social service agencies in their countries of origin are entitled to remain in Spain. As modified in December 2000, Spanish law provides: "For all purposes, the residence of minors under the guardianship of the public administration shall be considered regular. At the request of the entity that exercises guardianship and once the impossibility of [the child's] return to his family or his country of origin has been certified, he shall be granted a residence permit, the validity of which shall be retroactive to the moment in which the minor was placed in the care of child protective services."208 The law also includes provisions for the granting of work permits to children above the age of sixteen.209 The law in force prior to December 2000 also included provisions for issuing temporary residency permits to unaccompanied children.210 The regulations implementing the current law provide that a child should be granted a residence permit after family reunification or return to the country of origin has been unsuccessful, and he or she has been under the authority of the Spanish child protective services for nine months.211 If applied, these provisions would facilitate children's social integration and ease their transition to a productive adulthood. However, the authorities entrusted with guardianship for unaccompanied children are not required to apply for residency permits, and they frequently do not. Human Rights Watch interviewed children who had lived in Ceuta and Melilla for more than two years-nine years, in one case-without ever having their status legalized. This was the case even when children had lived in residential centers for lengthy periods. Children without residency documents find themselves in a legal limbo, without any means to regularize their status and vulnerable to summary deportation when they turn eighteen. `Abd al `Aziz R., seventeen at the time of our interview, told us that he had lived in Melilla for ten years, eight of those on the street and two in the Purísima Concepción Fort. He did not have a temporary residence permit.212 Similarly, Sulayman S., a fourteen-year-old who had spent the past year in Ceuta's San Antonio center, stated, "I don't have residence, nothing, no. There are people who came after me and got everything."213 Fawzi D., age twenty-one, has lived in Melilla for the last nine years, since he was twelve years old. Born near the Moroccan town of Nador, he came to Melilla on his own, entering without proper documents. He lived on the street until he was sixteen or seventeen, when he went to a residential center. "I spent nine months in one center and then one month in another center," he said. "I turned eighteen while I was in the center. I never got a residence permit. Instead, the educators picked me up and took me to the doctor. The doctor told me, `You're eighteen years old.' That was it; I had to leave the center." The National Police have detained him twice since he left the center. "The first time, they found me in the street. They took me to the police station and then to the border," he said. "When I showed them my Moroccan documents, they ripped them up. They took me to the border and told me to go over to Morocco." Fawzi showed us the remains of his torn documents, which he had retrieved and taped together. "The second time, I was picked up by two police officers from the National Police. They caught me and said, `Quiet, you,' and made me get into the vehicle. It was a big car, a van, with license plate number 50 46 31. One of the officers was named Paco; he had a beard and black hair. I know him. They crumpled up my documents and took me to the Moroccan police. I spent two days in Morocco, in the Moroccan police station." He showed us a copy of a complaint he filed with the fiscal to protest his expulsion and the destruction of his documents. "My whole life is here," he told us. "My relatives are here. I don't have any family in Morocco."214 An official in the Ministry of the Interior suggested to us that the adoption of new regulations in July 2001 may lead to improvements in processing temporary residence permits. "Prior to the new regulation, the regional authorities had responsibility for asking the central authority for residency, and there was no set time within which they had to act. Now the central government can act without a request," said Carlos Guervós Maillo, subdirector general for immigration.215 Nevertheless, we spoke to some children who waited for months to receive residence documents; others have yet to receive a response to their applications. Mamduh H., one of the few children we met in Melilla who has received temporary residence, told us that of the twenty-five youth in his center, four have temporary residence. "You have to be in the center for nine months," he explained. "But there are two people in the center who have been there for one year and three months without their initial residence card." He had been in the center in Melilla for one year and five months before he received his card.216 Administrative inaction is not the only hurdle that children in Melilla face. City authorities often told us that they interpreted Spanish law as requiring children to spend nine consecutive months in one or more of the residential centers in order to qualify for residency, although no such provisions exist in the amended Law 4/2000 or its implementing regulations. "Normally, the children have to be under our guardianship for the nine-month period to starting counting," said Inmaculada Casaña Mari, the director general of Melilla's Department of Social Welfare and Health.217 According to Mari, a child who lives on the streets for three months and then enters a center cannot receive a temporary residence permit until he or she has spent one full year in Melilla. In addition, a gap of a single day would be sufficient to break the nine-month period: A child who runs away from a center and returns the same week would have to begin the nine-month accrual anew. In contrast, Luís Vicente Moro, the representative of the central government in Ceuta, told us, "All who are receiving schooling can have residency. If the children are known to the city, we would also count time in the street."218 It is true that some children in Ceuta told us that they had temporary residency documents. But some of those children also told us that the residential centers kept their documents for them. These children believed that they lost their residency if they left the centers, although the law is silent on this point. Officials in Melilla tended to justify their restrictive interpretation of the law and its implementing regulations by explaining that the child's presence in a center was the only reliable way of establishing that he or she had been in Spain for the required length of time. Conceding that alternative interpretations were possible, Casaña Mari told us, "But a child would have to show residency, and how would the child do that if he's not in a center?"219 In addition, some officials told us that the nine-month period started with the adoption of Organic Law 4/2000 in January 2000; they said that time in the city before that date, even in a residential center, did not count toward the nine-month period. There is no justification for these restrictions. The Department of Social Welfare often has detailed information on a child's periods of stay in the city's residential centers. Other public entities, such as schools or hospitals, may have additional records that would document a child's presence in Spanish territory. Nongovernmental organizations and religious workers may also be able to attest to the length of time a child has lived in the city. In adjudicating residency applications, Spanish authorities should consider all relevant, credible evidence of a child's length of stay in the country. A temporary residence permit granted to an unaccompanied child expires when the child reaches the age of eighteen. At that point, the youth may be eligible to apply for permanent residence based on his or her length of time in the country, or the youth may be able to receive an extension of temporary residence on humanitarian grounds.220 When we asked officials in Ceuta how many children subsequently received permanent residence, it became clear that it was rare. The chief of staff for the president of Ceuta could name only one. "It was about five years ago, maybe 1997," she said. "He was a very open boy, and learned Spanish well. I don't remember other cases, but there could be."221 Of the cases we reviewed in Melilla, only one youth had obtained permanent residence and work permits. For most, the procedural requirements were daunting, as the following cases illustrate: · Salah N., now eighteen, has lived in Melilla since at least March 1999, when he entered the Eladio Alonso residential center. With the exception of a five-day period in May 1999 and just over three months between June 22 and October 1, 1999, he was in the care of one of Melilla's residential centers until January 5, 2001, according to Department of Social Welfare records.222 He applied for residence and employment permits in April 2001. The Delegación responded with a lengthy list of the documentation he was required to submit within ten days. Among the required documents were a valid passport, a residence visa or offer of employment, an employment contract, certificates from the Department of Social Security and Taxes, and evidence of a place of residence.223 Writing to the ombudsman, he stated, "I received on April 24, 2001, a notice from the Office of Foreign Affairs of Melilla in which I was informed that within a ten-day period I have to have a job and a home. In so few days I will not be able to get together the two requirements and so I ask that you help me so that the residency is easier."224 · Salim A. was under the guardianship of the Department of Social Welfare for two months in 1997 and then from September 1999 to February 2000, with several short gaps. The department removed him from its care in February 2000 after a doctor estimated that he was over eighteen. His age was approximately fourteen, according to an independent wrist bone examination taken one month later.225 Three days after his removal from the center, the National Police expelled him to Morocco, Prodein reported. After he returned to Melilla, he lived on the streets. He was badly injured in a fight, nearly losing an eye. He also told Prodein that an adult had tried to abuse him sexually during his time on the streets.226 In March 2001, he wrote to the Defensor del Pueblo, saying,
The prospect of losing legal status at the age of eighteen and being abruptly cut off from access to social services leads some children to question the value of the services they receive before they reach adulthood. "It's good because they give you food and clothing until you reach eighteen. And then they throw you over the border," said fifteen-year-old Majid A., speaking of the San Antonio center in Ceuta. "It's better to seek your own life. The center is a waste of time."228 "If there were possibilities for residence, I'd stay," Sulayman S. said of the San Antonio Center. "But I don't want to return to San Antonio. I live in the street."229 Citizenship
In Ceuta, Delegate Luís Vicente Moro told us that no child in the San Antonio center has received nationality since the center opened in 1999, a fact which he attributed to the newness of the facility. In Melilla, where the residential centers have been open longer, no government official could name a case in which an unaccompanied child had been granted nationality. Those who apply face procedural hurdles similar to those in the residency application process. "In practice, it happens that the child's guardianship runs out before a decision on nationality is made," said Inmaculada Casaña Mari, director general of Melilla's Department of Social Welfare.231 As with permanent residence, children receive no help with this process. "We don't provide any assistance with nationality," the Ceuta fiscal for minors told us.232 Similarly, an official in the Department of Social Welfare said, "The only thing we can do is apply for residency, and then the law requires two years of guardianship. We don't know if the child has a mother or father, so what can we do? If the child is abandoned, at fourteen years of age the child can apply for nationality. We don't apply for nationality under the two-year residency provision because we don't have the information."233 Perhaps for this reason, most of the children with whom we spoke had no idea that they might be able to apply for Spanish citizenship. The Violations of International and Spanish Law
Summary expulsions of children that do not effect their reunification with their family members or result in their placement with social welfare agencies violate the state's obligation under article 20 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to provide special protection and assistance to children deprived of their family environment.236 In addition, when the state knows or should know that expulsions are likely to place children at risk of physical harm by the officials of another state, expulsions violate the right of children to protection from all forms of violence, guaranteed by article 19(1) of the convention. When the state has knowledge of a pattern of ill-treatment of expelled children by officials of another state, expulsions violate children's right to freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, guaranteed by article 37(a) of the convention. 184 E-mail message from José Palazón, March 5, 2002. 185 Children's names are on file with Human Rights Watch. 186 "The Administration of the State, in conformity with the principle of family reunification of the minor and on the report of the protection agencies for minors, shall take the necessary steps to secure the return of the child to his country of origin or to that in which his family may be found, or failing that, his continued residence in Spain." Organic Law 4/2000, article 35(3), as amended by Organic Law 8/2000. 187 Royal Decree 864/2001, article 62(4). 188 Human Rights Watch interview with Carlos Guervos Maillo, deputy director general for immigration, Ministry of the Interior, Madrid, Spain, November 12, 2001. 189 Carmen Echarri, "`Los que llegan a España de forma ilegal no tienen futuro en este país'; apuesta por le repatriación de los menores marroquíes a sus puntos de origen," El Faro (Melilla), October 23, 2001, p. 17. 190 Human Rights Watch interview with Concepción Dancausa Treviño, secretary general for social affairs, Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, November 13, 2001. 191 Human Rights Watch interview with Rocío Rodríguez Bayón, chief of staff for the office of the central government representative to Melilla, Melilla, Spain, November 9, 2001. 192 Human Rights Watch interview, Madrid, Spain, November 13, 2001. 193 Human Rights Watch interview with Miguel Angel Sánchez Lorenzo fiscal for minors, Melilla, Spain, October 26, 2001. 194 Human Rights Watch interview with Rocío Rodríguez Bayón, chief of staff for the office of the central government representative to Melilla, Melilla, Spain, November 9, 2001. 195 See Agreement Between the Kingdom of Spain and the Kingdom of Morocco Relating to the Movement of Persons, Transit, and the Readmission of Foreigners Who Have Entered Illegally (provisional), signed in Madrid, February 13, 1992; Agreement on Labor Between the Kingdom of Spain and the Kingdom of Morocco (provisional), signed in Madrid, July 25, 2001. 196 Human Rights Watch interview with Eduardo de Quesada, deputy general director of Foreigners Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Madrid, Spain, November 13, 2001. 197 The delegate is the representative of the central government to the autonomous city. Human Rights Watch interview with Inmaculada Casaña Marí, October 25, 2001. 198 Human Rights Watch has assigned the children pseudonyms to protect their privacy. 199 Memorandum from Department of Social Welfare, Autonomous City of Melilla, to Office of the Delegate of the Government, September 30, 1999. 200 Memorandum from Department of Social Welfare, Autonomous City of Melilla, to Office of the Delegate of the Government, July 28, 1999. 201 Prodein, Declaration to the Fiscal for Minors, Melilla, October 18, 1999. 202 Human Rights Watch interview, Melilla, Spain, October 22, 2001. 203 Organic Law 4/2000, article 22(1), as amended by Organic Law 8/2000. 205 Ibid., articles 22(1), 21(2). 206 Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 12(2). 207 Human Rights Watch interview, Melilla, October 23, 2001. 208 Organic Law 4/2000, article 35(4), as amended by Organic Law 8/2000. 210 See, for example, Organic Law 4/2000, of January 11, Regarding the Rights and Liberties of Foreigners in Spain and Their Social Integration, article 32, Boletín Oficial del Estado, No. 10, January 12, 2000 (Spain). 211 Royal Decree 864/2001, article 62(5). 212 Human Rights Watch interview, Melilla, October 25, 2001. 213 Human Rights Watch interview, Ceuta, November 5, 2001. 214 Human Rights Watch interview, Melilla, October 22, 2001. 215 Human Rights Watch interview with Carlos Guervos Maillo, November 12, 2001. 216 Human Rights Watch interview, Melilla, October 22, 2001. 217 Human Rights Watch interview with Inmaculada Casaña Mari, October 25, 2001. 218 Human Rights Watch interview with Luís Vicente Moro, November 7, 2001. 219 Human Rights Watch interview with Inmaculada Casaña Mari, October 25, 2001. 220 The implementing regulations provide that foreign nationals "who certify that they have resided legally and continuously in Spanish territory for five years" are eligible for permanent residence. Eligibility is not affected by absences from Spain for vacations, for periods of up to six months each that do not exceed one year in the aggregate, or for any reasonable length of time if the absence is for family circumstances or health care. Those who do not meet the five-year residence requirement may be able to extend their temporary residence under several provisions that authorize temporary residence for humanitarian reasons or other exceptional circumstances. See Royal Decree 864/2001, articles 42, 41(3)(c), 41(2)(d), and 41(3)(b). 221 Human Rights Watch interview with María Teresa Troya, chief of staff, Office of the President, Ceuta, Spain, November 9, 2001. 222 See certificate of María del Carmen Barranquero Aguilar, provisional technical secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Autonomous City of Melilla, February 5, 2001; memorandum from Juan M. Fernández Milán, director, Brother Eladio Alonso Center, Melilla, February 12, 2001; certificate of Antonio Ignacio Miranda Céspedes, director, Lucas Lorenzo Children's Center, Melilla, February 12, 2001; certificate from coordinator of Hogar del Puerto Children's Welcome Center, Melilla, February 12, 2001. 223 Letter from Francisca Gallego Mejías, chief of section, Office of Foreigners, Delegación of the Government in Melilla, April 24, 2001. 224 Letter from Salah N. to Ombudsman, March 10, 2001. 225 Certificate of Angeles de la Vega Olías, technical secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Autonomous City of Melilla, February 27, 2001; Counselor of Social Welfare, Autonomous City of Melilla, Order No. 416 of February 9, 2000; Letter of Dr. Enrique Remartínez Escobar, radiologist, Melilla, March 14, 2000. 226 Prodein, Submission to the Melilla Fiscal for Minors, p. 4. 227 Letter from Salim A. to Ombudsman, March 26, 2001. 228 Human Rights Watch interview, Ceuta, November 5, 2001. 229 Human Rights Watch interview, Ceuta, November 5, 2001. 230 See Civil Code, article 22(2)(c). 231 Human Rights Watch interview with Inmaculada Casaña Mari, October 25, 2001. 232 Human Rights Watch interview with Juan Luís Puerta Martí, November 6, 2001. 233 Human Rights Watch interview with José Antonio, October 25, 2001. During a meeting with Inmaculada Casaña Mari, director general of Melilla's Department of Social Welfare, Mari called into her office an individual she introduced as "José Antonio, the department's legal expert," and asked him to respond to our questions about residency and naturalization. Human Rights Watch has been unable to confirm his full name and title. 234 See Royal Decree 864/2000, article 62(4). 235 Defensor del Pueblo, "Informe del Defensor del Pueblo correspndiente a la gestión realizada durante el año 2000," Boletín Oficial de las Cortes Generales, Seccion Cortes Generales, VII Legislatura, No 201, October 8, 2001, p. 66. 236 Similarly, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000 Revised) guarantees in article 24(1) that children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being; article 24(2) of the charter enshrines the "best interest of the child" standard. The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers, which Spain has not signed or ratified and which is not yet in force, would require adequate procedure for all expulsions, prohibit collective expulsions, and provide special protections for migrant children. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Official Journal of the European Communities, p. C 364 (entered into force December 7, 2000); International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, adopted December 18, 1990, G.A. Res. 45/158 (not yet in force).
|
