Siinviidatu on selles voos ehk ebatraditsiooniline, sest puudutab piirivalve valdkonda. Siiski, tegemist on turvalisust puudutava üldisema küsimusega, mille üle mõtlemiseks pakuvad väärtuslikku empiiriat Soomes elavate eestlastest kurjategijate praktikad riigist väljasaatmisele reageerimisel. Väga kasulik tekst neile, kes huvitet reeglitest, karistamisest, partnerlusest, globaliseerumisest, jpm.
While states have imposed national entry bans to prevent the return of unwanted non-citizens, albeit with limited success, the entry bans integrated with the Schengen Information System (SIS) would enable prevention of the return of targeted non-citizens into the whole Schengen area. In addition to sanctioning and deterring remigration, Schengen entry bans seek to encourage voluntary returns through the threat of additional sanctions in the case of non-compliance during removal procedures.
Piirangute rakendamist … on ikka üksjagu:
Despite its prominent role in the Return Directive, there is scarce oﬃcial information on actual entry ban policies among the EU Member States. Nevertheless, the imposition of entry bans has become common practice as a part of the tightening of immigration policies: 527,099 third-country nationals had an alert regarding the refusal of their entry or stay in the Schengen Area in 2019 (eu-LISA 2020).
Autor seab eesmärgi:
This article aims to ﬁll gaps in migration literature by examining the signiﬁcance of entry bans for deportable non-citizens, drawing from multi-sited empirical research on the immigration detention system in Finland. While it is recognised that deportation is not an event but a process, whose consequences last long after implementation (e.g. Hasselberg 2016; Peutz 2006), removals also encompass concrete temporal and legal extensions beyond spatial relocation through entry bans.
While many EU Member States have criminalised violations of entry bans in order to reinforce their deterrence eﬀect (EMN 2017; Waasdorp and Pahladsingh 2016), criminal sanctions for ‘immigration crimes’ are usually invoked only when removals cannot be enforced (Aliverti 2013) or they are not considered eﬀective measures, for example, in the case of national entry bans (see Liebling et al. 2021).
Mõned eestlased on visad:
Repeatedly deported Estonians are perhaps even a more illustrative – although less dramatic – example of what Khosravi (2016) has called ‘deportation as a way of life’ in reference to young Afghan men, whose lives remain marked by deportations. Indeed, many Estonians had been removed from Finland several times a year; one reported being removed more than twenty times in total.
Sisenemiskeelu tähendus Eesti-Soome näitel:
For Estonians, in particular, the deterrence eﬀect of a national entry ban is rather nonexistent, as they can quickly return to Finland due to the absence of formal border controls and the frequent and aﬀordable ferry connections between Helsinki and Tallinn, causing annoyance to the police.
Kolmandad riigid ja Schengenis olevad – sisenemiskeelu mõju:
Compared to Schengen bans and risky and expensive options for return from most third countries, the deterrence eﬀect of national entry bans appeared to be rather non-existent due to the absence of formal border controls. […] In particular, Estonian EU citizens are repeatedly detained and removed from Finland based on an eﬀectual entry ban (or new oﬀenses possibly extending the ban), constituting particular irregular migration dynamics between the countries.
Könönen, J. (2022). Borders in the future: policing unwanted mobility through entry bans in the Schengen area. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 1-18.