The French government subjects Roma children to inhuman and illegal treatment, submitting them to all sorts of injustices.

July 21 2011, almost a year after the Grenoble speech by French President Sarkozy, The RomEurope Collective organized a press conference reviewing the political policies concerning Roma and Travellers. It denounced the inefficiencies of French policy and the disastrous effects on the social situation of migrant Roma. The next day, a police report “was leaked,” in which the explosion of Romanian delinquency was discussed, particularly that of juveniles (up 72.4%, marvel at the precision). In August, Minister of the Interior, Claude Guéant, cited these numbers for the first time, then in September announced the planned deportation of Romanian juvenile “delinquents.”

We encounter young Romanians in the Paris region on a daily basis, who are largely in situations of vagrancy.  Since 1 January 2007 they are European citizens, but transitional provisions in France effectively bar Romanians from employment. On top of poverty, there is a sense of permanent instability due to repeated evictions from slums where families live. On top of a generalized institutional rejection, there is a sense of resistance to school enrolment on the part of local governments which should be a fundamental right of children (It is estimated that between 5000 and 7000 children, for the most part of Romanian Roma origin, are denied access to schooling in France).

In order to survive, some minors are led to begging. Others are forced to commit petty crimes (please note this is a minority). At times, these acts are entirely individual, while in certain cases (although much less frequently than the declarations of Minister Interior Claude Guéant would lead us to believe), they are forced by adults. For the past three years, Hors La Rue has been concerned by the rising incidence of human trafficking cases and has attempted to raise the alarm.

Given the situation of social deprivation, perhaps even exploitation, the idea of deporting these young people is bewildering, and on top of that, it would be illegal![1] The responsibility of the state, especially a state such as France, is to protect these children.  In the field, institutional actors, police and justice professionals have nevertheless recognized this necessity.

Jeopardizing the lives of children so brutally, offering nothing more than deportation, is a disturbing development. The very principles of child protection services are being attacked by the Interior Minister’s proposal. The child protection services were created based on a simple idea: a juvenile, foreign or otherwise, is a child, a human being ‘in construction.’ In this vein, a minor should not be considered in the same way as an adult, and his responsibility in committing a criminal act cannot be analysed in the same manner. This is especially true when considering situations when a child is particularly vulnerable to exploitation, he should benefit from protection measures and accompaniment.

Yet, over the past several years it has become more and more difficult for at-risk foreign children to get the child protection services they deserve. In situations of vagrancy, clearly engaging in at-risk behaviour, they have the least success in obtaining protection. Of course there are budgetary concerns, however there are also multiple practices aiming at excluding foreign minors from the system: delays in providing service, systematically requiring age assessments, placing children in hotels without any sort of educational or psychological follow-up… Institutional actors seem to consider that these young people are lying about their age or their family situations. The idea that their protection would be financially too much, or even illegitimate, seems to be spreading.

The local government of Seine-Saint-Denis decided on 1 September 2011 to refuse child protection services to all new cases of foreign unaccompanied minors.  The president of the county council, Claude Bartolone, argues that their services are too expensive and in the absence of national funding, the county can no longer afford to provide child protection services to these individuals. These foreign minors who are in need of child protection services are entering the system through the courts, where social workers attached to juvenile courts attempt to cobble together solutions for these cases that are mandated and then refused. Today, young people, children, are sleeping in the streets despite a judicial order that mandated their protection.

Yes, child protection service has a price, and the state certainly has a responsibility to provide adequate funding to local governments. We do not deny the validity of these debates on budgetary choices. But would the same absolute refusal be accepted if it was directed toward French children?  In this noxious climate, we must reaffirm that the protection of these particularly vulnerable children in our country, whether they are French or not, is a legal and moral obligation. The most elementary human principles require the state and local governments to organize their child protection services no matter the cost.  Nothing can justify abandoning them. Nothing can justify their deportation and stigmatization.