At the mouth of hope

The incident that occurred this week, involving the arrival of a boat carrying migrants, presumably Moroccans, at the town of Boca do Rio, highlights, among other issues, the fragility of the Portuguese system when it comes to the reception and protection of migrant minors.

In fact, as far as we know, there were 38 people on board the small boat, including seven minors. Apart from the information regarding the one-year-old baby, who was naturally accompanied by his mother (presumably!), nothing is known about the remaining six.

The news quickly reported and highlighted the fact that all necessary mechanisms had been adopted to accommodate these cases, emphasizing that they had been observed by health personnel, given their state of dehydration and hypothermia, that they had been given food and clothing, and that they had been given suitable housing.

These steps, meritorious in every way, are the same ones we would take in any crisis situation, as Civil Protection professionals have said.

It turns out that, in the case of the intersection of the arrival of irregular immigrants, there are specific international and European standards that must be followed and that, in this case and to date, no one has clarified whether or not they were observed.

There's something extraordinarily strange about this whole case: not a single one of these immigrants applied for asylum. Were they given all the legal information in their native language?

The fact that 38 people, including some families with at least one infant, are hiding in a shell and heading into the unknown demonstrates enormous desperation. No one faces death lightly, and anyone who denies it has never been in similar situations (thankfully) and is incapable of empathy. That said, it's obvious that, under the law, these people must return to their countries, so rest assured for those new to this world and the like.

Now, the Law must be complied with in its entirety and not just in the parts that are convenient for us.

Let us therefore return to the question of minors.

How many are there? How old are they? Are they traveling with someone or alone? And, if so, did they start the trip on their own or did they lose family along the way?

Within the framework of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), to which we are bound, there are very specific rules regarding how minors should be treated, especially when unaccompanied, the first of which concerns the appointment of a legal guardian. Here, the obvious question arises regarding compliance with this rule: has a guardian or legal representative been appointed to act on the minor(s)' behalf?

I once suggested the creation of a Child at Risk Ombudsman, specializing not only in migrant issues but also in the vulnerability of minors facing situations of evident risk. Since there is no single government agency responsible for appointing guardians for these specific needs, the process can take weeks or even months. During this period, minors may undergo asylum interviews, medical examinations, or even transfer procedures without a representative to defend their interests.

In countries such as the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, and Belgium, there are trained and specialized authorities to assist these vulnerable minors. The time it takes to appoint a specialized guardian in these countries ranges from 48 hours (Sweden) to a week (in some regions of Germany where these services depend on local governments).

In fact, in the case of the Netherlands, and as an example of best practice, a "Reception Protocol for Unaccompanied Minors" was developed, requiring authorities to immediately contact a specialized reception unit staffed by properly trained child protection professionals. This ensures that the minor receives legal information in a language they understand, has access to psychological first aid, and is in a safe environment before any formal proceedings begin.

In Portugal, it is common for unaccompanied minors to be interviewed by untrained officers and without the presence of a guardian or child protection professional — a practice that contravenes both the Convention on the Rights of the Child and European Union directives.

The news also reported the conditions in which people would be housed. Initially, they would be housed in makeshift locations, and later transferred to Temporary Installation Centers (CIT).

However, strictly speaking, the only CIT in the country is in Porto and is not adapted to accommodate minors. All others are small lounges at Faro, Lisbon, and Porto international airports.

However, and still within the same framework of the Common European Asylum System Directives, Article 24 of the Reception Conditions Directive refers to specific accommodation for these minors.

Since Portugal does not have state-run reception centers for unaccompanied minors, most of these children are housed in facilities managed by non-governmental organizations, under agreements with the Agency for Integration, Migration, and Asylum (AIMA) and the Social Security Institute (ISS). This reliance on NGOs for this purpose typically means that unaccompanied minors are housed alongside others covered by social protection or juvenile justice systems, with all the attendant consequences.

Finally, the issue of coercive return must be considered in light of the Dublin III Regulation, which places family reunification and the principle of the “best interests of the child” at the heart of the decision.

Do these minors have family members in the European Union with whom they wish to reunite? If so, this right is enshrined in European law.

What appears, therefore, to be a case that merely divides the waters between those who believe we can welcome everyone and those who think the ideal would have been to sink the ship or make them return by the same means they arrived, is something much more complex that cannot be analyzed with the lightness of either populism or paternalism.

The law must be obeyed, all right! But all of it, and in the case of minors, the principle of the Best Interests of the Child, takes precedence.

The texts in this section reflect the authors' personal opinions. They do not represent VISÃO nor reflect its editorial position.