Could Germany accommodate illegal immigrants in Africa?

Could Germany accommodate illegal immigrants in Africa?

At the migration summit, the minister presidents of the CDU/CSU negotiate a promise from the Chancellor: the federal government wants to examine whether the right to protection can also be decided outside the EU in future. Some have high hopes for such a solution, but the prospects of success are vague at best.

When the federal states governed by the CDU and CSU outmaneuvered the Social Democratic state premiers with their demand on Monday, the SPD state leaders initially reacted defensively. However, their party comrade and Federal Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, relented during the subsequent joint meeting - despite his own doubts: "The Federal Government will examine whether the protection status of refugees can in future also be determined in transit or third countries in compliance with the Geneva Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights," it says in the final paper of the Minister Presidents' Conference.

This is actually a victory on points for the Union, but they are very skeptical that they have actually achieved anything. As is well known, such a review mandate can turn into anything and nothing. Especially as very different interpretations are circulating as to what an asylum procedure outside the European Union could mean. Three possibilities are conceivable: Firstly, people could go through an asylum procedure while still traveling to the EU - for example in a transit country such as Turkey, Tunisia or Albania. Secondly, it is also conceivable that countries in the immediate vicinity of a crisis region are meant as third countries. People fleeing to the EU could be given the opportunity to submit an application there. Thirdly, the so-called Rwanda model is circulating: people who have entered Germany illegally would be transferred to a partner country outside the EU in order to undergo their asylum procedure there.

Union mistrusts new openness of the traffic light

Advocates of such asylum procedures outside the EU, such as NRW Minister-President Hendrik Wüst, argue that they protect refugees: They would no longer have to venture on dangerous routes such as with smugglers' boats across the Mediterranean, according to the Christian Democrat. In addition, women and children as well as people who cannot pay smugglers would also have more legal opportunities to escape. Advocates also argue that this would relieve the burden on countries at the EU's external borders, particularly Greece and Italy.

"I very much hope that we don't impose any bans on thinking about such things," said Wüst the day after the Minister Presidents' Conference with the Chancellor. In fact, the number of supporters is also growing in the traffic light coalition. Several SPD members of the Bundestag had already spoken out in favor of asylum procedures in third countries before the federal-state meeting. On Tuesday, the SPD parliamentary group consulted with two migration researchers who also believe that external asylum procedures make sense. Party leaders Saskia Esken and Lars Klingbeil have reservations, but do not want to rule out any possibility in advance.

"The various options must be examined without prejudice," FDP interior politician Ann-Veruschka Jurisch also demands and reminds ntv.de that a third country model was already agreed in the coalition agreement. "I think it's good that everyone finally wants to move forward. That wasn't the case with the Greens for a long time," says Jurisch. Prior to the federal-state meeting, Baden-Württemberg's Green Minister-President Winfried Kretschmann had supported the list of demands put forward by the Union states at short notice, which put the examination of the third-country option on the agenda.

Conflict with European law

Parts of his own party immediately contradicted Kretschmann. Erik Marquardt, Member of the European Parliament and member of the Green Party Council, believes that such ideas will fail due to legal hurdles. "The European Court of Human Rights has ruled on the basis of the European Convention on Human Rights that refugees who are picked up by an EU boat in the EU or in the Mediterranean may not be taken to a third country without further ado," says Marquardt. At the very least, it must be checked whether people are at risk of torture or mistreatment in that country.

According to EU law, people should also not be taken to a transit country to which they have no personal connection - for example, relatives or a longer period of residence in the past, says Marquardt. Although the corresponding regulation could hypothetically be changed, this would entail a further reform of the common asylum policy - while the EU countries are still in the midst of current reform efforts.

Added to this is a ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on the so-called transit zones that Hungary had temporarily operated: "You can't lock people up just because they apply for asylum," says Marquardt, summarizing the ECJ's verdict. But that is precisely what would be necessary if people fleeing to Germany were to be forced into an asylum procedure outside the EU.

Is Europe buying its way out of responsibility?

The Geneva Convention on Refugees also creates hurdles: Although no direct ban on third country concepts can be derived, says the legal policy spokesperson for the organization Pro Asyl, Wiebke Judith. "However, the Refugee Convention sets a standard of protection for refugees that is often not observed by other countries - just like other human rights. We see this in Turkey, for example: Ankara receives a lot of money from the EU so that Syrian refugees can stay there, even though they are denied basic rights in Turkey."

Pro Asyl also warns against undermining the basic idea of the Refugee Convention, which holds all states responsible. "The wealthy countries of the North are already only taking in a small proportion of the world's refugees and could now buy their way out of this shared responsibility. This undermines the guiding principle of the Refugee Convention and contradicts the objectives and principles on which the European Union is based. The primary responsibility under international law for the asylum application lies with the country in which the application is made," says Judith.

Winter and Green politician Marquardt also refer to a legal dispute in the UK: The British government wants to fly asylum seekers out to Rwanda and has already sent the country 160 million pounds in advance for the signing of the contract in April - but not a single refugee yet. The country's highest court has doubts as to whether the people in Rwanda would be safe from inhumane treatment - the European Convention on Human Rights must be observed. A final verdict will not be reached for several months. The EU is following this process closely. "The situation in Rwanda is not such that we could send people there. From our point of view, it is therefore highly questionable from a legal point of view and, above all, unrealistic that it can really be carried out in accordance with human rights in practice," says Judith from Pro Asyl.

Who should take them in?

The German government would have to find a partner country that would accept refugees from Germany in return for payment. Or even several countries. These countries would also have to keep these people in the country permanently if they are neither granted protection status in Germany nor can they be deported to their country of origin. These are not attractive prospects - it is unclear who would be prepared to do this. The German government is already finding it difficult to conclude any significant number of repatriation agreements with countries of origin - despite all the incentives offered, such as money and skilled worker admission programs.

The example of Libya, which is supposed to hold back refugees in exchange for EU money, shows just how quickly cooperation with highly problematic countries is possible: "Refugees are enslaved until their relatives sell their last possessions to buy their freedom. Refugee women are systematically raped," reports Marquardt. He points out that the EU cannot and does not want to win a deterrence competition for the most inhumane host country, which is why people will continue to seek and find ways to Europe.

The UNHCR as an intermediary

It is also unclear who will take over the asylum assessment in an external procedure. "I can primarily imagine that the UNHCR would be involved in examining applications, but less so that a country outside the European Union would take over the procedure," says FDP MP Jurisch. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is also mentioned as a possible partner by other politicians and experts in the debate. For years, the UNHCR has been selecting particularly vulnerable people in refugee camps through so-called resettlement programs and placing them in partner countries. Germany also participates in this program and flies in a few thousand pre-screened people each year for admission. There is a similar agreement with Turkey to take in 3,000 refugees from Syria every year. Whether the UNHCR could also take on this pre-selection elsewhere could be clarified as part of the review mandate.

Pro Asyl is divided on this approach: If Germany were to only accept people in quotas, this number could also be reduced again depending on the political mood. "Refugee quotas are not a solution for people fleeing spontaneously," says Judith. Organizations such as Pro Asyl fear that third country concepts are primarily intended to circumvent individual refugee protection in Europe. It also remains questionable how Germany should deal with people who nevertheless continue to reach the Federal Republic and who are still not taken back by the countries where they first set foot on European soil.

Marquardt also warns of the example of the EU-Turkey deal: "The EU states are making themselves dependent on the willingness of authoritarian states to cooperate: Europe becomes vulnerable to blackmail and pays these countries a lot of money so that people entitled to protection end up remaining outside in undignified conditions." Jurisch is also not very optimistic that a viable third country procedure can be found in a short space of time. "It will be a longer process," she says, "but it is important to send out a signal that we are willing to find an orderly migration process."

1. The CDU and CSU state leaders have high hopes that the right to protection can be decided outside the EU in the future, as proposed by the minister presidents at the migration summit.
2. According to Erik Marquardt, a member of the European Parliament and the Green Party Council, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that refugees cannot be taken to a third country without further consideration of potential risks of torture or mistreatment.
3. Hendrik Wüst, the NRW Minister-President, argues that asylum procedures outside the EU would protect refugees by providing legal opportunities and avoiding dangerous routes, such as smugglers' boats across the Mediterranean.
4. Advocates of external asylum procedures also point out that this could relieve the burden on countries at the EU's external borders, such as Greece and Italy.
5. Ann-Veruschka Jurisch, an FDP interior politician, believes that the third-country model should be examined further, as it was already agreed upon in the coalition agreement.
6. Pro Asyl, an organization focused on refugee concerns, warns against undermining the basic idea of the Refugee Convention and the shared responsibility of wealthy countries to take in refugees, citing the example of Turkey where Syrian refugees are denied basic rights and receive EU funding.

Source: www.ntv.de