"The European asylum system has collapsed"
Following the agreement between the federal and state governments, the Chairman of the Expert Council on Migration, Hans Vorländer, is tempering expectations: Lower benefits for asylum seekers would not reduce migration pressure. The scientist is also skeptical about third-country procedures. He considers other adjustments to be more important.
ntv.de: We have been experiencing an intense migration debate for weeks. Are you observing a productive competition of ideas or more the production of hot air?
Hans Vorländer: In any case, politicians are under enormous pressure to act. The public debate as well as the very different ideas about possible solutions for limiting migration are setting high expectations. Attempts are being made to meet these expectations - knowing full well that the individual proposals will not fulfill the promises attached to them.
You are Chairman of the Expert Council on Migration. Is the scientific community being listened to or is the political debate decoupling?
Many political players are seeking scientific advice, but science can only make recommendations. Decisions have to be made by politicians, and they also have to gain public acceptance for their decisions.
You were allowed to speak to the SPD parliamentary group the day after the Minister Presidents' Conference (MPK). What did you tell the MPs of the leading governing party?
I pleaded for realism and pragmatism and spoke about the various adjustments that could lead to a certain reduction in irregular immigration here and there. I also pointed out where migration and integration management could be more efficient, for example in terms of labor market integration. We know that the acceptance of immigration depends largely on whether these people can quickly provide for themselves. Another aspect is the EU level: the European asylum system has collapsed. The reform currently being negotiated must find new ways forward. This affects, among other things, the theoretically still valid readmission by countries where people first set foot on EU soil. And it also concerns asylum procedures at the EU's external borders or in other countries.
Let's go through the points: What needs to be done better in terms of migration management?
This is primarily the responsibility of the municipalities. However, the different responsibilities do not always lead to smooth interdependencies in administrative practice. Job centers, immigration authorities, accommodation in apartments, daycare centers and schools: This entails complex coordination processes. Added to this is the lack of digitalization. The people affected have to go to a lot of authorities in person. Furthermore, the federal states and local authorities need reliable funding. The federal government has now promised to pay per capita flat rates to the federal states. The federal states must ensure that the funds reach the local authorities so that they can deploy staff more solidly and consistently. End-to-end digitalization is also envisaged in the resolution of the Conference of Minister Presidents. This is urgently needed, from initial reception to labor market integration.
A lack of digitalization is a general problem for the German administration.
I don't want to pass judgment on this, but the procedures are very time-consuming, especially in the area of migration and integration. If they are still handwritten and documents are sent from authority to authority by post, this prolongs every decision - and not just in asylum procedures. This also affects the recognition of qualifications and entry into the labor market.
So it's also about centralization and harmonization in a federal system?
The federal government is responsible for migration management, but the federal states and local authorities have to implement it. As a federal authority, the Federal Office for Migration (BAMF) is responsible for language, orientation and integration courses, among other things. However, these must then be arranged by the local authorities. These courses are in turn offered by many different providers. There is a great need for coordination. Joint IT platforms, as envisaged by the MPK resolution, can therefore be effective levers.
You also spoke about readmissions. Germany takes in many people for whom other countries would actually have been responsible because they first set foot on EU soil there. However, these external border states are resisting. What should the German government do?
According to the Dublin Regulation, this readmission should be the rule. However, we can see that the number of asylum procedures in Germany or Austria is much higher than in Italy, for example. Because Rome is not taking anyone back from Germany, Germany is no longer taking people back from Italy. The old Dublin system no longer works and Germany can only exert limited pressure to ensure that the other countries do their bit. The reform of the Common Asylum System is an attempt to change this and put the solidarity mechanism on a new footing.
In Germany, there are skeptical voices about the reform, for example with regard to external border procedures for people with a low probability of remaining. What should actually happen to people who are rejected in the external border procedure but who are also unable to return to their country of origin? In Germany, they are usually tolerated; in the external border procedure, they would remain in closed facilities for an indefinite period of time.
External border procedures would not be much different from the procedures that external border states already have to carry out as countries of first admission. Fast-track procedures would also have to be legally secure and offer independent procedural advice, for example. What should happen to people who are not entitled to asylum remains unclear. This would require readmission agreements with the countries of origin. It is difficult to simply send people to another third country that agrees to take them in, because the EU states are also responsible for protecting the human rights of these people once they have set foot on EU soil. None of this can be done overnight and will not lead to a rapid reduction in immigration.
According to the MPK resolution, it should even be examined whether Germany can establish third-country procedures independently of the EU.
This is certainly legally possible under certain conditions, but a country would first have to declare its willingness to do so. The corresponding infrastructure and logistics would then be required. The country would also either have to adopt our standards for the procedures or the international refugee organization IOM or the UN refugee agency UNHCR would have to take over the examination for a right to protection. But then it is still unclear what will happen to the people whose applications are rejected.
In the so-called Rwanda model, other countries far from the EU are supposed to take on migrants for a fee. Is that a possibility?
The idea is to fly asylum seekers directly to a country with which there is cooperation and accommodate them there permanently. This is what the British government has in mind. However, the UK Supreme Court has banned the deportation of people to Rwanda on the grounds that they are not safe there. Denmark has also failed with a similar request to date. Accommodation in third countries is very complex and cannot be implemented in the short term. And we face the same problems as with the asylum procedure in third countries: What happens to the people who are not granted protection status? There are also legal and accommodation issues.
The law can be changed or ignored, as British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has announced with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights. What speaks against it?
Theoretically, you can do anything, even re-nationalize and abolish the entire European asylum system. But the immigration pressure remains. We would be well advised to stick to a rules-based order in the area of migration and integration. The aim must be to reconcile a humanitarian orientation with the management of the migration system. The European asylum system may have collapsed, but it worked in this sense for a long time. And there are ways of adjusting it: I'm thinking of migration agreements and partnerships with third countries, which can help to achieve orderly migration. After all, Germany also has a high demand for skilled workers.
The federal and state governments have also agreed to reduce benefits. Asylum seekers should only be granted access to full citizens' benefits after a longer period of time. Will such measures make Germany a less attractive migration destination?
No. We know from research that social benefits are not the decisive factor. Security, economic strength, the opportunity to go through legal procedures and the prospect of work are more important. It is also always important whether there is already a corresponding diaspora in the country of origin, i.e. communities that are already on the ground. The agreed switch to analogous benefits and generally lower benefit rates does not change much. If you want to take the edge off the argument of expensive social benefits, you have to get people into work quickly.
In the German debate, much reference is made to Denmark's migration policy. Could elements be copied here?
Denmark is not subject to certain guidelines of the Dublin system, which makes the situation different. Denmark reviews residence permits after a certain period of time and then deports them again, for example to Syria, but this is very controversial in legal terms. The measures taken are primarily aimed at deterrence. And measures such as the so-called "jewelry law", where possessions up to a certain value are confiscated, are also not the decisive levers. Denmark also has a border that is much easier to control. Germany has much larger border areas and border regions and is dependent on trade within the Schengen area. That is also the argument against permanent stationary border controls.
Sebastian Huld spoke with Hans Vorländer
Source: www.ntv.de
