The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Expert Thym on migration policy: "The traffic light is much closer to Ms. Merkel's course than some would probably like"

2021-11-30T14:29:49.792Z


The coalition agreement promises a "paradigm shift" in asylum and migration policy. Is everything going to be different now? No, says law professor Daniel Thym.


Enlarge image

Polish border guards at the Belarusian border on November 11, 2021: »Sad reality«

Photo: Polish Ministry of National Defense / Getty Images

SPIEGEL:

Mr. Thym, there have recently been depressing pictures of Polish border officials on the border between Poland and Belarus driving refugees away from the border fence with water cannons.

Many of the refugees do not want to stay in Poland at all, but rather move on to Germany.

Are Polish border guards doing the dirty work for us at the moment?

Thym:

In a way, yes.

Refugees shouldn't just be turned away.

SPIEGEL:

Under no circumstances?

Thym:

At least at the official border crossing points, you have to listen to these people and check their concerns. Poland does not do that and thereby violates European law. However, the situation at the Polish border ultimately only reveals something that is otherwise a sad reality: We are preventing refugees from reaching the borders, sometimes with very robust means. Most of the time, this happens far away from the television cameras. We still want to be the good guys in Europe. By promising protection to threatened people. At the same time, we prevent these people from even coming to Europe. For example through the support of the Libyan coast guard; or by not allowing Syrians to board a plane to Germany without a visa - and they just don't get that.

SPIEGEL:

Does the coalition agreement offer the new traffic light coalition a way out of the situation on the Polish-Belarusian border?

Thym:

Above all, it shows the dilemma.

It says: "The asylum application from people who arrive in the EU or who are already here must be checked for content." And immediately afterwards: "The EU and Germany must not be open to blackmail."

"That you at least want to check that is astonishing"

SPIEGEL:

That sounds good.

Thym:

But it contradicts itself.

If »illegal rejections« are to end, then the Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko will ultimately determine how many people will enter the EU.

The traffic light is now trying to square the circle by relying on “constitutional migration agreements with third countries”.

SPIEGEL:

What do you mean by that?

Thym:

This is based on a proposal by political advisor Gerald Knaus: Ukraine or other non-EU countries should take in people in order to carry out asylum procedures there.

In any case, it is astonishing that a government with the participation of the Greens wants to at least "examine" this path.

The debate is currently being pushed primarily by Denmark, Austria and Great Britain.

There, however, with the aim of further relativising the individual right to asylum.

SPIEGEL:

But what if there is no other way out?

Thym:

It only appears to be a way out. It is theoretically possible to have asylum procedures carried out in and from third countries. But first of all, there have been attempts like this before - but no third country has been willing to take in the people so far. Second, it remains unclear what will happen after the asylum procedure. If protection is required, a decision would have to be made to distribute it to the EU states, which hardly anyone outside Germany wants. Rejected asylum seekers would have to be returned, for example Kurds to the reasonably safe northern Iraq. As is well known, this only works to a limited extent. The hope that is probably behind it: that it will have a deterrent effect, i.e. the prospect of a life in the Ukraine is less attractive than a toleration with labor law and legalization option in Germany.

"Just as double-edged as before"

SPIEGEL:

Overall, the coalition agreement speaks of a “paradigm shift” in asylum and migration policy - do you see that?

Thym:

Not that blanket.

It is overdue for a federal government to speak of Germany as an "immigration country" as a matter of course.

But even in a country of immigration, immigration rules remain controversial, as can be seen in the USA, for example.

Interesting is the formula that an »active and regulating policy« will be pursued, which »should reduce irregular migration and enable regular migration«.

This shows that this is basically just as double-edged as it has been before.

SPIEGEL:

Can you explain that in more detail?

Thym:

Chancellor Angela Merkel wanted to "regulate" and replace "illegal" with "legal" migration.

At the same time, the coalition agreement announces a »repatriation offensive«.

This is reminiscent of the "national effort" that Angela Merkel had already promised and which, despite all efforts, was not a resounding success.

So this is not a “new beginning”, but a moderate further development of what previous governments had done.

SPIEGEL:

What are some examples of the “modern immigration country” of the new coalition agreement?

Thym: In

practical terms, it is extremely important that migrants can now be naturalized after five years instead of the previous eight.

In the case of “special integration achievements”, this should even be possible after three years.

SPIEGEL:

That is the »turbo naturalization« that the Expert Council for Integration and Migration (SVR), of which you are deputy chairman, is calling for.

Thym:

Yes, but the deadlines are now even shorter.

So you can get the German passport much faster in the future.

It will also be easier.

For example, dual citizenship will be allowed in the future.

And in the dispute between “multiculturalism” and “German dominant culture”, the traffic light adjusts at a symbolically important point: For the first time in 15 years, spouses from non-EU countries are allowed to come back without having learned German.

Concealed "lane change"

SPIEGEL:

What about the much discussed “change of lane” from asylum to labor migration?

Thym:

The coalition agreement does not officially promise a »lane change«. In fact, this is exactly what is happening: The FDP wanted a specialist to be able to receive a regular residence permit during the asylum procedure. That will be realized. The Greens and parts of the SPD were primarily interested in a significantly expanded right of residence for rejected asylum seekers - and this is also coming: The possibilities to stay are being expanded by lowering the deadlines for the existing programs and creating new opportunities. As a result, many more people will be able to remain legally in Germany after an unsuccessful asylum procedure.

SPIEGEL:

Now, key decisions are being made in asylum policy at the European level. Migration management within the EU has largely failed: the so-called Dublin rules do not work in practice, and so far no majorities have been found for reform. How does the traffic light relate to this?

Thym:

The wind has changed drastically in Brussels.

Luxembourg, Portugal and Germany are seen as the last advocates of a humanitarian asylum policy.

Most of the others are more or less openly demanding foreclosure.

A legalization of pushbacks is being promoted, for which the Commission will shortly present a proposal.

All Mediterranean countries are pulling back on sea rescue and harassing private rescue services.

The new government sees it differently.

She calls for a state-coordinated sea rescue and wants a "fair distribution" of refugees.

To fight for it is honorable.

Unfortunately, however, the chances of finding a majority in Brussels for most points are slim.

"Sounds nice, but contains little substance"

SPIEGEL:

In the coalition agreement there is a lot of "want" in the passages on European asylum policy - does that remind you a little of Till Eulenspiegel, who said he wanted to fly off the roof of the town hall and then admitted "I want, but I can't"?

Thym:

Yes, these passages all sound nice, but contain little substance.

»End the illegal rejections and the suffering at the external borders« - but how?

There was already the so-called Malta Mechanism from 2019, with which a "coalition of the willing" wanted to distribute shipwrecked people.

The hoped-for dynamic did not materialize, of course.

Very few countries are currently still willing to voluntarily accept more refugees again.

more on the subject

  • What the traffic light is planning in migration policy: »The Union has left us a mess« By Severin Weiland

  • Program of the traffic light parties: These are the most important points in the coalition agreement

  • Modern and humane migration policy: Europe needs a fence on the border with Belarus The SPIEGEL editorial by Ralf Neukirch

  • Isolate or absorb: How the fate of the refugees weighs on the traffic light negotiations

  • Asylum: "Keep away from your body"

SPIEGEL:

There was sharp criticism from within the Union.

Group leader Ralph Brinkhaus denounced the traffic light's “brutal openness” to migration and expressed “very, very great concern” that the traffic light agreements “will be a pull factor for very, very much illegal migration”.

Would you agree with that?

Thym:

The traffic light is much closer to the course of the last federal government under Ms. Merkel than some would probably like - both in the Union and within the traffic light.

Very central issues will also end up in the coalition committee.

The no less important day-to-day business will be managed by the responsible ministries.

The steering wheel is held by the SPD interior ministry, and the designated FDP justice minister is likely to exert a corresponding influence.

For the time being, the Greens are left out - which some people may be painfully aware of.

Source: spiegel

All life articles on 2021-11-30

You may like

News/Politics 2024-03-06T16:26:05.328Z

Trends 24h

Life/Entertain 2024-03-28T17:17:20.523Z

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.