Asylum policy at “Hard but Fair”
“We’re just trying to accommodate”
By Marko Schlichting
March 12, 2024, 5:12 a.m
Listen to article
This audio version was artificially generated. More info | Send feedback
Over 350,000 people applied for asylum in Germany last year. People who need to be accommodated and cared for and whose children need to go to school. “We can’t do that,” says Saxony’s Interior Minister Schuster in “Hard but Fair”.
The number of refugees in Germany continues to increase. Many communities feel overwhelmed. A quick solution is needed. How the number of refugees entering Germany could be reduced is the topic of the ARD program “Hart aber fair” on Monday evening.
Saxon Interior Minister Armin Schuster from the CDU calls it a problem for municipalities. More and more refugees are coming to Germany, even though the people from the last big wave of refugees in 2015 and 2016 have not yet been properly integrated into society. In the last two years, more than half a million refugees have come to Germany. In addition, people from Ukraine were taken in. “This is beyond all limits,” says Schuster. In Saxony there are communities in which twice as many refugees live as people from Germany, says Schuster. “There’s nothing smart about it anymore. But I no longer have the opportunity to make smart decisions. It’s just a matter of searching and finding what little we have left. And that’s why I’m telling you quite openly: without a drastic one Limitation will not be able to happen again this year, 2024. We can’t do that.”
The “breathing ceiling”
Schuster is one of the authors of the “breathing ceiling” concept. This idea is now eight years old. Schuster: “The original motivation for the upper limit issue was always: In our view, if this country follows Christian values, it can treat people the way we want up to a certain limit, i.e. no tents, no gymnasiums and so on.” This upper limit was originally 200,000 to 300,000 people per year. But because the number of refugees has increased dramatically in recent years, Saxon Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer is proposing an upper limit of 60,000 migrants per year. Schuster supports this suggestion. In his opinion, under these circumstances it would be possible to integrate refugees into society. “What we are doing now no longer has much to do with integration. We are just trying to accommodate,” says the CDU politician.
“In the end, this is not a serious policy that you are doing here,” accuses the Green party leader in the Bundestag, Katharina Dröge, to the minister. Such a limitation is not compatible with the Basic Law, European law or international law. “That’s why it won’t happen, and that’s why the CDU has never tried to implement it in 16 years of participation in government.” Dröge refers to municipalities in which citizens have agreed to take in more refugees. For example, the joint municipality of Fürstenau in the Osnabrück district wants to make part of the local Pommern barracks available to refugees following a referendum. Starting next summer, around 500 migrants are expected to move in there on an area of ten hectares.
However, Dröge also wants to do something about the growing influx of migrants. She mentions three points: On the one hand, there is a need for migration agreements with the refugees’ countries of origin. The federal government is working on this, and one has already been finalized and more will follow. She also calls for a fair distribution key for migrants in the European Union. And finally, she wants the causes of flight such as hunger, war and poverty to be combated.
Discourage refugees
Schuster sees another way to limit the number of refugees. It was first suggested by migration researcher Gerald Knaus, who is also a guest on “Hart aber fair”. Knaus is considered the inventor of the ultimately failed refugee agreement between the EU and Turkey. He supports third country regulation. Asylum applications from refugees are processed in a country outside the EU. Great Britain and Rwanda as well as Italy and Albania have concluded corresponding agreements. The aim, according to Knaus, is “to discourage people in accordance with the human rights convention.”
When it comes to the third country, it doesn’t matter whether it is Rwanda, Morocco or Turkey, says Knaus. “The bottom line is that it is a safe country.” Then people could be returned to their countries of origin even after failed asylum procedures. This is what the treaty that Great Britain concluded with Rwanda provides for. The refugees would be accommodated in hotels there and would be allowed to stay there until the asylum procedure was completed. This also applies to minors who need protection. “Rwanda is taking care of it, England is financing the integration,” says Knaus.
The sociologist Özgür Özvatan addresses one problem with this proposal. He asks why refugees should be accommodated in Rwanda and not in a democratic country. Either the third country advocates ignore the question or they don’t want to answer. Unfortunately, moderator Klamroth doesn’t follow up any further. But Dröge is also against the third-country solution. “We and you know that this doesn’t work,” she accuses Schuster and Knaus. And the Berlin Senator for Integration Cansel Kiziltepe calls the third country regulation “deterrence and isolation”. She is of the opinion that it violates the German constitution.