Germany fails when it comes to deportations – Switzerland does it better

The legal position is clear, at least on paper. Anyone whose asylum application has been legally rejected must leave Germany. It’s the same in Switzerland. In practice, however, Bern succeeds better than Berlin in enforcing this. According to the Swiss State Secretariat for Migration (SEM), the repatriation rate is 54 percent in the current year. Even in the Corona year 2021 it was still 42 percent, while the average rate in the EU was 21 percent.

The German government cannot provide a current quota on request, as implementation is a matter for the federal states. Interior Minister Nancy Faeser admitted during a visit by Swiss Justice Minister Karin Keller-Sutter last week that the German rate was “significantly lower”. Virtually nothing has changed in this respect over the years.

A look into the shows that report the “sub-working group on implementation deficits”, which was created in 2010. An enforcement deficit is exactly that – namely the non-enforcement of a law or administrative act, such as expulsion. Almost 302,000 people who are obliged to leave the country are currently living in Germany. Almost 250,000 of them are tolerated. Tolerated means that the person is obliged to leave the country, but deportation has been suspended. In fact, around 6,200 people were deported in the first half of the year.

Of those who were tolerated, 150,000 had been there for more than three years, 10,000 had even been there for more than twelve years, as if from one Response of the Federal Government to a question in Parliament emerges. Most of the tolerated were of working age – 21 to 39 years old – or children. They are only allowed to work under restrictions, are not allowed to set up companies and are not entitled to integration courses. Although this corresponds to the legal logic – they should not become native because they have been expelled and are obliged to leave the country – it is not the reality. Many integrate on their own and are blown away when they suddenly receive a deportation notice.

A reason like “He has a job and is integrated” is not an obstacle to deportation. In other words: the deportation is most likely to affect the “good guys” that Germany could need, and thus the wrong people. The fact that this is self-damaging for a country with a shortage of skilled workers has been recognized to some extent decades later and is now to be changed. To this end, Germany has now passed the so-called Opportunity Residence Law, which is intended to enable the change from rejected asylum seekers to the status of a regular migrant.

Frequent complaints

The problem with repatriations existed before the last refugee crisis. But since then it has gotten worse. One reason is that rejected asylum seekers in Germany often complain. In 2021, appeals were lodged against 87.2 percent of all rejection notices. The success rate is 36 percent. The competent Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (Bamf) therefore makes many incorrect decisions.

Above all, deportations fail because travel documents are missing and identities remain unclear. At the end of 2021, 72,484 people were tolerated in Germany due to missing papers, a further 25,486 because of unclear identity, and a further 23,275 because of “family ties to other tolerated people”. Foreigners are obliged to obtain a passport or a passport substitute themselves, because they have to be registered for their asylum procedure. However, many do not do this or throw away their papers to avoid deportation.

Agreements with the countries of origin, such as those concluded by Berlin with Algeria, Morocco or Georgia, are helpful in clarifying identities. However, Germany has failed to sign such agreements with many countries. Interior Minister Faeser recently promised that this will be done now.

According to the Bamf, the biggest challenges are that some countries of origin are not cooperative when it comes to obtaining paper and carrying out the deportation. Even after “high diplomatic visits and corresponding commitments”, the repatriation rate is low. For decades there have been a few problem states that have been using downright tricks to avoid having to take back their citizens. Berlin even expelled Yemen’s ambassador from the country in 2006.

Discretion instead of pillory

The example of Switzerland shows how important intensive cooperation with the countries of origin is. This is a key reason for the above-average enforcement rate, says a spokesman for the State Secretariat for Migration (SEM). In fact, the list of Swiss readmission agreements is long. Bern has concluded further migration partnerships with countries such as Sri Lanka, which also include development aid or visa facilitation. Switzerland is one of the few countries that can carry out special flights to Colombo with rejected asylum seekers.

The contacts of the SEM made it possible to carry out returns to Algeria or Morocco, which is considered difficult. However, Switzerland avoids pillorying problem states. It’s also not a good idea to talk about mass repatriations, says Urs Betschart, head of the Canton of Zurich’s migration office. Discretion and continuity are crucial. “It overwhelms the partner countries when suddenly thousands of people are to be repatriated.” In Switzerland, the cantons are responsible for enforcing evictions. However, cooperation with the federal government is well established.

Continuity also means that Switzerland has been pursuing a consistent asylum policy for a long time. For example, the federal government, under the social democratic Justice Minister Simonetta Sommaruga, tightened the practice towards asylum seekers from Nigeria, who are hardly in need of protection. The requests have fallen sharply since the authorities are processing them within 48 hours. With the introduction of the accelerated procedure in 2019, the federal government took another step. One goal is for people without a chance of asylum to have clarity quickly – and to leave Switzerland. The quicker someone does this, the higher the return assistance. According to the SEM, the rate of voluntary departures is above average in an international comparison.

The corona pandemic temporarily led to a cut, because deportations were difficult if not impossible. After a change in the law, the authorities were able to force those who were obliged to leave the country to undergo corona tests, which was necessary for returns. “Switzerland has always stuck to consistent implementation,” says Urs Betschart. This is also a signal for potential future migrants.

The life lie of Swiss politics

However, there are also problems in Switzerland. The number of rejected asylum seekers who would have to leave the country was “only” 4,300 at the end of October. Around 45,000 people live in Switzerland with this status, which is similar to the German Duldung. In proportion to the population, this number is above average compared to Germany.

Those temporarily admitted were also expelled. However, their repatriation is impossible, for example in the case of Afghanistan. The federal government periodically reviews the status that makes integration difficult. However, the majority of those affected never return home, but remain in Switzerland permanently.

In addition, many of the approximately 4,300 asylum seekers who refuse to leave Switzerland have been living in precarious conditions for years. They often come from states like Eritrea, which oppose the forced repatriation of their citizens. Those affected only receive emergency aid, which should increase the incentive to leave the country. For some, however, this is still better than returning home. Others go underground and try their luck in another country.

The transit migration of primarily young Afghans from Austria also showed the limits of the Dublin system. In the case of asylum seekers who have already submitted an application in another Dublin state, returns from Switzerland still work. However, most migrants from Austria do not apply for asylum, which makes deportation difficult. Instead, they move on to other countries. This caused criticism in Germany.

Bern and Berlin now want to tackle the problem together. They recently adopted an action plan against irregular migration, which also includes a consistent return policy. Germany can learn from Swiss practice, even if this cannot be transferred one-to-one. Switzerland is roughly the size of a large, prosperous German federal state – and sometimes maneuvers itself under the geopolitical radar. If it is not just about announcements, rejected asylum seekers will have to leave Germany more often in the future.