“Anne Will”: Asylum policy under scrutiny – Merkel’s motto no longer applies

Since Angela Merkel’s statement “We can do it” in 2015, little has changed in European asylum policy. This week things got moving. That’s why Anne Will wanted to know from her guests: “Tougher rules, faster procedures – what will change Europe’s new asylum policy?”

Guests at “Anne Will” were:

Nancy Faser announced a “historic success” on Thursday when she spoke about the new EU migration policy.

Saskia Esken, Omid Nouripour and Jens Spahn argued just as passionately about whether she was celebrated for it or just informed about it, as about the question of whether new quotas for refugees, upper limits for admission and readjustments to asylum law are needed.

First milestone to build on

For Omid Nouripour, the current result of the EU negotiations is only a first milestone, it is “not a historic success”, more like a foot in the door for further negotiations. Nevertheless, he is glad that there is an agreement because it is the basis for further negotiations. “Of course we want to improve that,” said the party leader of the Greens, trying to bring together the widely differing opinions within his own party.

For Jens Spahn, too, the result is an “important step at European level”, but it is not far-reaching enough. In his opinion, “irregular migration” would not be combated in this way. When asked by Anne Wills, he explained that everyone who fled to Germany “without control and order” would engage in this form of migration. Saskia Esken sees the new EU migration policy as a major “step that has not been successful so far”, the new regulations would enable “procedures with minimum standards”.

The impossibility of further entry into the EU

The journalist Franziska Grillmeier sees exactly these minimum standards under scrutiny. For them, these are far from the reality in which many refugees are currently living. Prison-like conditions sometimes prevail in the camps, sometimes with unpunished violations of the law and no access to medical care.

Jens Spahn cut Grillmeier off, saying he found the concept of detention “really difficult”. In his opinion, the refugees could “go back”, it would only be about the “not being able to continue entering the EU”. But where exactly should the refugees return to? Grillmeier didn’t let this question rest either, she explained that countries such as Turkey would not take in people who were sent back from Greece. People would live in these camps because nothing else is possible.

The number of refugees must be reduced

The migration researcher Ruud Koopmans agreed with the journalist and pointed out that no new migration policy would be possible without valid agreements with the countries of origin or third countries on the readmission of refugees. “We won’t succeed if we don’t manage the number [der Flüchtenden] significantly,” said Koopmans. The goal must be to prevent people from dying on the escape routes.

Both the migration researcher and the journalist repeatedly pointed out that many people die while fleeing, and those were the few minutes in which one was reminded while watching that we are talking about people here who come from very different backgrounds found their way to Europe.

Saskia Esken reminded them that not all of them want to go to Germany. Of the 100 million who are currently fleeing, the vast majority would flee to neighboring states of their home country, not to Germany. It is not the case that all of humanity is fleeing to Germany. And yet with “Anne Will” one got the impression that this must be prevented at all costs.

The limit of what is possible

Jens Spahn wanted to know whether there was a “common limit of what is feasible”, a “limit of what is good” and whether there was an understanding of it. Angela Merkel’s above-mentioned sentence that “we can do it” no longer applies, even though Omid Nouripour reminded us that the right to asylum still has no upper limit and that that is correct. Spahn argued with overcrowded daycare centers and schools, a shortage of housing and a lack of job offers. At the same time, immigration for skilled workers is very popular. Of course, asylum and migration policy is highly complex and a panel discussion doesn’t change anything. But watching for an hour how the lives of many people are negotiated, how they are classified as welcome and unwelcome, cannot leave you indifferent.

Humane politics for inhumane practices

The journalist Grillmeier also tried several times to draw attention to the conditions of the refugees. According to Franziska Grillmeier, there is a “trend towards making humane politics for inhumane practices”. She had researched on site in Niger. Similar to what is now planned for Tunisia, the country has an agreement with Germany that refugees on their way to Europe should be stranded here. Many do that too and then die here, in the desert, where their mortal remains can no longer be found. “The roads have become much deadlier,” also because something is decided on paper that cannot be implemented on site.

“Tunisia is the waiting room for the EU”

Migration researcher Koopmans spoke in favor of the idea of ​​the new EU migration policy that countries can decide to deport refugees according to a procedure to third or transit countries such as Tunisia. “Tunisia is the waiting room for the EU,” said Koopmans, adding that the incentives for people to set out at all must be removed. And you have to say goodbye to the idea of ​​finding a “purely European” solution, which “does not exist”.

The sociologist spoke out in favor of increasing refugee quotas for certain countries and at the same time preventing “irregular immigration”. Only then would a “much better world of refugee policy” be possible. In addition to monetary incentives for Tunisia, it is also conceivable to issue work and student visas for Tunisia if they take refugees back after deportation in a cooperative manner and in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

More topics

Migration is, without question, a highly complex topic that requires the knowledge of experts. But not everything can be decided at the desk, it is very important to see on site what effects laws that are made by decision-makers in secure houses with every comfort have on people worldwide.

The journalist Franziska Grillmeier seemed to be the only one in the group to have researched on site and had spoken to refugees about their living conditions. This is not possible for all politicians. But it should be within the realm of possibility not only to talk about quotas and numbers and good and not so good refugees, but not to completely ignore humanity in all the decisions. In this respect, the talk at “Anne Will” was more of a warning event not to lose sight of the privileges we live with here in Germany, despite all the necessary objectivity.

cl