Comment on the obligation to work for asylum seekers: Opening up fair opportunities

The debate about compulsory work for asylum seekers overlooks important legal principles and does not create fair opportunities for access to the labor market, says Max Bauer. And some statements reveal that it’s all about symbolism.

“Anyone who experiences the solidarity of the community in Germany has to give something back.” With this sentence, Thuringia’s CDU leader Mario Voigt defends the obligation to work for asylum seekers. That sounds handy. And a corresponding regulation has been in the law for a long time, since 1993: Asylum seekers can be assigned jobs in their accommodation and with state, municipal or non-profit organizations. There is even a work requirement. And if work is rejected without justification, benefits can be significantly reduced.

But that’s only one side. Because what the welfare state has to do for the minimum subsistence level of the individual – including the individual asylum seeker – and what the individual himself has to do to achieve this is a fundamental question. And thus a question of constitutional law.

Human dignity does not have to be earned

First important principle: Securing existence is first and foremost a duty of the state because respect for human dignity requires it. And human dignity, as an important sentence from Karlsruhe goes, “doesn’t have to be earned, but is something every person is entitled to on their own.” This means that human dignity is not respected because the person affected behaves as desired. Rather, it must be fundamentally respected. A value decision of our society.

But because the Basic Law imagines people as free people, the welfare state can also appeal to people’s self-determined concern for their own existence. Social security may be secondary, i.e. based on the fact that the individual cannot secure his or her own existence.

Welfare state may demand participation

In other words: supporting and demanding is ok. The welfare state may demand that individuals actively participate in getting out of need for assistance. This also applies to asylum seekers. But here lies exactly the problem with the obligation to work. Migration law experts repeatedly point out that the fact that refugees do not work is usually not due to their willingness to work, but rather due to their lack of the right to work.

For example, tolerated refugees are still dependent on the discretion of the authorities. But only if asylum seekers have a chance to gain a foothold in the labor market would a work requirement be constitutional.

There is no balance between encouraging and demanding things today. Vacuuming your own accommodation or trimming hedges does not open up opportunities in the regular job market. More investment in job centers, entry-level jobs and training opportunities would be a better way than a symbolic work obligation.

Actually it’s about Immigration restrictions

And the fact that the debate is primarily about symbolism is revealed by another sentence from the Thuringian CDU chairman: the obligation to work is a “sign of the necessary limitation of immigration.” So that’s what it’s all about. The aim here is not to integrate and encourage people, but rather to see them as a burden and threat, as people who have to be forced to work. This shows little insight into the lives of the people who come.

Anyone who speaks to refugees knows that many want to work and contribute to society. That’s why the alternative: support and demands for asylum seekers must finally be put into perspective. And that means finally fair opportunities for refugees to access real work. Only then can you demand from the people who come to us what most of them want anyway, a self-determined and self-responsible life.