In a guest article for a newspaper, the FDP ministers Buschmann and Lindner call for it to be easier to reduce benefits for asylum seekers in the future. Under certain conditions they even want to delete them almost completely.
Federal Finance Minister Christian Lindner and Federal Justice Minister Marco Buschmann have spoken out in favor of cutting social benefits for asylum seekers. “Under particularly strict conditions, a reduction in benefits to virtually ‘zero’ would be conceivable,” wrote the FDP politicians in a guest article for “Welt am Sonntag”.
The aim of German asylum policy must be to offer fewer incentives for illegal migration, the ministers explained. A so-called pull factor is the level of social benefits, which is higher than in other EU countries, even than in countries with a comparable level of prosperity such as the Scandinavian countries. We have to come to “a new realpolitik in the area of irregular migration to Germany”.
Do you really need money to buy newspapers?
Under constitutional law, basic services for asylum seekers cannot be reduced across the board. However, a reduction by recalculating the actual power requirement is certainly possible, Lindner and Buschmann wrote. One could doubt, for example, whether costs for the use of fixed lines, entrance fees or the purchase of newspapers for people in initial reception centers, which are provided with media in common rooms, were really incurred.
The ministers advocated not paying out so-called analogue benefits to those affected after 18 months, as was currently the case, which correspond in amount to citizens’ benefit. Instead, according to the ideas of the FDP politicians, they should only receive basic benefits under the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act until their residence status has been legally clarified. In this context, they are calling for more uniform and faster asylum procedures throughout Germany.
Cut down to what is necessary Return travel costs
When cutting benefits “to virtually ‘zero'”, the ministers are referring to asylum seekers who, according to the Dublin Regulation, should actually receive humanitarian protection in another EU state. Here, Lindner and Buschmann suggest reducing the benefit to the reimbursement of necessary travel costs to the responsible state.” In social law, “sanctions are permissible if reasonable cooperative actions aimed at improving one’s own situation are omitted.”
The ministers warn against a “self-taboo” in the migration debate. This has “led to a lack of speech and debate in public spaces”. As a result, the discussion shifted to “semi-dark forums,” from which populists could have benefited. “Their goal is anger, rage and indignation, precisely to prevent rational debate. In this way they want to block the strength of liberal democracy in order to damage it.” The ministers emphasize that the solution to the migration problem is ultimately “a symbol of the effectiveness of liberal institutions.”