context
Several districts report that the introduction of the payment card has already persuaded asylum seekers to leave the country or take up work. However, what effects the model actually has is controversial.
After the introduction of a payment card for asylum seekers, 56 refugees left his district, “most probably to their homeland in Georgia and the Western Balkans.” Another 43 have now gone to work – Werner Henning explained. District administrator in Eichsfeld, opposite the “Bild”. His Greiz colleague Martina Schweinsburg also reports a successful introduction.
Integration officer doubts effect
However, the Thuringian Commissioner for Integration, Migration and Refugees, Mirjam Kruppa, is critical of such statements. “In the debate about the payment card for refugees, arguments are repeatedly put forward that are simply wrong or unsubstantiated,” she criticizes in a statement.
She doubts whether this development can be seen as a “success” or a direct consequence of the payment card: there have always been people leaving the country and taking up work, regardless of the payment card, is the wish of the vast majority of asylum seekers.
Probably none “Wandering Movements”
Erfurt’s mayor Andreas Bausewein’s claim that there are already “migration movements” of asylum seekers from districts that have introduced the card to his city is false: “This statement cannot be true. All those who have a payment card in the Thuringian districts are asylum seekers or tolerated people with a residence requirement.”
Migration researcher skeptical
Herbert Brücker, head of research in the area of migration, integration and international labor market research at the Institute for Labor Market and Occupational Research, does not believe that the payment card will have lasting positive effects for the districts.
First of all, compared to a transfer to an account, it requires more effort in several respects: contracts would have to be concluded with the financial service provider that issues the card and fees paid to them, as well as, depending on the structure, contracts with businesses such as Supermarket chains. Only in the case where benefits in kind are replaced by a payment card could he imagine a relief – but in this case that would often not be the case at all.
Experts see a number of disadvantages
“The greater the restrictions on payment options, the greater the administrative effort,” explains the migration researcher to ARD fact finder. Brücker fears that the system will also result in indirect costs: “The payment card restricts mobility and thus also integration: finding a job would be more difficult and asylum seekers would be cut off from certain goods and services.”
The Thuringian Refugee Council sees it similarly. There are significant restrictions for those affected in both Greiz and Eichsfeld. Although it is possible to pay in supermarkets, there are problems at the hairdresser, in smaller shops or when purchasing a Germany ticket.
The authorized dealers could also increase their prices if they have a kind of local monopoly position with regard to payment card users, fears migration researcher Brücker, who is also a professor of economics at the Humboldt University in Berlin. “Such indirect effects should seriously be taken into account in the assessment, even if they are difficult to measure.”
Remittances in Countries of origin often overestimated
Brücker also thinks that the amount that is transferred to the countries of origin of asylum seekers is often massively overestimated. The Bundesbank states the amount that was transferred to the eight most important asylum countries of origin in 2023 as 829 million euros. According to the migration researcher, there are many indications that the majority of the sum is being transferred by migrants who are regularly employed in Germany.
The remittances would correspond to around five percent of the wages of employees from the asylum countries of origin in Germany. The amount available to asylum seekers is also far too small to finance smugglers: If asylum seekers transferred ten percent of the transfer payments they received, it would take around ten years until the funds could be used to finance an escape, at a rate of 20 percent about five years.
Money goes to families rather than to smugglers
Brücker believes that the claim that smugglers are paid directly using these funds is not very credible: These escape helpers generally had themselves paid in advance and in cash in order to keep the risk of loss as low as possible – and hardly agreed to the 5,000 to 7,000 euros, that have to be paid for the escape to Europe, to be paid off over such a long period of time.
Rather, these funds would go to relatives and friends who would also use it to pay for their living expenses, health care and education costs. This would reduce migration pressure in these countries as local living conditions would improve.
District council contradicts
Markus Mempel from the German District Council does not accept this argument: “The benefits from the Asylum Seekers Act are intended to cover the cost of living in Germany,” he explains to the ARD fact finder.
He can understand that asylum seekers want to support their families back home, but this is not the aim of the service: it is right that the legislature ensures that the legal purpose is adhered to. The payment card is also intended to prevent money from being transferred abroad for smugglers.
Mempel also does not accept the accusation that mobility is restricted by the payment card: During the asylum procedure, but also in the case of a toleration or obligation to leave the country – i.e. in the cases in which the payment card is issued – there is a residency requirement in many parts. That’s why asylum seekers are not allowed to move out of the federal state or district anyway, because a fairly even distribution of refugees in the country should be ensured.
Also a question of justice
Mempel also sees simplifying administration through payment cards as an important effect. In addition, this sends a signal both internally and externally: “It creates clarity as to the conditions for receiving social benefits in Germany.”
Consistent and orderly structures in migration policy are ultimately also a question of justice, said Mempel. The experiences in Eichsfeld could possibly indicate that the asylum seekers who moved there did not primarily need the benefits to cover their immediate living needs in Germany.