Before the Cabinet meeting, activists appealed to the federal government, in particular, not to whip through the” ordered-return-Law “ at haste. Because the law provides for far-reaching changes that have been sharply criticised: deprivation of rights, more detention, displacement from Germany by withdrawal of social benefits and insecurity from recognised refugees by extending the period for withdrawal proceedings to five years. In addition, a new type of condolence, a “condolence light”, which is now called “condolence for persons with unexplained identity”, is introduced, through which affected people are stigmatised and the path to a right of retention is greatly complicated. Last but not least, the law also makes people involved in refugee work insecure, as there is still a risk of criminalisation. They could be accused by the disclosure of certain information in the context of a consultation of the “aid for treason”.
The third act amending the act on asylum seekers benefits, which also came into force on 17 December 2007, also provides for the introduction of a new law on asylum seekers benefits. This is a very problematic issue. At the expense of asylum-seekers, the law operates a zero-sum game in order not to spend more money-even though the additional expenditure is prescribed by the Constitution!
Extreme reductions in the asylum seekers Benefits Act
For refugees recognised in other EU member states, according to the “ordered-Return-Act”, benefits are to be completely deleted after two weeks. The return to countries such as Italy, Greece and Bulgaria is to be achieved with Hunger and homelessness. There, recognized refugees often live under miserable conditions, as activists have documented on several occasions. The Federal Constitutional Court has also clearly ruled that” migration considerations “ do not justify an exclusion of benefits. The exclusion of benefits therefore violates the Basic Law, which protects a life in dignity of all people in Germany (Art. 1 Para. 1 Basic Law).
In general, the intensification of benefits in the “ordered-Return-Act” is also surprising, as there is also the third act amending the asylum seekers Benefits Act. However, the Federal Council must agree to this, not the” ordered-Return-Act”. Such a circumvention of the Federal Council is unacceptable.
In the third act amending the act on asylum seekers benefits, benefits will be reduced at the same time as a constitutional increase in benefits, which has been pending since 2016, and thus a zero – sum game is carried out-regardless of whether this enables a decent life. The reductions cannot be justified-even now the amounts are reduced to the extreme. It is particularly absurd to justify the reduction by the fact that single adults who are obliged to live in collective accommodation will in future be understood as a “community of Destiny”. This is due to the fact that the partners involved, as well as the partners living together, would be households – a construction that contradicts any life experience. This is all the more so as accommodation brings together people of different origins and from different situations, including different stages of procedure.
Massive expansion of the detention
The conditions for the application of deportation detention are greatly reduced in order to allow more people to be detained. On the one hand, the people affected can be simply assumed that they have a “danger of escape” (by a so-called disgusting guess). They then have to prove the opposite out of prison, but not even get – as in criminal law-a lawyer. In addition, almost banal aspects should serve as an indication of “danger of escape”, such as, that the Person has paid some money to come to Germany (on whom does not apply?) or that she gave wrong information some time ago-even if they have been corrected by now. This is a blatant shift to the detriment of those affected and also contradicts the principle that any detention should only be applied as a last resort. Detention is, after all, the strongest interference in the right to freedom.
The deportation detention is now to be carried out even in normal prisons. This clearly breaks European law, which provides for the separation of prisoners and people to be deported, in order to protect the human dignity of the persons concerned. Because they have not committed a crime and must not be treated like this. The Minister of justice of the countries have protested across party lines, as in the practical implementation, for example, it is unclear how certain safety standards can be met.
Threats to civil society
By disproportionately declaring the entire process of deportation – including Embassy or medical appointments - as a “secret”, there is a risk that those working in the refugee work, who inform, for example, about the date at a embassy, will be accused of aid for treason. The possibility of an indictment alone will lead to strong insecurity among people who are committed to protecting people. In Section 353b of the Criminal Code, only press representatives are excluded from the aid to the secret council, but not civil society actors. The changes in the speaker’s draft during the coalition negotiations have therefore not eliminated the threat of civil society.
Recognised refugees for years in uncertainty
The BAMF will now have up to five years for the withdrawal and withdrawal procedures of refugees recognised in 2015 to 2017. The procedures mainly concern refugees from Syria, Iraq and Eritrea. In these countries, however, the situation has not improved in a sustainable and fundamental way – which would be the reason for revoking recognition. The process of integration of the refugees concerned is negligently blocked by such insecurity.
Introduction of a precarious tolerate light
As a result of the new condolences for persons with “unexplained identity”, the people concerned are generally subject to a ban on work and residence. As these sanctions are already possible (work prohibition in § 60a Abs. 6 Residence Act, Residenzpflicht im § 61 Abs. 1c Residence Act), the question arises as to the usefulness of introducing a new permit. In addition, the time in this tolerance light does not apply as a lead time for the right to stay regulations. This could be particularly the case for underage refugees, despite good Integration, who would be able to build up their way into a right of residence, as they would be able to stay four years before the 21st century. I have to be patient on my 70th birthday.
However, light will not only affect those whose identity is not known, but also those who allegedly fail to fulfil their obligation to obtain a passport. Already today, some actions are required in the acquisition of passports, which are practically impracticable. For example, the Lebanese embassy refuses to issue identity documents for Palestinian refugees who previously lived there if the competent foreigners authority does not declare in writing that the Person should be granted a residence permit. However, if the foreigners authority refuses to do so, it is not possible for the Person to force the message to behave in a different way. In many countries, there is no civil status system comparable to Germany. For Afghan people, for example, who have not lived in Afghanistan for a long time or no longer have relatives, it can be extremely difficult to get a so-called Tazkira (identity document in Afghanistan). This must be certified by the authorities in Afghanistan and usually collected from authorised relatives. The regulation in the “ordered-Return-Act” does not put a stop to such an extensive handling of the passport collection obligation, which will now have further negative consequences for the persons concerned.
The conclusion is that the West is moving forward, away from democracy to a wrongful and political state. Germany once again, through its leadership, lives out the racist and national soul.