Asylum policy after the change of government
(autumn 1998)

With reasonable claims have German NG0s tried to take influence on the course of the coalition negotiations and the first activities of the (new) government. From the start, a return to asylum fundamental rights of former versions was unrealistic. The return to the standards of the international law, the recognition of the jurisdiction of the European Court on Human Rights concerning the protection from deportation in the case of imminent torture and a humane treatment of refugees, these have been and still are the realistic expectations with respect to the new Federal Government. The publication of the coalition agreement in October 1998 led to the first disillusionment. A critical lecture made clear that there was arranged

• no return to the standards of the Geneva Convention
• no agreement concerning „hardship cases“ (Härtefälle) within the aliens law
• no revision of the airport procedure nor of the practise of detention.

Only the promised Altfallregelung was politically treatable. It is written in the coalition treaty: „We, together with the Federal States, want to come to a single old case arrangement.“ But the ones who acted were the Federal States not the Federal coalition. Rhineland-Palatinate demanded a revised version of the old Altfallregelung from 1996. The former arrangement was more or less ineffective. Throughout the Federal Republic of Germany only 7.800 permissions of residence were issued. According to the opinions of some Ministers of Interior, entire person-groups e.g. Bosnians, Vietnamese and Kosovo-Albanians should be taken out of the intended Altfallregelung. There is almost no chance for the ones who are excluded from the labour market. Autonomous earning of the living is the maxim. But the sad reality is: there is no such thing as a secure residence and a chance on the labour market for the concerned people. Such an arrangement makes no sense. Meanwhile, it is not even certain if there will be an Altfallregelung, anyway. On February the 25th the Ministers of the Interior of the Federal States postponed the decision once more, until June, while in most of the states they are rapidly going on with deporting people. Of all people, frequently the ones who are deported are those who would profit from the arrangement. PRO ASYL and refugee organisations demand from the states to issue decrees which would protect obviously favoured persons from being deported, for the moment.

Area of social dimension and labour

The prohibition of employment endures.

The common prohibition of employment for asylum seekers, issued by the former Minister Blüm on May the 15th, 1997 is going to endure. PRO ASYL pointed out that some social tribunals decided that the concerned directive represents an attack on the fundamental rights which requires a special legal basis. Additionally, with the abolition of the directive, the duty of the job centres to initiate a labour market examination in single cases, remains. Moreover, PRO ASYL pointed out that already in the 1980s the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in Geneva criticised the forced enlisting of asylum seekers for public work at the same time being not allowed to be employed. Trade Unionist Riester proceeds now -in his position as Employment Secretary – with neglecting this international agreement which represents an achievement of the Labour Movement.

Area of the Ministry of State

During the coalition debates it was already obvious that the majority of the SPI) was not prepared to carry out serious corrections of the asylum legislation. But there could also be done a lot in the sense of more fairness for asylum seekers underneath the level of changing the law. Still, the adequate effort has not been made by the Federal Ministry of the interior. Recognition quotas are decreasing which has nothing to do with the situation in the countries of origin nor with the motives for escape of the people who seek asylum in Germany. At least the issue of protection from deportation according to section 53 of the Aliens Act could by instruction be formulated more realistically. Still, the Federal Minister of the Interior has ventured no step in this direction. He could, for example, instruct the Federal Office to rate sexual harassment as impediment from deportation in view of section 53 of the Aliens Act, as far as the social reality in the country of origin is not expected to provide for a life in dignity for the woman concerned.
In other respects too, there exists a „red-green“ continuity.

• The Federal Commissioner on asylum affairs, who is subjected to the instructions of the Minister of the Interior, still regularly sues against recognitions of the Federal Ministry. Although the arguments of the Federal Commissioner in many cases are insubstantial and stereotype. The Ausschuss Ausländer- und Asylrecht des Republikanischen Anwaltsvereins correctly pointed out that the Federal Commissioner misinterpretates his office by considering it his duty to push every positive decision from one court to the next. For the concerned refugees this means living in uncertainty for years.
• All over the country, revocation proceedings against Kurds from Iraq are initiated aiming at the deprivation of their status as refugees according to the Geneva Convention. The policy of rejection initiated by the former Minister of the Interior, Kanther, in spring 1997, directed against Kurds from Iraq is being continued. The country reports in those times issued by the Foreign Office on the order of the Ministry of the Interior are being continued with only small changes. Recognition quotas are going down. The right of the refugees living in Germany for family reunification is also menaced by the efforts of repulsion of the new Federal Government: If family reunification is applied for the applicants are being covered with revocation proceedings. Not the motives for escape are fought but the refugees themselves – nothing has changed so far.
• Concerning the airport procedure, there is also – with the exception of a few less humanitarian hard cases which could have been solved – nothing positive to report The new Federal Government announced in the coalition agreement that they were going to examine the duration of the airport procedure in view of the Verhaltnismässigkeitsgrundsatzes which actually does not lead to any result. Meanwhile, the new Minister of the Interior, Otto Schily, the Ausländerbeauftragte (commissioner for foreign immigrants), Marieluise Beck, the Innenausschuss of the Bundestag and others have inspected the airport in Frankfurt. The steps in direction of a more humane treatment of refugees are taken very hesitantly. Obviously, they rather want to change the disastrous situation of accommodation than the procedure itself. PRO ASYL is still of the opinion that the airport procedure should be removed, above all reasons to prevent minor refugees from being subjected to it.

Result: There are no concrete changes, with one single exception: If in earlier times the positions of PRO ASYL on the one hand and the positions of the Ministry of the Interior (BMI) on the other hand collided heavily, today at least there exists a discourse between them. Minister Schily invites agents of the UNHCR, amnesty international, PRO ASYL and welfare associations for discussion. It is still too early to judge the results. But one thing must be explicitly said: Discussions should lead to improvement, they should not be ventured for their own sake.

Area of the Foreign Ministry

The necessary change of policy neither was initiated by the Foreign Office. The country reports of the Federal Foreign Office are of central significance. They still contain considerable deficiencies. deficiencies which may be partially led back to the fact that agents of the Federal Office for the Recognition of Foreign Refugees are placed in different German embassies and are taking part in writing the country report. Although these agents are not legally responsible for the reports they play a significant part in issuing them. This scandalous practise started by the Ministers Kanther and Kinkel is going to be continued under „green“ direction.

The country reports of the Foreign Office still contain serious inconsistencies and breaches. After partially correct estimations concerning foreign policy, now doubtful statements are being made towards the relevance of asylum – if one may consider this the duty of the Foreign Office, anyway -. A quote from the country report about the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from November 18th says: „As internal flight alternatives are in the first place considered Central Serbia (especially Belgrade and Montenegro.“

Provisional conclusion

Today, it becomes apparent that the new Federal Government demonstrates an alarming continuity concerning refugee policy, and that an orientation towards more humanity is hardly to be found within the framework of the German policy. Public discourse has exclusively focused on the question of the double nationality. Discussions about the inhuman hardness of the asylum procedure and the necessity of corrections do not occur in the required amount, any more. Asylum seems to have turned into a non-topic of German domestic affairs. The duties of PRO ASYL and other groups concerned with the asylum question are enormous:

• Exposing of inhuman and degrading treatment
• Development of concrete alternatives for action
• Maintenance of the visions about dignity and justice

April 1999

---