The proposal by Union politician Thorsten Frei for a new system in asylum law is causing controversial debates. Migration expert Daniel Thym told the “Welt” that Frei’s move would have serious consequences if implemented.
People would then continue to come to Germany who could not apply for asylum, could not work and did not receive certain benefits. “If they are threatened with danger in their countries of origin, we must not deport them. As a result, Mr. Frei’s proposal would mean creating a large class of precarious people in Germany,” said the Konstanz immigration law expert.
Controversial FAZ guest article
Frei, parliamentary director of the Union faction, wrote in a guest article for the “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” published on Tuesday that the right of individuals to apply for asylum on European soil should be abolished and replaced by quotas for the admission of refugees in Europe .
These 300,000 to 400,000 refugees per year should be selected directly from abroad and then distributed in Europe. “An application on European soil would no longer be possible, and the receipt of social benefits and job opportunities would be completely excluded,” wrote the CDU politician.
Politicians from the traffic light groups rejected the proposals. Criticism also came from the AfD and the left. On the other hand, the CDU domestic politician Christoph de Vries and Saxony’s Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer (CDU) made positive statements.
The German Institute for Human Rights noted that individual access to a fair asylum procedure in Germany and the EU cannot be replaced by those in need of protection being admitted directly from abroad. It pointed out that this possibility already exists “in the context of humanitarian admission programs and resettlement”.
Union support
The Union’s domestic policy spokesman in the Bundestag, Alexander Throm (CDU), supports Frei’s proposal. He told the German Press Agency that Frei was right to point out “that our migration system is currently causing completely wrong conditions”.
People handed themselves over to smugglers and risked a dangerous crossing across the Mediterranean Sea. They sometimes crossed half the world “and many safe countries” in order to choose Europe as their “desired place”. Unfortunately, the principle applies: “The strong arrive, the weak fall by the wayside.” Throm said this effect was never intended, neither by the United Nations nor by the German Basic Law. According to him, it would be better if the selection was based solely on humanitarian criteria in the countries of origin.
Migration expert Thym said that pull factors would be “only slightly” reduced in Frei’s proposal, since “according to the Federal Constitutional Court, human dignity requires that at least rudimentary care be provided”. Thym criticized: “What about those who are threatened with persecution or human rights violations, but who still arrive here and are not in the ‘contingents’? Are they also deported?” If that’s what Frei means, then that wouldn’t be feasible with human rights, Thym said.
