Of course, the blame lies with Germany's asylum policy, which requires refugees to first overcome the wall before they are granted protection. Previously, it was enough to ask for asylum at the border. Today, everyone who wants to reach Germany by land is turned away. After all, Germany is surrounded, so to speak, by reliable third countries.
So refugees have to enter the country illegally, concealing their route so they cannot be deported. In this way, on the basis of the Geneva Convention, they at least manage to get a court hearing on their recognition as refugees.
The path to Germany is becoming increasingly difficult. Today, all borders along this route are properly equipped - under pressure from the West and with European money. Reliable border security is considered a test of European maturity. Previously, refugees, if they had money, could board a plane and fly to Germany. Today, visas are mandatory for almost everyone, and airlines are fined if they do not strictly enforce this.
Today, flight is a costly undertaking that is impossible without illegal helpers, the so-called traffickers in human beings. Anyone who wants to move to Germany must shell out several thousand euros for it. Families often pool their resources so that at least one family member can make it to the West, hoping for a later reunion.
Those who seek asylum in Western Europe are not only looking for protection. Protection from an immediate threat can usually be secured much more easily. Flight, on the contrary, is an extremely risky undertaking. Refugees suffocate in trucks, capsize in their small boats, freeze in the water. No one knows how many people die on the way to Western Europe.
Accordingly, it is above all young, assertive and in every respect strong refugees who get there. And these are above all men. Whereas women and children worldwide make up about three quarters of all refugees, their proportion in Western Europe is the exact opposite. Here two aspirations are combined - emigration and the search for protection, which by no means means that protection is a secondary factor. By the way, the number of successful asylum applications is much higher than some German politicians think. Every year, between 10 and 25 percent of applicants receive asylum in the Federal Republic. At the same time, the actual practice is largely unsatisfactory. Germany is one of the few states that does not recognize as grounds for persecution threats that come not from other states but, for example, from Islamic terrorists.
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees regularly criticizes this circumstance. A naive attitude towards alternative possibilities for ensuring protection for potential refugees in their own countries also often leads to the refusal of asylum. Nevertheless, fortunately, deportation to torture and death is a very rare exception. If one instrument of protection proves inadequate, in most cases other ways are found.
Thus, in recent years, no refugee who cited persecution not coming from the state has been deported, contrary to the restrictive position of German courts. In most cases, refugees receive a lower status than the one they could claim, for example, a temporary suspension of deportation instead of a residence permit. This in turn affects the possibility of obtaining work, family reunification, or receiving integration assistance.
If up to a quarter of applicants are recognized as in need of protection, this at the same time means that more than three quarters must leave the country after a court decision. However, voluntary return to the homeland is a rather rare phenomenon; too much money has been spent to get out of there. Therefore, many go underground and live in Germany illegally. Others remain in limbo because their deportation is impossible for technical reasons (for example, lack of air connections) or because their home country refuses to take them back.
Many of those who help refugees continue to regard people denied asylum as in need of protection. On the one hand, they do not trust the court; on the other, they see the lack of prospects for refugees in their homeland, in particular, as an expression of Western policies of globalization and military policy. The former colonial past of the West, in their opinion, also requires permanent responsibility. Those who look for reasons why migrants are victims will find them in the end. A radically liberal position that grants everyone the right to seek happiness wherever they please is much rarer.
If refugees are threatened with deportation, it is easier for them to appeal not to the circumstances that forced them to leave their homeland, but to successful social integration - for example, having a job or the fact that their children have grown up here. Accordingly, those who, after being denied asylum, manage to stay for a long time and settle down well in Germany have better chances in the future of receiving political support and the right to reside in the Federal Republic.
The British government sharply criticized the refugee situation in Europe at the beginning of the year. Much of the money allocated by the EU for refugee protection never reaches its intended recipients. On this basis, Tony Blair proposed that all those arriving in Europe seeking asylum be sent directly to "protection zones" created in third-world countries. This would have a sobering effect on illegal immigrants and could save funds allocated for refugee support. Those who are granted refugee status would either have to remain in these "protection zones" or be accepted by EU states.
This proposal was rejected with good reason by Germany and other countries alike. For one thing, it is unclear how legal norms concerning refugees would work in some backward country. Furthermore, the willingness of European countries to take in refugees who have received this status is very limited. And it is unclear why the wealthiest part of the world should resort only to marginal methods in resolving refugee crises.
Some believe that instead of continuing to build even higher the walls already surrounding Europe, they could be made lower. It would be possible, they say, to abolish the requirement for mandatory visas, and deportation at the border should be abolished. Where boats capsize and sink, European ferries should operate, thereby giving the poorest of the poor a chance to reach Europe, and they could be provided with loans at least to cover travel expenses. Such a policy would lead to a significant increase in the number of real and alleged refugees in Europe. This will increase spending on refugee reception and social assistance, and will also affect the situation on the labor market.
Organizations that provide care for refugees want to remove barriers, but are unwilling to discuss the consequences of such a step. After all, today virtually no one advocates a policy of open borders. These organizations care for those who have made it to Germany, and are probably glad that they are not the ones who have to decide how many refugees Europe can accept.
Christian Rath.
Translation by Inopressa.ru.