31.08.2007

The Ger­man Bun­des­tag voted on June 14th, 2007 on amend­ments to the Immi­gra­ti­on Act. The Act came into force on August 28, 2007. PRO ASYL cri­ti­ci­zed the packa­ge of legis­la­ti­on as an „uncon­sti­tu­tio­nal and iso­la­tio­nist attempt to seal its­elf off from immi­grants and refu­gees.“ Among the most obvious flaws in the bill are: Refu­gee-fri­end­ly EU

The Ger­man Bun­des­tag voted on June 14th, 2007 on amend­ments to the Immi­gra­ti­on Act. The Act came into force on August 28, 2007. PRO ASYL cri­ti­ci­zed the packa­ge of legis­la­ti­on as an „uncon­sti­tu­tio­nal and iso­la­tio­nist attempt to seal its­elf off from immi­grants and refu­gees.“ Among the most obvious flaws in the bill are:

  • Refu­gee-fri­end­ly EU direc­tives are imple­men­ted in such a dis­tor­ted way that they lose all mea­ning. Con­tra­ry to the EU man­da­te, refu­gees fle­e­ing from inter­nal armed con­flicts (e.g. Iraq) still have no ent­it­le­ment to tem­pora­ry pro­tec­tion
  • The new pro­vi­si­ons regu­la­ting a „right to stay“ are insuf­fi­ci­ent. Only a tiny hand­ful of indi­vi­du­als with „tole­ra­ted“ sta­tus will qua­li­fy under the new poli­cy. „Chain tole­ra­ti­ons“ were not abolished despi­te pro­mi­ses to the con­tra­ry.
  • The law would com­ple­te­ly strip asyl­um-see­kers of their right to chal­len­ge their depor­ta­ti­on to ano­t­her EU coun­try pur­suant to Dub­lin II. In other wor­ds, even limi­ted judi­ci­al review has been com­ple­te­ly eli­mi­na­ted and the­re is not­hing to pre­vent trans­fers to other EU mem­ber sta­tes, even if the trans­fer is com­ple­te­ly ille­gal.
  • Asyl­um-see­kers may be taken into cus­to­dy pen­ding depor­ta­ti­on based sole­ly on the sus­pi­ci­on that ano­t­her sta­te is respon­si­ble for the asyl­um app­li­ca­ti­on. This is a vio­la­ti­on of basic con­sti­tu­tio­nal princi­ples.
  • Indi­vi­du­als will no lon­ger recei­ve noti­fi­ca­ti­on that a depor­ta­ti­on order has been ent­e­red against them, a fun­da­men­tal vio­la­ti­on of basic con­sti­tu­tio­nal princi­ples. As a result, access to judi­ci­al review is prac­tical­ly impos­si­ble.
  • Fur­ther­mo­re, endo­wing immi­gra­ti­on aut­ho­ri­ties to broad, pre-emp­ti­ve arrest and detenti­on power without having to obtain judi­ci­al aut­ho­ri­za­ti­on vio­la­tes the judi­ci­al caveat as defi­ned in art. 104 II of the Ger­man con­sti­tu­ti­on.

[NGOs in Ger­ma­ny: „Joint opi­ni­on on the legis­la­ti­on to imple­ment EU direc­tives on resi­dence and asyl­um law“]