Last Friday the German Bundestag passed another coalition bill aimed at tightening migration policy. In a roll‑call vote, 457 deputies voted for the draft and 130 against, approving a measure that would allow “safe countries of origin” to be designated in the future by statutory decree — without the consent of the Federal Council. However, this would apply only to protection claims under the Geneva Refugee Convention and to subsidiary protection, not to asylum applications.
The government expects the move to speed up asylum proceedings by allowing applications to be rejected as “clearly unfounded.” The law would also signal to people from countries designated as safe that their requests for protection in Germany have little chance of success.
No longer entitled to legal representation
The draft also contemplates striking the rule that people who face deportation detention or travel restrictions must be provided with legal counsel. This entitlement had been introduced by the traffic-light coalition. In addition, the deadline to appeal a negative asylum decision would be shortened to one week.
Under the law, a “safe country of origin” is defined as a country where, given the general situation, it can be assumed that there is no persecution. Applications for asylum or protection in Germany from people from “safe origin countries” are, by law, typically to be rejected as “obviously unfounded” — unless the individuals can prove otherwise.
With the Bundestag’s vote, “the policy shift in migration policy continues,” said Alexander Throm, the interior policy spokesperson for the Union parliamentary group (CDU). He announced the designation of Algeria, India, Morocco and Tunisia as “safe origin countries.”
Pro Asyl: New rule unconstitutional
The refugee organization Pro Asyl regards the new regulations as “two very problematic rules.” By designating “safe origin states” by decree, it says, “a legislative process is being deliberately circumvented, even though it is constitutionally required,” criticized Wiebke Judith, the organization’s spokesperson on legal policy.
“By abolishing the obligation to appoint a lawyer in deportation detention, the government is also fueling a long‑standing scandal for our rule of law: mass unlawful deportation detention,” Judith further stated.
LSVD: Decision a “fatal signal,” especially for LSBTIQ*
LSVD+ — the Association for Queer Diversity — also condemned the renewed tightening of asylum policy. The Bundestag decision is a “fatal signal, especially for LSBTIQ*,” says a press release, calling the new procedure “deeply undemocratic.” It is no accident that the Federal Council has repeatedly opposed adding Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia to the list of “safe origin states.”
“In Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, LSBTIQ* people face serious dangers: lengthy prison terms, torture through coerced anal examinations, and violence by state actors, but also by members of civil society,” reminded LSVD+ board member Alva Träbert. Labeling these countries as “safe” hides these facts.
The shortening of the appeals deadline also hits queer refugees “particularly hard, because at hearings they often do not come out due to justified fear and shame and may not initially present their legitimate asylum grounds, namely queerphobic persecution,” Träbert said. To build trust and seek support from specialized counseling services, they lack time.
“Queer applicants from the countries designated as ‘safe’ must be exempt from the planned fast-track procedures due to their particular vulnerability, and their protection claims must in principle never be rejected as ‘clearly unfounded,'” Träbert, speaking on behalf of LSVD+, demanded. “This requires a systematic, nationwide identification of special protection needs with the participation of civil society. Otherwise LSBTIQ* face deportation, violence, and life-threatening danger before Germany has even decided on their protection claims.” (mize/AFP)
