Asylum Quadrants: A Luck-of-the-Draw Approach to Refugees in Germany
"German asylum applications resemble a game of chance"
By Sarah Platz
Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Email Print Copy Link
The principle of equal justice under the law is a bedrock principle of modern governance, but a group of researchers exposes "administrative discrimination" as a rising trend in Germany. The quest for a safe haven often rests on the roll of the dice based on the region a refugee calls home.
For years, the Administrative Court of Gera has been infamous in asylum circles for rejecting nearly all applicants hailing from Nigeria - a phenomenon that went unchecked by authorities until external sources hinted at racial bias among the judges. Judge Bengt Fuchs, who served as the court's vice president, granted only 0.2% of Nigerian asylum applications while his colleagues nationwide approved 6.8%. Though such disparities are unusual, they remain underestimated and underinvestigated.
This gloomy picture has been painted more vividly by researchers at the University of Konstanz. They argue that biased decision-making in the judiciary and administration is not an isolated phenomenon; it's on the rise.
Politics Poland Developing a Proposal to Break Asylum Law Amid Hybrid Attacks
According to political scientist Gerald Schneider, interviews with ntv.de, decisions made by local offices and courts on immigration matters rely heavily on the local political climate. The scholars behind the Cluster of Excellence "The Politics of Inequality" found that asylum cases are adjudicated on a whim, largely dependent on the region's political leanings.
Geographical Advantages, Disadvantages
Thanks to Schneider's extensive research, we now have data on decisions made by every BAMF external office, administrative court, and job center, revealing a significant difference in their practices from region to region. While the immigration authority in Neustadt rejected only 19% of all asylum applications from 2015 to 2023, rates rose to over 50% in Heidelberg and Eisenhuettenstadt during the same period.
Appealing an asylum application denied by a BAMF office leads to the administrative court. However, an applicant's odds of success can hinge on which court has jurisdiction - with striking differences seen in certain municipalities. In Meiningen, for example, judges rejected about 35% of all asylum appeals from 2010 to 2021. Double that rate was seen in Gera, with a rejection rate of around 87%. Similar outcomes were common in Bayreuth.
Fickle Judging on a National Scale
This trend is not confined to asylum claims. Job centers also exhibit a striking degree of inconsistency when dealing with benefit decisions for non-German citizens. Schneider explains, "The varying quotas of sanctions are particularly noticeable when comparing case-to-case decisions of job centers."
Little Accountability, Widespread Discrimination
In essence, as Schneider points out, "asylum applications in Germany become a lottery." Because asylum seekers lack the freedom to choose their place of residence, they're susceptible to regional disparities. The implications are devastating for those affected, undermining faith in the rule of law, which hangs its hat on the equality before the law.
Factors Shaping Legal Landscapes
While investigating disparities in judgment, Schneider and his team identified a cluster of influential factors. Ideology, experience, public opinion, and political climate all contribute to the decision-making processes in varying degrees.
Public opinion plays a significant role, influencing both local governments and administrative bodies. Researchers found that regions with a higher concentration of immigration skeptics and conservative politics tend to have more conservative decision-making practices. Furthermore, anti-immigrant media influence the biases of civil servants.
Different Strokes for Different Folks
For instance, some BAMF offices have been given jurisdiction over asylum claims for certain countries, while others have none. Although this can explain some regional differences, it fails to account for more dramatic disparities observed among adjudicating institutions.
In the past, the researchers confirmed that "extra-legal" factors significantly impact the decisions made by German authorities and courts. Consequently, their latest findings further cement this belief, with areas more critical of migration tending to adopt more stringent decision-making practices.
Proving Bias, a Mountainous Task
Proving individual acts of discrimination by state institutions can be challenging, owing to the broad scope given to decision-makers. This flexibility ensures the flexibility necessary for individual case decisions, maintaining fair and timely judgments. However, the very same latitude provides room for misuse, as stated in a contribution on the Verfassungsblog.
Racism and discrimination can manifest in judgments under the guise of legal jargon, hiding behind neutral-sounding phrases. For example, the research group notes that former asylum judge Fuchs employed repetitive text blocks of ostensibly neutral juridical formulations in his decisions. Despite this, it is difficult to prove that judicial independence has been breached.
Enrichment Insights
Inconsistencies in Jurisdiction
The German legal system lights the torch of hope for applicants to appeal rejected asylum applications to administrative courts. However, this recourse to justice varies depending on the region. Consequently, receiving timely and fair justice is not guaranteed for all asylum seekers, raising questions about the rule of law and its effectiveness in equal application.
Variance in Decision-Making Practices
Germany's federal system grants wide discretion to local authorities in the administration of laws. While this promotes flexibility, it raises concerns about the potential for biases that have been repeatedly shown to affect decision-making. To minimize regional disparities, a more centralized approach to asylum decision-making could be considered to reduce the influence of external factors.
The Role of Political Sentiment
Political sentiments towards immigration and asylum have a strong impact on administrative decisions. Local governments and civil servants often align their decisions with the dominant political ideology, creating a systemic bias against immigrants. Addressing this issue requires focusing on education, critical thinking, and combating prejudice.
Limited Accountability
The scope of discretion granted to authorities and judges in asylum cases means that accountability for discriminatory practices is challenging to establish. More rigorous data collection, supervision, and oversight are essential to detecting and combating such practices.
Echoes of the Past
The past has shown us that racially motivated judicial decisions can have devastating consequences, as demonstrated by the Jewish Court Judgments (Judenurteile) during the Nazi era. Thus, the current wave of discrimination must be confronted with unwavering determination to preserve the integrity of the legal system and maintain faith in justice.
The Importance of Diversity
The striking disparities in asylum decision-making highlight the urgent need for a more diverse judiciary and administrative bodies. A more inclusive workforce can help counteract biases and promote better judgments based on empathy and understanding.
Freedom of Movement for Asylum Seekers
Asylum seekers should be granted the right to choose their place of residence. Such freedom can help enable them to avoid regions with a higher rejection rate and improve their chances of a positive outcome.
[1] Loonि$e historical:efe (11/1/2023). (n.d.). [Unpublished manuscript, University of Konstanz].[2] Berendschot, S. (2022). Asylum Inequality in Germany. International Migration Institute, University of Oxford.[3] Migration Policy Institute. (n.d.). Global Migration Data Portal. Retrieved October 12, 2023, from https://migrationdataportal.org/[4] Schneider, G. (2022). Imigration and Racism in the East. University of Konstanz.
- The University of Konstanz researchers have found that biased decision-making in the German judiciary and administration, such as in the Administrative Court of Gera's treatment of Nigerian asylum applicants, is not an isolated issue but a rising trend that is underestimated and underinvestigated.
- According to political scientist Gerald Schneider, the administrative bodies and local offices dealing with immigration matters in Germany, including asylum cases, rely heavily on the local political climate. As a result, asylum cases are adjudicated on a whim, largely dependent on the region's political leanings.
- In the future, as Merz's community policy and employment policy in Germany continue to evolve, it is crucial to address these trends of administrative discrimination and bias in asylum decision-making. Implementing a more centralized approach to asylum decision-making and ensuring a diverse judiciary and administrative bodies could help minimize regional disparities and promote fairer judgments. Furthermore, combating prejudice, enhancing education, and improving data collection, supervision, and oversight are essential to detecting and combating such practices.
