Chaos Brewing: Black-Red Asylum Plan Randomizes Refugee Fate
"Red and dark asylum policy triggers widespread disorder across the system"
Seemingly lost in the symphony of policy talk, a troubling proposal echoes from the Union and SPD: the elevation of the "burden of proof principle" to asylum law. This subtle shift spells disaster for the system, as experts predict. Past this innocuous caption lies a radical system overhaul that threatens the very core of our rule of law.
"I've never seen such a ludicrous idea in my career," exclaims Winfried Kluth, chairman of the Expert Council for Integration and Migration, in an interview with ntv.de. And rightly so, as it contradicts the established norms of our legal system in profound ways. The binding principle of administrative law—explained in simplest terms—is that the power of investigation lies with the authorities and not the applicants. Redefining this is no small matter.
"Even pillars of the rule of law would tremble" warns Thomas Oberhäuser, head of the migration law working group at the German Bar Association. This proposal appears to be the brainchild of an amateur, knowing little of asylum law or a single asylum candidate's struggle.
Beyond the Labels: Demystifying Asylum Procedures
Asylum applications have grown increasingly slow, with processes stretching as long as 20 months—an unfortunate legacy since 2017. The tension lies with the current practice, which holds authorities responsible for investigating all relevant information for decision-making—from applicant testimonies to country reports from the Foreign Office.
However, this responsibility does not ease the burden on asylum seekers, for they are still expected to cooperate extensively. Kluth explains, "As the primary source of information, applicants must fully collaborate." Yet, the power of investigation remains squarely in the hands of the authorities.
Surge of Challenges: Dissecting the Black-Red Plan
This proposal, tucked away in the exploratory paper, poses a conundrum for applicants, who would now shoulder the burden of proof. Kluth cautions, "This would invariably disadvantage applicants." In the future, the applicant would be tasked with demonstrating their inability to live with dignity at home or the oppression of a specific minority group.
"These circumstances are difficult, if not impossible, to prove," Kluth states. The consequences are clear: an overwhelmingly daunting task for applicants,while the system threatens to collapse into chaos.
The Courtroom Catch-22: A Judge's Dilemma
The new reality would leave courts in a quandary, struggling to decide cases based on the limited evidence presented by the applicant, with no power to investigate further. "Relying on being told everything important is unrealistic and counterproductive," explains Oberhäuser.
Take, for example, a homosexual from Uganda applying in Germany. He might provide solid evidence of the criminalization of homosexuality. But how can the court assess whether holding hands or sharing a friendly kiss is considered a homosexual act under Ugandan law? The proposed change would leave the court powerless to address these fundamental questions.
Efficiency Eroding the Rule of Law: The Uneasy Trade-Off
One interpretation for the inclusion of this proposal in the exploratory paper is improved efficiency in the justice and administrative system. Daniel Thym, migration lawyer, believes it could expedite procedures by mere logical deduction—rejecting applications without ample evidence or a clear asylum claim.
But at what cost? Kluth stresses, "This speedier process comes at the expense of the rule of law." Judgments rooted solely in an applicant's presentation effectively strip asylum decisions of their legal foundations, disregarding essential facts and violating the principles of justice and equality.
The Lose-Lose Game: The European Perspective
As the proposed change warrants considerable concern, it is essential to question if it aligns with European law. Oberhäuser emphasizes that "European law continues to require the collection of all relevant circumstances and a holistic assessment by the authorities and courts." In other words, the black-red plan would be incompatible with existing legal frameworks.
Muñoz's Dilemma: Ethics, Humanity, and the Black-Red Plan
In conclusion, while a shift in burden of proof may seem an effective solution on paper, the outcome house of cards. This proposal, born of the wrong motivations, ignores established law and risks creating chaos. The danger lies in eroding the rule of law, limiting access to justice for vulnerable individuals, and creating a complex, bureaucratic maze for an already challenging process.
- The community and employment policy proposals, in the context of the asylum debate, could potentially undermine the established legal principles and create confusion.
- As the principle of Burden of Proof is being debated for asylum law, some experts, like Winfried Kluth and Thomas Oberhäuser, warn that this change could disadvantage applicants, potentially violating the principles of justice and equality.
- In the European context, the proposed black-red asylum plan might face substantial opposition due to its contradiction with the established European law, which requires a holistic assessment of all relevant circumstances.
