War on Refugees

Repression and deterrence don't lower numbers jungle.world

The European War on Refugees by Thomas von der Osten-Sacken

German politicians promise a tougher crackdown on illegal migration. In fact, most asylum seekers who come to Germany are legally entitled to stay and apply for asylum.

They say that in war, the truth dies first. This is also the case in the current asylum debate, which can certainly be described as a war against refugees. If there is constant talk of "illegal migration", "uncontrolled immigration" and the like, on the other hand, it would be appropriate to simply state facts (even if probably without any chance of success): There is no illegal migration to Europe in general or to Germany in particular on a relevant scale, as there is, for example, from Latin and South America to the USA. Nor is there uncontrolled immigration; on the contrary, there have never been such sharp and comprehensive border controls.

What does exist, however, are people who apply for asylum in European countries. Those who do so are no longer illegal, but holders of a legal title. This is also entirely in line with the spirit of the Geneva Refugee Convention and national asylum law. The legal title can then, depending on the case, be "asylum applicant", "recognized" or even "rejected asylum seeker". However, the right to asylum also includes the right to submit an asylum application to a competent institution in the first place.

This is what distinguishes an asylum seeker from an illegal migrant. The former must now enter Europe illegally in most cases; however, once they apply for asylum, it no longer matters how they got to the country in question. Illegal migrants, on the other hand, avoid any contact with authorities and seek employment on the black market, which is booming in the U.S., for example, and where they are popular workers because they are cheap and have no rights.

The linguistic distortions have a system. Anyone who reads the newspapers or listens to politicians has long had the impression that Europe is groaning under an onslaught of illegal migrants and is not suffering a relatively small part of the consequences of the fact that more and more people in this world are suffering from war, oppression and displacement. Every year, the number of refugees and internally displaced persons increases by at least ten million; by the end of 2022, there were almost 110 million worldwide, according to the UN Refugee Agency.

The vast majority seek refuge as internally displaced persons in their own country or, at best, end up in a neighboring country. There, the situation is for the most part little better, if one thinks, for example, of the refugees from Sudan in Niger and Chad. Those who make it to Europe are then falsely dubbed "illegals", giving the impression that this is a security problem and not one of legal entitlement. Accordingly, language is militarized as if we were in a kind of war against invaders or foreign armies that can only be countered with ever-higher border fences, compartmentalization, satellite surveillance and the navy.

The fact that, due to the ever-increasing number of refugees worldwide, the isolationist policy is inevitably caught up with reality again and again was recently experienced by Italy, where under the right-wing populist government of Giorgia Meloni more refugees arrived this year than ever before. Once again, the reaction of the Italian government and the EU followed a familiar pattern: calls for stricter border controls, faster asylum procedures, accelerated deportations, and a deterioration of living conditions in reception facilities in order to minimize so-called pull factors.

The Red-Green government, and Interior Minister Otto Schily (SPD) in particular, made a similar case against refugees at the end of the 1990s. Nothing about these concepts is new, and they have never brought about a sharp drop in the number of asylum seekers. The same applies to the demand for faster deportations. The fact is that many rejected asylum seekers cannot be deported at all, partly for legal reasons and partly for practical reasons. For years, the number of countries worldwide that can be classified as failed states, to which deportations are simply not possible, has been increasing. Some countries also strictly refuse to take back their own citizens who have applied for asylum abroad.

Thus, there are more and more people who are not wanted anywhere, because no country in the world wants to host tens of thousands of refugees who will not disappear in the foreseeable future. Turkey, cited by many as a model for migration control, is an exception and not the rule with the EU deal for Syrian refugees.

In short, more repression does not lead to fewer refugees, but only to the fact that the mafia, authoritarian regimes, all kinds of militias and Islamists worldwide earn vast sums of money from people smuggling and the smuggling business. Where there is sufficient demand, according to the iron law of capitalism, offers arise, and more and more often those from whom people are fleeing are also earning money. In this "war on refugees," and this distinguishes it from the U.S. "war on drugs," refugees are both enemy and weapon. In the meantime, it is often enough for an autocrat to threaten to open a border in order to receive immediate financial and other support from the EU.

The EU's refugee policy thus contributes to increasing the very problem that it actually wants to combat. In the USA, experts have long agreed that the "war on drugs" has failed miserably in every respect, but after all these decades, no politician dares to even say so. It is much the same with the European war on refugees. Instead of acknowledging that the previous strategies were not only inhumane, but also failed when measured against their own goals, even more harshness is demanded and the language is sharpened to one of war.

But since governments cannot deliver what they promise, they appear weak and unwilling to follow through. It does not help when German Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) now speaks of a new toughness that is needed in asylum policy. The example of Italy, where a government started with exactly this promise, should show that such harshness produces more suffering and misery, but does not produce the desired results. Only those who promise to be really serious, if only they would come to power, are strengthened by this – until they also fail in reality and are replaced in the end by others who promise even more harshness.