Departure center

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article or paragraph presents the situation in Germany . Help us to describe the situation in other countries.

With departure center (officially: repatriation center ) is in Germany referred to in predominantly non-official language a collective center, are housed in the foreigners required to leave with the intention of inducing them to leave the federal territory.

Criticism of the term

The term departure center is controversial because of its euphemistic character. The word came in second place in the poll for the bad word of the year 2002. The jury's reasoning stated:

“This word is apparently intended to arouse ideas of voluntary emigration or even vacation travel. It cynically hides a fact that the authorities are probably still embarrassed about. Otherwise one would have chosen a more honest name. "

However, there is no evidence that the word is an official creation. Neither in the state law of the 1990s, nor in the first (annulled) immigration law of 2002 , nor in the second immigration law of 2004, the word is used. It can be found almost exclusively in the contributions of refugee and human rights organizations in the context of political disputes and in journalistic reporting. The word is officially mentioned only on the website of the Halberstadt departure facility.

Legal basis

The legal basis for the creation of exit facilities is the Residence Act, which came into force on January 1, 2005 . According to Section 61, Paragraph 2, Clause 1 of the Residence Act, the federal states can create exit facilities for foreigners who are legally obliged to leave the country. Foreigners who have entered the country without permission, who have entered the country without permission, but who have lost their temporary right of residence as a result of failure to submit an application, who have been required to leave the country due to a return decision by another member state of the European Union or who are subject to an enforceable administrative act (e.g. refusal to issue or renewal) are legally obliged to leave the country residence permit, withdrawal of residence title , expulsion) have lost their right of residence ( Section 58 subs. 2 AufenthG). Although the regulation does not only cover refugees whose asylum application has been unsuccessful, but also basically every foreigner without a right of residence, most of the admitted persons are rejected asylum seekers.

Four of the 16 federal states have made use of the statutory authorization. Departure facilities exist today in

  • Fürth (Bavaria) as the facility of the Central Return Center Northern Bavaria ,
  • Braunschweig (Lower Saxony), official (since January 1, 2011): Lower Saxony State Reception Authority (LAB NI) ,
  • Halberstadt (Saxony-Anhalt), officially: Central departure center of the State of Saxony-Anhalt at the Central Contact Point for Asylum Seekers (ZASt) and
  • Neumünster (Schleswig-Holstein), officially: State Office for Foreigners Affairs Schleswig-Holstein .

Reason for the creation of exit facilities

The creation of exit facilities is a reaction to the changed behavior of refugees, who do not or not correctly provide their own personal details in the admission procedure immediately after entering the federal territory and do not present travel documents. The chairman of the federal-state repatriation working group Wilfred Burghardt stated that more than 80 percent of the asylum seekers who entered the country stated that they had no passports or other documents. Many would have lost ID, birth certificates and other identifying documents, destroyed them before entering Germany, or they were not presented to the German authorities.

Many refugees know that the stated reasons for fleeing are usually not sufficient to obtain a permanent right to stay as a person entitled to asylum or as a recognized refugee . The recognition rate nationwide - with certain fluctuations - is generally less than 10%. However, many categorically reject a return to their home country because the economic, political and social living conditions in their home country are often significantly worse than in Germany. This even applies in the event that those affected are banned from working in Germany. Because the protection of the social security systems, even under the additional restrictions of the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act , sometimes significantly exceeds the life prospects that those affected find in their home countries, depending on their country of origin.

Anyone who does not leave the country voluntarily will be deported by the immigration authorities . Since the nationality has to be clarified for this , the persons concerned destroy or suppress their national passports or throw them away and refuse to provide information on their identity and country of origin. In a number of cases this is done with great sustainability. Obtaining a replacement passport is almost impossible without the cooperation of the person concerned.

The possibilities of the authorities to at least obtain return travel documents without the involvement of the person concerned are limited. Demonstrations in front of a diplomatic mission abroad (especially in the case of people from sub-Saharan Africa ) are only successful if, in the opinion of the foreign mission, there are sufficient indications that the person concerned can be recognized as a national of his own without precisely clarifying his or her identity. Most states, however, require full identity verification through feedback from the home country.

Efforts to centrally register found national passports so that they can be assigned to their holders have also achieved little success. With effect from October 1, 2005, a central lost property database was set up at the Federal Administration Office ( Section 49a and Section 49b of the Residence Act). By the end of April 2006 this database had received 3,288 documents; Until then, however, a clear assignment could only be made in three cases.

Departure facilities have been created primarily by countries that refused to accept the behavior of those obliged to leave and see their ability to act as a result. The unspoken goal of the exit institutions is to make the living conditions of those affected in Germany so unattractive - with formal observance of the minimum legal standards - that they either give up their refusal or leave the country.

Legal objective of the exit institutions and its implementation

According to Section 61, Paragraph 2, Sentence 2, AufenthG, the willingness to leave the country voluntarily is to be promoted through support and advice and the availability of authorities and courts as well as the implementation of the departure are to be ensured.

According to the official justification, exit facilities serve as open facilities to accommodate people who do not provide any or incorrect information about their identity and nationality and / or refuse to cooperate in the procurement of travel documents. Accommodation in a central communal accommodation should enable intensive psycho-social care aimed at a life perspective outside the federal territory; it represents a milder means than detention pending deportation . The intensive support contributes to promoting the willingness to leave the country voluntarily or to the necessary cooperation in the procurement of travel documents. In addition, targeted advice on the existing programs to promote voluntary return is possible. The special needs of women, children and adolescents as well as traumatized people should be taken into account when equipping the exit facilities with space and staff. The accessibility for authorities and courts will be simplified, the implementation of the departure can be better ensured.

Refugee and human rights organizations see this as whitewashing. From their point of view, the facilities are mere exit camps or deportation camps , which are primarily intended to tear those affected out of their social ties and to put them in a mood of hopelessness in remote jungle homes. The aim of the placement is above all to exert pressure to cooperate in the identification process. Official bodies do not deny this and counter that no foreigner has a right to a right of residence after the unsuccessful examination of his residence request. According to the rules of international law, each state determines who is allowed to reside on its territory. It is precisely against foreigners who comply with their obligation to leave the country that it is unfair if the state does not exhaust all means to forcefully enforce the obligation to leave the country even against those unwilling to leave.

In fact, the assignment to an exit facility means a clearly noticeable reduction in the quality of life. Anyone who has to go to an exit facility has to leave their traditional area of ​​life in a city or municipality and suddenly loses all social contacts with their immediate environment. The exit facility is carefully designed in sparsely populated areas and is intended to make re-integration more difficult. In the concept of the Bavarian State Ministry of the Interior, "the relatively secluded location (no immediately adjacent residential development)" is emphasized as an advantage of the Fürth location. If the obligation to live in a shared accommodation was lifted, it is revived in the exit facility. The person concerned often only finds communal accommodation here, in which he sometimes has to share a room with others. Individual retreats and privacy hardly exist. In addition to the external sadness of the facility (the location in Fürth consists exclusively of residential containers), regularly recurring surveys are intended to demonstrate the lack of prospects for further residence in Germany.

Measures to be taken by the authorities during the stay in the exit facility are:

  • Regular, usually weekly surveys about identity and country of origin, if there are any uncertainties,
  • Uncovering contradictions in the previous information, investigations in the country of origin (e.g. via German diplomatic missions abroad),
  • Search for proof of identity or means of credibility in the possession of the residents (driver's licenses, letters, hidden IDs, phone cards),
  • Arranging residence restrictions on the city or district of the facility, reporting obligations and presence checks,
  • Ensuring regular attendance through daily distribution of food packages (instead of weekly as is usual in communal accommodation),
  • Stopping for charitable work,
  • Prohibition of taking up gainful employment and its monitoring,
  • Reduction of pocket money in the event of continued refusal to cooperate,
  • in the event of a lack of willingness and non-compliance with official orders, the organization of joint or individual embassy presentations.

In view of the overall depressing situation, the conditions in the exit facilities are described by refugee and human rights organizations as inhuman and inhumane.

Development of facilities

The creation of exit facilities was and is very controversial among the federal states. In the federal government's evaluation report on the immigration law, most of the federal states expressly opposed a central exit facility and are not planning to do so in the future.

Some of the facilities that exist today were put into operation on the basis of ministerial decrees many years before the Residence Act came into force and have been criticized by human rights and refugee organizations since the beginning of their existence:

  • In April 1998, Lower Saxony set up the two departure facilities in Braunschweig and Oldenburg, initially as a pilot project, Project X, and continued them as permanent facilities from August 1, 2000. Following a resolution by the Lower Saxony state government on November 9, 2010, the Oldenburg facility (Blankenburg Abbey) was closed on June 30, 2011.
  • Since January 1, 2002, the Halberstadt exit facility (Saxony-Anhalt) has been operated on the premises of the central contact point for asylum seekers, initially as a model experiment, and since January 1, 2005 as a formal exit facility.
  • In September 2002 the departure facility in Fürth (Bavaria) went into operation. The commissioning was originally based on Art. 4 BayAufnG , according to which all recipients of benefits under the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act ( i.e. not only asylum seekers , but also civil war refugees , rejected asylum seekers, tolerated persons and those otherwise required to leave the country) were generally obliged to live in communal accommodation; the exit facility was a form of this. The Bavarian Refugee Council called for the "exit camp" to be closed.
  • On April 1, 2006, shared accommodation was set up in the premises of the State Office for Foreigners Affairs in Neumünster (Schleswig-Holstein) for those obliged to leave the country, which, in the opinion of the State of Schleswig-Holstein , should be viewed from a legal point of view as an exit facility under Section 61 (2) Residence Act. Behind this cautious formulation is the political controversy of the institution in Schleswig-Holstein as well. The Schleswig-Holstein Refugee Council protested against their establishment; he called for their dissolution and decentralized accommodation for refugees in the cities and districts of Schleswig-Holstein.

Not all institutions have prevailed. The model test started on May 1, 1998 in Minden-Lübbecke (North Rhine-Westphalia) was ended on October 1, 1999. This was preceded by self-harm and the suicide of one of the inmates. However, the majority of the North Rhine-Westphalian immigration authorities continue to advocate the creation of exit facilities in order to increase the pressure on those who are legally obliged to leave the country.

The exit facility established on April 1, 1999 in Ingelheim (Rhineland-Palatinate) was relocated to Trier on February 10, 2003 and closed in summer 2011.

Initial plans to convert a ship anchored in the customs free port into an exit facility in Hamburg have been abandoned.

Purpose of the facilities, side effects

In the opinion of the countries that maintain exit facilities, these are working successfully and have proven themselves. According to the Saxony-Anhalt Ministry of the Interior, intensive advice in various cases has clarified the identity required to obtain return documents. The accommodation in the departure facility also led to voluntary departure from the federal territory. Just the signal that a stay in an exit facility might be considered led in some cases to the disclosure of the identity.

In Bavaria, out of 190 people who were enforceably assigned to the Fürth exit facility between September 2002 and March 2006, 36 people went into hiding before moving to the exit facility and 48 people after moving. 50 people left voluntarily after the assignment. 4 people were released from the exit facility after their identity had been clarified because there were actual obstacles to deportation. Only 14 people were deported after their identity had been clarified.

In other countries, too, the proportion of people who do not visit the facility in the first place, or who visit it but leave it again without permission, is high: According to official information, 137 people of 304 people assigned to Lower Saxony's exit facilities have disappeared (Jan. 2003). According to official information, 40 of the 132 people assigned to the Ingelheim exit facility had disappeared. In 2004, of 62 people assigned to the Halberstadt facility, only 47 appeared there. There is no reliable information about the number of people who went into hiding.

The facilities thus fulfill their purpose for another reason: Their mere existence is so deterring in many cases that a considerable number of those affected go underground and at the same time forego public livelihood security. People who have gone underground lose their entitlements under the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act because they do not receive any benefits at any other place where they reappear, but are asked to return to the exit facility immediately. This means that there is no longer any incentive to stay, so that those affected eventually leave the federal territory. Over 90% of those in hiding are no longer found in Germany. Against this background, Tobias Pieper describes departure centers as “machinery of illegalization and a field of experimentation for state repression and tactics of attrition”.

literature

  • Simone Grimm: The repatriation of refugees in Germany . Berliner Wissenschaftsverlag, 2007, ISBN 3-8305-1399-2 , p. 149-156 .

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Jury statement. quoted by the Bay. Refugee council; Retrieved January 6, 2011
  2. ↑ Official homepage ( Memento of the original from January 26th, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. of the Bavarian State Ministry of the Interior. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.innenministerium.bayern.de
  3. ↑ Official homepage of the LAB Braunschweig.
  4. ↑ Official homepage ( memento of September 9, 2012 in the web archive archive.today ) of the state of Saxony-Anhalt.
  5. ↑ Official homepage ( Memento of the original from December 8, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. of the State Office for Foreign Affairs in Neumünster. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.schleswig-holstein.de
  6. ↑ Why Germany deports so few asylum seekers . Welt Online , March 22, 2015; accessed on January 13, 2016.
  7. ↑ In 2010 1.3% of the applicants received the asylum status according to Art. 16 a GG, 14.7% the refugee status according to the Geneva Refugee Convention and 5.6% (subsidiary) protection against deportation according to § 60 Abs. 2 to 7 AufenthG; The refugee status alone, which was granted in less than 5% of cases prior to 2007, rose briefly to 33.9% in 2008 and has been falling again since then. See figures for 2010 ( Memento of the original from December 4, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bamf.de
  8. ↑ Evaluation report of the Federal Government ( Memento of the original from January 11, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. on the Immigration Act 2006, p. 164, Pdf.-Doc. 2,148 kB. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bmi.bund.de
  9. ↑ BT-Drs. 15/420 (PDF; 896 kB) p. 92 on § 61 para. 2.
  10. ↑ Answer of the Bavarian State Ministry of the Interior to a written request from LT-Drs. 14/10202 (PDF; 23 kB) October 25, 2002.
  11. ^ Bay. Ministry of the Interior on the concept for the Fürth departure facility ( Memento of the original dated November 3, 2011 in the Internet Archive ; PDF; 145 kB) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. ausreisezentren.de, p. 10. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.ausreisezentren.de
  12. ^ Bay. Ministry of the Interior on the concept for the Fürth departure facility ( Memento of the original dated November 3, 2011 in the Internet Archive ; PDF; 145 kB) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. ausreisezentren.de, p. 12/13. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.ausreisezentren.de
  13. ↑ Pictures ( Memento of the original from September 4, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. from the departure facility in Fürth on the homepage of the Bavarian Refugee Council. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.fluechtlingsrat-bayern.de
  14. ↑ PRO ASYL gives facts  ( page no longer available , search in web archives )  Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , accessed January 6, 2011.@1@ 2Template: Dead Link / www.proasyl.info  
  15. ↑ Official homepage of LAB Oldenburg.
  16. ^ Decision of the Nds. State government of November 9, 2010 on the closure of the Oldenburg site.
  17. ↑ Homepage ( Memento of the original from June 22, 2008 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. of the Bavarian State Ministry of the Interior via the Fürth departure facility. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.stmi.bayern.de
  18. ↑ Admission Act of May 24, 2002 (Bay. GVBl. P. 192).
  19. ↑ See justification LT-Drs. 14/8632 (PDF; 1.19 MB) p. 4.
  20. ^ Announcement of the Bay. Refugee Council of March 15, 2003.
  21. ↑ Statement from Schleswig-Holstein ( Memento of the original from January 11, 2012 in the Internet Archive ; PDF; 8 MB) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. on the evaluation of the Immigration Act 2006, p. 350. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bmi.bund.de
  22. ^ Press release of the Schleswig-Holstein Refugee Council from September 4, 2007.
  23. ^ Answer of the state government to a small inquiry from LT-Drs. 12/3710 (PDF; 108 kB).
  24. ↑ Statement from North Rhine-Westphalia ( Memento of the original from January 11, 2012 in the Internet Archive ; PDF; 8 MB) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. on the evaluation of the Immigration Act 2006, p. 233. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bmi.bund.de
  25. ↑ official: Provincial accommodation for persons obliged to leave the country (LUfA) at the Supervision and Service Directorate (ADD)
  26. ↑ Press release of the Rhineland-Palatinate Asylum Working Group ( Memento of the original from July 20, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. v. 2003 on the occasion of the move from Ingelheim to Trier. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.nolager.de
  27. ↑ Red-green promise kept: Closing of the LUfA before summer 2011 , press release of June 8, 2011, accessed on January 8, 2016.
  28. ↑ Press release of the Bavarian State Ministry of the Interior ( Memento of the original from January 19, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. dated September 9, 2004. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.stmi.bayern.de
  29. ↑ Statement from Saxony-Anhalt ( Memento of the original from January 11, 2012 in the Internet Archive ; PDF; 8 MB) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. on the evaluation of the Immigration Act (2006), p. 324. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bmi.bund.de
  30. ↑ Evaluation report of the Federal Government ( Memento of the original from January 11, 2012 in the Internet Archive ; PDF; 2.2 MB) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. on the Immigration Act (2006), p. 169. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bmi.bund.de
  31. ↑ Statement from Bavaria ( Memento of the original from January 11, 2012 in the Internet Archive ; PDF; 8 MB) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. on the evaluation of the Immigration Act (2006), p. 57. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bmi.bund.de
  32. ^ Refugee Council - magazine for refugee policy in Lower Saxony, issue 93/94. ( Memento of the original from March 1, 2014 in the Internet Archive ; PDF; 1.35 MB) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. April 2003, p. 4, accessed February 15, 2014. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.nds-fluerat.org
  33. ↑ Answer of the state government to a small inquiry from LT-Drs. 4/2196 ( Memento of the original from January 21, 2012 in the Internet Archive ; PDF; 68 kB) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. P. 2. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.landtag.sachsen-anhalt.de
  34. ↑ Statement from Bavaria ( Memento of the original from January 11, 2012 in the Internet Archive ; PDF; 8 MB) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. on the evaluation of the Immigration Act (2006), p. 57. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bmi.bund.de
  35. ↑ Tobias Pieper: The decentralized storage system for refugees - the hinge between regular and irregular labor market segments . (PDF) In: PROKLA . Journal for Critical Social Science, Issue 136, Volume 34, 2004, No. 3