CDU leader Friedrich Merz claims that rejected asylum seekers are taking advantage of health services. But what does the Asylum Seekers Allowance Act say about this?

Munich – Discussions about immigration have recently gained momentum and intensity in Germany. Migration pressure on the EU and Germany is enormous, and city governments feel overburdened. The CDU and CSU in particular criticized the traffic light coalition’s refugee policy and called for targeted action to limit (illegal) migration. But are these steps feasible? We look at three key facts about asylum policy.

Friedrich Merz, chairman of the CDU, recently sparked outrage with a statement: He claimed that asylum seekers who are rejected and required to leave the country are exploiting the German health system. In WORLD Talks He said that they would have new teeth made at the doctor, whereas German citizens could not make an appointment. Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser then accused Merz of “deplorable populism behind the backs of the weakest” and opposed him on X. Who was right?

What health system services can asylum seekers use?

In the first 18 months – the so-called waiting period – asylum seekers and incarcerated people are not covered by health insurance. The legal regulations are quite clear here. Paragraph 4 of the Asylum Seekers’ Benefits Act states regarding benefits in case of illness: “Treatment of acute illnesses and painful conditions includes necessary medical and dental care, including the provision of medicines and bandages and other services necessary for recovery. , improvement or reduction of disease or consequences of disease The following are restricted: “Dentures will only be provided if this cannot be postponed for medical reasons in individual cases.”

After 18 months, asylum seekers are treated by mandatory health insurance companies. You receive benefits similar to mandatory health insurance benefits. Migrants who have a residence permit become permanent members of mandatory health insurance.

The migrant ceiling requested by the European Union – is such regulation possible?

To limit migration, CSU leaders called for an upper limit on refugees. Faeser again opposed Markus Söder and rejected his proposal on international law grounds. The obstacles in implementing restrictions are actually very large. “Germany had to withdraw from many international agreements. For example, the Geneva Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights,” international law expert Nora Markard told the Integration media service.

The professor at the Westphalian Wilhelms University in Münster went on to say that Germany should also leave the European Union. The European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights states that “no one shall be deported to a situation where there is a risk of persecution, torture or inhuman treatment” (non-refoulement). Germany can only escape this obligation by leaving the EU, Markard explained.

Difficulty in expanding the list of safe countries of origin to include Georgia, Moldova, India, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria

He emphasized that an upper limit can only exist alongside an individual’s right to asylum. “If someone comes after the upper limit has been reached and is entitled to protection, then their refusal is prohibited under international and EU law,” Markard said.

The CDU’s request that the list of safe countries of origin be expanded to include Georgia, Moldova, India, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria is also problematic. Club refers here Pro asylum based on a 1996 decision. At that time, the Federal Constitutional Court established clear criteria that must be met in order for a country of origin to be classified as a safe country, such as “national security and security for any group in the country”.

Amnesty International criticized the human rights situation in North Africa

Hard Pro asylum Neither Moldova nor Georgia meets these criteria. The federal government wants to classify both countries as safe countries of origin. The human rights situation is worrying in the Maghreb countries of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, where many refugees leave for Europe. For example, Amnesty International reported on Middle East and North Africa regional report 2022that journalists and opposition figures were thrown into prison.

Additionally, “women and girls in the Middle East and North Africa continue to face discrimination in the law and in everyday life,” according to a report published in March 2023. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people are prosecuted, arrested and sometimes tortured . Therefore, here too, Germany would violate the principle of non-refoulement put forward by Markard. (mt)

Machine assistance was used for articles written by this editorial team. The article was carefully checked by our colleague Momir Takac before publication.