Asylum Challenges, Debates and Reforms How Germany, Poland, Portugal and Sweden have developed their asylum systems since 2015 Dr. Cláudia de Freitas, Agnieszka Kulesa, Dr. Bernd Parusel, Prof. Dietrich Thränhardt Asylum Challenges, Debates and Reforms How Germany, Poland, Portugal and Sweden have developed their asylum systems since 2015 Dr. Cláudia de Freitas, Agnieszka Kulesa, Dr. Bernd Parusel, Prof. Dietrich Thränhardt kindly supported by ASYLUM CHALLENGES, DEBATES AND REFORMS – HOW GERMANY, POLAND, PORTUGAL AND SWEDEN HAVE DEVELOPED THEIR ASYLUM SYSTEMS SINCE 2015 Introduction 2021 marks the tenth year of the dreadful war in address these challenges in various ways. The Syria. A war that has forcibly displaced millions of EU-Turkey statement, coming into effect in 2016, Syrians from their homes, destabilised the entire sought to better support refugees in Turkey while region and impacted world politics. Almost seven reducing irregular arrivals to Europe. The coop- million people fled the country to seek refuge else- eration included up to six billion Euro funding where. Most Syrian refugees have found shelter in for the reception and integration of refugees in neighbouring states, especially in Turkey, Lebanon Turkey. The agreement significantly reduced the and Jordan. number of spontaneous arrivals of asylum seekers to the EU and effectively helped to support refu- In 2015, the severe consequences of the wars and gees in Turkey. It also prioritised the resettlement violent conflicts in Syria and the MENA region of refugees from Turkey to Europe – though the started to directly affect the European Union as number of resettled refugees has been relatively well when almost a million asylum seekers sought low. refuge in Europe. The sudden increase in arrivals at the EU’s external borders painfully exposed the In addition to the increased cooperation with structural deficiencies in the already flawed Com- Turkey, the EU has supported Greece with up to mon European Asylum System (CEAS). The CEAS three billion Euro to help with the reception and was not prepared for a strong and sudden rise of integration of asylum seekers and refugees. It has asylum requests. Crucially, this resulted from the to be noted though, that the reception conditions faulty construction of the Dublin regulation, which in some of the refugee hotspots, most notably stipulates that – in most cases – the Member on the Greek islands of Lesbos and Samos have States of first entry are responsible for process- remained unbearable and are in desperate need of ing asylum applications. The Dublin regulation’s improvement. inadequate design has caused disproportionate pressures on EU Member states with external Despite the efforts to strengthen the EU’s abil- borders in the south, namely Greece, Italy, Spain, ity to act, key challenges to the CEAS remain. A Malta and Cyprus. In addition, the sudden rise comprehensive agreement on the reform of the of asylum applications also revealed that asylum Dublin regulation is still missing, as finding a conditions were very different among EU Member solution on solidarity and responsibility sharing States. This was especially true for the quality of between EU Member States continues to be the reception conditions and asylum procedures, as most difficult task. The European Commission well as the adjudication of asylum applications. has sought to overcome this stalemate with the long-awaited EU Pact for Migration and Asylum Since the deficiencies of the CEAS became unde- at the end of September 2020. The Commission niably clear in 2015 and 2016, the EU sought to has tried to accommodate the various interests 4 INTRODUCTION among Member States and offer pragmatic ways This publication is part of the initiative Making forward, i.e. by promoting the use of flexible soli- Asylum Systems Work in Europe, which the darity mechanisms. At the time of publishing this Bertelsmann Stiftung and the Migration Policy report, negotiations on the Commission proposals Institute Europe started in cooperation with the continue, but have not seen clear results thus far. Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation in Portugal, the Swedish Migration Studies Delegation (Delmi), the In the absence of a comprehensive agreement on Institute for Public Affairs (IPA) in Poland and the the EU level, much has happened in Member States International Centre for Migration Policy Develop- since 2015. The four country studies, published ment (ICMPD). The initiative aims to contribute to here, offer a fresh and in-depth look into the asy- the capacity building of national asylum systems lum systems in Germany, Poland, Portugal and so they can function more effectively. Through a Sweden. The studies, authored by Prof. Dietrich series of expert workshops, a pair of overarching Thränhardt, Agnieszka Kulesa, Dr. Cláudia de Fre- reports and the special country studies, the ini- itas, and Dr. Bernd Parusel, analyse in great detail tiative identifies challenges to the CEAS and the the asylum challenges, debates and reforms that asylum systems of Member States and offers a have taken place in the four EU Member States. thorough analysis of the policies introduced to The studies allow for an analytically compelling address these challenges. The initiative also seeks look into the specific situation of each asylum to promote exchange and cooperation in Member system’s evolution since 2015. How have Ger- States to facilitate the harmonization of asylum many, Poland, Portugal, and Sweden experienced policies and practices across Europe. the sudden rise of asylum applications in the EU, especially between 2015 and 2016? How have they sought to reform their asylum systems since then? Which hurdles have they faced in the process and which challenges remain? These and many more questions are addressed by the authors of the four studies. With kind regards, Mehrdad Mehregani Hugo Martinez de Seabra Constanza Vera-Larrucea, Ph.D. Dr. Jacek Kucharczyk Project Manager Senior Project Manager Project Manager President of the Executive Board Bertelsmann Stiftung Gulbenkian Foundation Migration Studies Delegation Institute of Public Affairs 5 ASYLUM CHALLENGES, DEBATES AND REFORMS – HOW GERMANY, POLAND, PORTUGAL AND SWEDEN HAVE DEVELOPED THEIR ASYLUM SYSTEMS SINCE 2015 Acknowledgements First and foremost, we would like to thank the A special thanks goes to Dr. Hanne Beirens, Direc- authors of the four country studies, Agnieszka tor of the Migration Policy Institute Europe, for Kulesa, Dr. Cláudia de Freitas, Dr. Bernd Parusel, her excellent advice and feedback on the country Prof. Dietrich Thränhardt, as well as Tiago Maia. studies. We also thank her colleagues from the They have provided an excellent, comprehensive Migration Policy Institute, Dr. Susan Fratzke and and in-depth analysis of the asylum systems in Timo Schmidt for their valuable expert views and Germany, Poland, Portugal and Sweden. Their feedback on the four studies. assessment of the asylum challenges, debates and reforms that have taken place since 2015 will Last but not least, we thank Markus Diekmann for provide policy makers in Member States and EU his great work on the publication layout and its institutions with important lessons-learnt and graphic design. valuable insights into present and future chal- lenges for making asylum systems work in Europe. We thank the authors for the new scientific learn- ings, which they have discovered through their research, and their dedication to this project. 6 7 ASYLUM CHALLENGES, DEBATES AND REFORMS – HOW GERMANY, POLAND, PORTUGAL AND SWEDEN HAVE DEVELOPED THEIR ASYLUM SYSTEMS SINCE 2015 ASYLUM SYSTEM THE GERMAN Table of Contents ASYLUM SYSTEM THE POLISH THE GERMAN ASYLUM SYSTEM Prof. Dietrich Thränhardt I. Introduction 12 II. Refugee and Migration Debates: Policies, Politics, and Civil Society (2010-2020) 15 THE ASYLUM SYSTEM III. Organization of the German Asylum System 19 PORTUGUESE IV. Challenges and Adaptations 23 V. Conclusions 50 References 52 THE POLISH ASYLUM SYSTEM ASYLUM SYSTEM THE Agnieszka Kulesa SWEDISH I. Introduction 60 II. Asylum Trends and Public Debate 62 III. Structural Weaknesses in the National Asylum System: Diagnosis and Redress 70 IV. Conclusions 92 References 94 Legal sources 98 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS THE PORTUGUESE ASYLUM SYSTEM Dr. Cláudia de Freitas (Coord.), Tiago Maia I. Introduction 102 II. Political Debates and Social Discourses on Asylum Seekers and Refugees 106 III. Structural Weaknesses in the National Asylum System: Diagnosis and Redress 109 VI. Conclusions 142 List of Abbreviations 144 References 145 THE SWEDISH ASYLUM SYSTEM Dr. Bernd Parusel I. Introduction 154 II. Asylum Trends, Policy Response, and Public Debate 156 III. Structural Weaknesses in the National Asylum System: Diagnosis and Redress 167 VI. Conclusions 194 References 197 The Authors 202 Imprint 204 9 ASYLUM CHALLENGES, DEBATES AND REFORMS – HOW GERMANY, POLAND, PORTUGAL AND SWEDEN HAVE DEVELOPED THEIR ASYLUM SYSTEMS SINCE 2015 ASYLUM SYSTEM THE GERMAN Germany's Asylum System Hurdles and reforms in a welcoming country Prof. Dietrich Thränhardt 10 Table of Contents THE GERMAN ASYLUM SYSTEM I. Introduction 12 II. Refugee and Migration Debates: Policies, Politics, and Civil Society (2010-2020) 15 III. Organization of the German Asylum System 19 IV. Challenges and Adaptations 23 A. Registration 23 1. Primary challenges 23 2. Remedies: Improved data systems and Integrated Refugee Management 25 B. Reception 26 1. Equitable geographic distribution within the reception system 26 2. Services