In 2010, some 44 million people worldwide were on the run. According to UNHCR estimates, four out of five refugees found shelter in a developing country, where the refugees have to survive, often under adverse conditions. The willingness of developed countries, refugees in their territories and to take into their societies, however, remains disappointingly low.
The European Union has in the past decade, the foreclosure pushed their boundaries ever further, and still is not inclined to expand their intake capacity and assign to the efforts of international organizations, refugees from conflict regions to support a safe Bleibeort. Thus at present, only 6% (4700 figures), the worldwide recording spaces provided for the resettlement of refugees and asylum seekers to safe countries of the 27 EU countries. At this low level of preparedness is shameful recognition procedures and rates as well as the living conditions of asylum seekers in different EU countries are still highly uneven. And although the European Union has since 1997 set by the Treaty of Amsterdam, a harmonization of refugee protection and asylum policy with high human rights standards, the goal seems more practical to drift further apart.
Alone in the border security and refugee defense policy, the EU member states reached with the policies of the externalization of the border, so its advancement with the involvement of North African dictatorships in the migration and refugee defense to the highest level of harmonization. The consequences of this policy over the last decade have been etched in public consciousness through the images from Tunisia, Libya, Morocco or Lampedusa, images of hopelessly stranded, fenced and transit migrants refugees, fleeing from overcrowded boats and washed-out human corpses.
But the political dynamics of the insurgency in the Maghreb increased the pressure on EU countries to make their migration and refugee policy on new foundations, even including the new democratically elected regime.
Once arriving in an EU country, the refugees face multiple obstacles. They suffer most from the consequences of conflict among the member countries of the responsibility for their asylum procedures. Indeed, through the Dublin II agreement, the responsibility for the accommodation and implementation of asylum procedures in the country of first arrival, so usually provided on the southern members (especially Greece, Italy, Malta) is passed. These have not been able to ensure decent living conditions for refugees and expeditious procedures for the refugees. There have been no last European cuisine that has shaken their decisions in this area with the Dublin II compromise and increases the pressure on the government for its reform. So what must the Dublin II system be changed? What changes are already being urged? Germany, far away from the borders of Europe, has been enacted in 1993 with the so-called asylum compromise an asylum policy which focuses primarily on the defense of refugees. Key policy instrument here is the racist immigration laws (AsylbLG), which regulates the social conditions of refugees in Germany. Not least because of the civil society opposition to the repressive and inhumane provisions of this Act is its reform on the political agenda. What rules must be repealed? And anyway, a law is needed to allow the refugees live independently and participate in society? Does not the decades-long “tolerated” refugees in Germany finally be given a right to stay? In this dossier, these dynamics are analyzed in Europe and Germany, emphasized individual development and approaches presented grievances and a policy change.