The Importance of Advice Centers and Support for Refugee Rights: An Interview with Matthias Lehnert

Mr. Lehnert, as a lawyer you have been involved in the rights of those seeking protection for over ten years. What motivated you?

I studied law with a political interest. When you deal with law and laws, it quickly becomes clear: Law produces and reproduces social power relations. In this context, I spent a lot of time thinking about the question: What does the law do to stigmatized, excluded people?

In addition to your work as a lawyer, you train consultants and undertake further training, including at the Refugee Law Clinic in Leipzig, Diakonie and AWO. Why are advice centers for the rights of refugees so important?

Practical law enforcement and fair asylum procedures depend on people knowing and having their rights explained to them. Counseling centers are a very important pillar as the first point of contact, because for many it is psychologically easier to go to a counseling center. In addition, the option of hiring a lawyer in the asylum procedure often fails due to money. I work almost exclusively on installment payments because otherwise it is simply impossible for most of my clients to pay me.

Is there no government support?

Although there is legal aid in individual cases, there is no support for my work in asylum procedures with the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF). If I file a lawsuit against the rejected asylum decision, my client must pay in advance. Around half of the BAMF’s decisions are overturned in court and declared unlawful. A lot of people can only assert their rights in court. In order to get there, support and advice centers are needed as hinges. The massive cut in funding for asylum advice centers and psychosocial centers planned by the federal government as part of its budget consultation is therefore extremely fatal. In practical terms, this will lead to people being less able to exercise and enforce their rights.

And then civil society should sort it out?

It is important that there is a functioning civil society, a social atmosphere that supports a welcoming culture, and that there are volunteers. But it must not happen that civil society takes over things that the state should actually take over and guarantee: money, accommodation, language courses, participation, support and so on.

What is the current legal situation of those seeking protection?

The right to protection and asylum has always been contested, especially in phases in which it had to prove itself. Let’s think of the 90s, when the number of people seeking protection rose sharply, especially because of the Yugoslav war – and German politics gave in to the racist pogroms and massively restricted the right to asylum under the Basic Law. Since 2015 – the “Summer of Migration” – the right to asylum has again been attacked head-on in the political discussion. And this is also reflected in practice: through numerous restrictions on procedural rights in Germany in recent years, and currently through plans at the European level to outsource asylum procedures to the external borders. We are currently confronted with a very explosive situation as a result of the far-reaching rise of the political right in Europe, which is completely questioning the right to asylum and driving other parties ahead of it. This political discussion also has a social impact and leads to an increase in racism and racist violence.

Do your clients often report experiences with racism?

Unfortunately, there are racist resentments and protests against refugee accommodation in many places. Nevertheless, the situation in Berlin or Leipzig is different than, for example, in rural Saxony. The problem is: People in the asylum process cannot choose where they live. For refugees, and especially for children, it can be unimaginably bad to live or grow up in a climate of rejection. Another everyday problem is the atmosphere in authorities, which is characterized by distrust. You can also feel the social climate in the proceedings. The social shift to the right is noticeable at all levels, not least at the legislative level. The calls for tightening, which have been very loud in recent years, do not happen in a vacuum. If, for example, calls are now being made for deportations to be carried out in even more cases without announcements or for immigration detention to be extended, this is done against a political backdrop.

nd.DieWoche – our weekly newsletter

With our weekly newsletter nd.DieWoche look at the most important topics of the week and read them Highlights our Saturday edition on Friday. Get your free subscription here.

The Republican Lawyers’ Association demands: “Migration must no longer be viewed only from a nation-state perspective, but the interests and subjective rights of the migrants themselves must become the decisive factor.” What specific demands are associated with this?

This demand emphasizes the universalistic claim of the rights of refugees, as enshrined in human rights and international law. Dealing with refugees must not be viewed through national lenses. Human rights apply to everyone, they are indispensable, without any gradations between Germans and people of other nations. Looking at Germany and Europe, one can now see that refugee policy is understood primarily as a policy of internal and therefore national security. It is not without reason that the BAMF is subordinate to the Federal Ministry of the Interior. The authority is part of the safety and security policy. That doesn’t mean that human rights don’t play a role, but the paradigm under which refugees are viewed is certainly one of internal security. The climate with which people in the asylum procedure are treated in the authorities is corresponding. It is at least atmospherically disturbing how traumatized people are treated and when people with a bad escape story have to describe what they experienced in their home country. All too often, it is not about people being listened to and understood, but rather about doubting what they say right from the start and using every means of confrontation to look for contradictions.

How do you deal emotionally with the powerlessness?

After a day at work, I can close the files and go home without any existential worries. On the one hand, this is a huge privilege and gives me space to distance myself from work, but on the other hand, it also gets to the heart of social conditions and can also be a burden: My clients have often not seen their families for years because of the proceedings take so long. Others live for years in extremely precarious circumstances and without prospects because they cannot get out of their toleration. These are people who are scarred for life. There are children among them who have spent their entire lives here and can be deported to countries they have never been to. In many cases I can achieve something, but in many other cases I also have to explain to my clients that the law is not necessarily fair. I think it’s important to recognize that all of this is an expression of a racist structure that is politically and socially desired. Becoming aware of this political dimension, taking a stand and getting involved politically is probably the best tool to combat this powerlessness.