10 Dezember 2016

Illegal Entry into the Federal Republic of Germany de lege lata et de lege ferenda – a Critical Interjection

Illegal entry into Germany has led to penal proceedings since the first influx of refugees in 2015. Police investigations are opened against anyone entering without a passport or valid entry documents. Quite aside from the fact that the volume of such cases entails enormous administrative overheads which are infeasible in consideration of limited resources, numerous aid agencies and others have demanded reforms to the German right of residence, referencing to the Geneva Convention on Refugees (GFK).

The coherences between illegality and criminality regarding the right of residence are very complex. Making the legal framework more comprehensible calls for a closer look at the German Residence Act (AufenthG). Refugees entering German territory often lack a passport (or equivalent alternative ID), residence permit, or appropriate entry permission. Hence, in accordance with § 14 I AufenthG, entry is illegal. Unauthorized entry is prosecutable in accordance with § 95 I No. 3 AufenthG. In this context, §§ 95-97 AufenthG form the typical regulations for prosecution within criminal law. Unlike the criminal code (StGB), the elements of offence are not fully stipulated, but instead refer to other regulations from the AufenthG (e.g., § 11 AufenthG) or other legislation.

Pursuant to § 95 I No. 2, 3 AufenthG and § 96 I AufenthG, unauthorized entry into federal territory, an unauthorized stay in federal territory, and incitement and abetment of these same, particularly by so-called “human traffickers”, are criminal acts. The basis for penal sanctions – with a significant sentence – is that these actions endanger the “control and limitation of immigration of foreigners under consideration of their ability to assimilate and integrate, as well as economic and political labor market interests” (cf. § 1 AufenthG) and  undermine the right of residence. If the illegal entry or stay are connected to organized operations and if firearms are used or a smuggled person dies, the expected sentence will be significantly higher.

A residence permit is a limited or unlimited permit to reside in Germany or to enter the country (cf. § 4 AufenthG). Anyone residing in Germany without the required permission is obliged to leave the country (cf. § 50 I, II AufenthG).

This conflict places the relationship between penal provisions and German asylum law under repeated strain. This judicial practice not only leads to practical problems; it should also be regarded critically in light of the Geneva Conventions, of which Germany is a signatory. According to Art. 31 I GFK, in conjunction with § 95 V AufenthG, no refugees shall be prosecuted who directly originate from a region where their life or freedom were at stake or who enter Germany without permission and immediately report to the authorities. The idea behind this regulation is that refugees cannot be charged for violating entry regulations if this violation was the only way to obtain safety from persecution. Asylum law should hence take precedence.

However, it must be considered that Art. 31 I GFK in conjunction with § 95 V AufenthG only covers the offence of illegal entry. The culpability of further offences is inviolate. Furthermore, Art. 31 I GFK in conjunction with § 95 V AufenthG cannot be used as justification, merely as a repeal. Hence the culpability of the person entering illegally is determined, and is then (at best) retrospectively repealed. This culpability has no legal consequences, thus the need for this temporary penalization due to entering under Art. 31 I GFK stands on shaky ground, even when it comes to prosecution based on participation.

Generally, all detected offences related to the delict of § 95 AufenthG (e.g., falsification of documents, smuggling or entering despite entry prohibition) are prosecuted, even when the flow of refugees increases significantly, as it did in 2015. However, this practice makes no sense if people are sentenced without wrongdoing and file a petition for asylum procedure. De lege lata – according to current praxis there is no legal possibility for refugees to enter Germany and use their right to apply for asylum. They are also placed under insecure legal status: the legal status of persons entering via land is currently unclear, even though this is increasingly common in practice. In this case, it depends on the foreigners who enter Germany via a safe third country to proof that they meet the criteria for being a refugee as stipulated in Art. 31 I GFK. Likewise, the enormous administrative effort and the significant number of instances where charges are dropped do not support sanctioning persons who enter illegally and subsequently petition for asylum (cf. § 13 III AsylG). The right of residence desperately needs to be reformedDe lege ferenda, it makes sense to eliminate the discriminating legal status provided under Art. 31 I GFK and “de-criminalize” affected refugees (cf. “ultima ratio-principle”). This is the only way to achieve the welcoming culture desired by politicians. The fact that refugees are subject to prosecution by entering Germany and applying for political asylum is unacceptable.

Disclosure: this article has originally contained a number of unidiomatic expressions which have since been corrected. 


SUGGESTED CITATION  Bode, Lorenz: Illegal Entry into the Federal Republic of Germany de lege lata et de lege ferenda – a Critical Interjection, VerfBlog, 2016/12/10, https://verfassungsblog.de/illegal-entry-into-the-federal-republic-of-germany-de-lege-lata-et-de-lege-ferenda-a-critical-interjection/, DOI: 10.17176/20161212-114429.

8 Comments

  1. The Populist So 11 Dez 2016 at 21:25 - Reply

    The legal situation is not complex, it is quite simple:

    1. Refugees that leave a save country are no longer refugees, they are migrants.

    2. The current German government practice of disobeying genuine German law is a breach of the article 20, paragraph 3 of the German constitution.

    3. The fact that illegal migrants are NOT liable to prosecution by entering Germany but welcomed with the whole ranges of tax-funded social beneftis regardless of their identity and motives is unacceptable.

    The government negligence of genuine German laws deterioates ever more the public safety of ordinary Germn citizens and undermines the trust every governments needs from the people.

    I have no idea how this disasterous covert immigration program should lead to anything else than frustration, chaos and violence.

  2. S. K. So 11 Dez 2016 at 21:46 - Reply

    Asylantragsteller reisen in der Regel nicht unerlaubt ein, sondern stellen – sofern möglich – an der Grenze einen Asylantrag nach §13(3) AsylG. Deutschland gestattet die Einreise nach §18(4) AsylG, siehe WD 3-3000-192/16, 12.08.2016.

    Streit herrscht darüber, ob eine Einreisegestattung nach Nr.1 (Pflicht nach Unionsrecht) oder Nr. 2 (Ministeranordnung) vorliegt. Zu der Frage, ob das Unionsrecht, Artikel 20 604/2013/EU, eine Einreisegestattung zur Asylzuständigkeitsbestimmung verlangt oder nicht oder, ob es sich gegen angeblich kollidierende Rechte überhaupt durchsetzen kann, gab es hier schon einschlägige Diskussionen (Di Fabio, Bast, Peukert et al., Lübbe, etc.).

    Sofern an der Grenze keine Antragstellung möglich ist, sieht §13(3) AsylG die unerlaubte Einreise zwecks Antragstellung bei der nächsten zuständigen Behörde vor.

    By the way: Der Begriff „unmittelbar“ in Artikel 31 ist selbstverständlich nicht geographisch auszulegen.

    PS: Nach PKS-2015 (Seite 8) gab es 2015 genau 154.188 unerlaubte Einreisen gemäß §95(1)3, (2)1a AufenthG.

  3. Leser Mo 12 Dez 2016 at 10:45 - Reply

    The article would benefit from some proof-reading. Also, some of the sentences seem unwieldy and not very idiomatic to me.

    Example:

    „However, it must be considered that Art. 31 I GFK in conjunction with § 95 V AufenthG only cover the offence of illegal entry.“

    cover -> covers
    The whole sentence reads as if translated from German, not as originally written in English.

  4. dfwef Mo 12 Dez 2016 at 11:29 - Reply

    @Leser: guess what! The whole article is translated from German.

  5. The Populist Mo 12 Dez 2016 at 21:55 - Reply

    > By the way: Der Begriff „unmittelbar“ in Artikel 31 ist selbstverständlich nicht geographisch auszulegen.

    Sondern?

  6. The Populist Di 13 Dez 2016 at 07:36 - Reply

    The most basic common sense commands that the erroneous GFK interpretation of the German government has the potential to damage if not terminate this agreement.

    It will be the definitive end of the GFK if is abused as global migration conduit fostering uncontrolled welfare tourism.

  7. Leser Di 13 Dez 2016 at 09:48 - Reply

    @ dfwef
    Seems you missed the point. It’s obvious the article has been translated from German to English – that’s fine and all. But the quality of the translation is, in my humble opinion, a bit lacking.

  8. Kritiker Di 13 Dez 2016 at 10:22 - Reply

    Zunächst: Interessanter Artikel

    @ The Populist
    Meiner Auffassung nach, ist Art. 31 Abs. 1 GFK im Lichte der Entscheidung des BVerfG – 2 BvR 450/11 zu sehen. Folglich muss, trotz abweichender Auslegungsmöglichkeit, bei „escaping from persecution“ Art. 31 Abs. 1 GFK Anwendung finden, sofern der Schutzsuchende den Drittstaat nur als „Durchgangsland“ nutzt.
    In der Praxis geht diese Feststellung aber wohl eher zu Lasten der Betroffenen.

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.




Explore posts related to this:
Criminal Law, Residence Law, refugees


Other posts about this region:
Deutschland

Explore posts related to this:
Criminal Law, Residence Law, refugees


Other posts about this region:
Deutschland
8 comments Join the discussion