German lower house backs plan to halt refugee family reunification
BERLIN, June 27 (Reuters) - Germany's Bundestag lower house passed a bill on Friday to suspend family reunification for migrants who do not qualify for full refugee status, fulfilling a conservative election pledge to curb migration and ease pressure on integration systems.
Migration was a pivotal issue in February's federal election, where the far-right nativist Alternative for Germany secured a historic second place with its anti-migration platform.
Germany currently hosts about 388,000 refugees with "subsidiary protection status", a form of international protection granted to people who do not qualify as refugees but who still face a real risk of serious harm if returned to their home country.
The majority of those holding this status are Syrians.
Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt said the new bill was necessary because Germany's integration capacity, especially in education, childcare and housing, had reached its limit.
"Immigration must have limits, and we are reflecting that politically," he told the Bundestag during a heated debate ahead of Friday's vote.
Some 444 lawmakers supporting the bill, while 135 voted against it.
The upper house of parliament, the Bundesrat, which represents Germany's federal states, is expected to approve the bill in July, paving the way for it to become law.
Dobrindt said suspending family reunification would help deter illegal migration by disrupting smuggling networks, which often rely on sending one family member ahead to later bring others.
Berlin initially suspended family reunification for this group in 2016, amid a surge of over 1 million arrivals when then-Chancellor Angela Merkel opened the border for those fleeing war and prosecution in the Middle East and beyond.
It was partially reinstated in 2018, capped at 1,000 visas per month.
Tareq Alaows, refugee policy spokesperson for the pro-immigration advocacy group Pro Asyl, said the group was reviewing the bill's constitutionality and will support legal action for affected individuals if rights violations are found.
Ahmad Shikh Ali fled to Germany from Aleppo two-and-a-half years ago, and his family, still stuck in Turkey, had only two cases ahead of them in the reunification queue to be processed and granted a visa to Germany before this law was introduced.
"Since I learned of this decision, I can't sleep, I can't get on with my life," Shikh Ali said, breaking into tears in front of the German parliament on Thursday where he gathered with dozens of other refugees protesting the law.
"My son was crawling when I left him, he is walking now," he said, holding a blurry photo of his 3-year-old son.
He said returning to Syria - where an Islamist government has taken power following the fall of veteran leader Bashar al-Assad last December - was not an option as the security situation remained unstable.
At the migration office in the city of Hanover where Shikh Ali lives, he was told that changing his status after finding full-time employment was not possible.
"I can't go back to Syria, I can't go back to Turkey, I don't have any options, this is what suffocates me," he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
38 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Worse than anything under the Tories': changes to welfare bill anger disability campaigners
'As a community we feel totally let down and these last-minute concessions do nothing to make up for that,' Andy Mitchell, a disability campaigner and a member of Unite Community, says. 'My friends are scared. Some have spoken about suicide. This is worse than anything that happened under the Tories.' With the government offering major concessions to the welfare bill, ministers will be hoping critics have at last been appeased. But many campaigners have reacted with anger and concern over the changes. Disabled people's organisations, such as Inclusion London, WinVisible and Long Covid Advocacy, have told the Guardian that plans to exempt only existing claimants from the cuts will create a 'two-tier' benefit system that 'condemns' future disabled people to poverty. 'Protecting entitlements for current recipients is the right thing to do and if it's right for current recipients then it has to be the right thing for future claimants too,' says Tracey Lazard, CEO of Inclusion London. 'Even with these concessions, the bill before parliament is not a reform – it's still rationing. There is no moral or economic case for balancing the books on the backs of disabled people. MPs must not condemn future disabled people to the poverty and indignity these devastating planned cuts will cause.' Claire Every, spokesperson for Long Covid Advocacy said: 'A last-minute napkin deal will not assure safety for disabled people. The concessions create an unfair two-tier system – it is unethical to only throw some people under the bus. 'These changes will negatively impact people with long Covid as they discriminate against those with fluctuating disabilities and will see those who contract the illness in the future receive less support than those who fell ill earlier in the pandemic,' she added. Some campaigners warn that a system that treats new and old claimants differently could lead to future legal challenges against the government. 'How can you justify someone with the same impairments getting two different rates of social security payments based solely on [when they applied or how long they've been ill]? Is it even legal?' says Linda Burnip from Disabled People Against Cuts. 'The concessions are ridiculous and [effectively mean] anyone not already ill or disabled in Britain can't become ill or disabled and expect to have enough money to live on in the future.' Others have accused the government of trying to sow division within the disabled community to quell opposition to the bill. 'We refuse the government's divide-and-rule between old and new claimants, and MPs should keep voting against the horrendous cuts they are planning,' says Claire Glasman from WinVisible. 'We won't stop campaigning – new claimants lose out massively across Pip and universal credit, especially women with invisible and fluctuating conditions. Labour is still going after sick and disabled people. 'These offers of concessions are a glimpse into the window of the soul of the government; that they think people are protesting these cuts for their own gain not the wellbeing of all disabled people,' says Cherylee Houston, co-founder of the #TakingThePIP campaign. It is still unclear whether the concessions will protect eligibility for the connecting benefits to Pip, such as carer's allowance, she added. 'We don't agree to anything which doesn't safeguard future disabled people from abject poverty and despair. How can they draw a line to which people who become disabled after a certain date will not receive the support they need?' The government has pledged the entire criteria system will be reviewed in conjunction with disabled people, but disability groups told the Guardian they are concerned any changes from the review will not be made before the bill passes, while MPs will not have sufficient time to consider proposals. 'MPs are going to be voting on these concessions without people having a decent enough time to look and understand them,' says Mitchell. 'One of the points from the amendment was that disabled people hadn't been properly consulted, so how can it be right when these concessions have not been consulted on at all?' 'If concessions are possible, so is proper reform,' added Lazard. 'Fast-tracking a bill with such major consequences is irresponsible and cruel. It denies parliament, disabled people and the public real scrutiny. We urge MPs to stand your ground, stop this dangerous bill and demand better for everyone.'
Telegraph
38 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour's next reversal must be on non-doms before it's too late
The abolition of the non-dom tax regime could turn out to be the worst decision taken in Rachel Reeves's first Budget. The Chancellor was convinced that few of the 83,000 foreign entrepreneurs and investors would leave the UK after its abolition and that they would still contribute £12bn in taxes over the course of the parliament. The reality is turning out to be starkly different. Non-doms are leaving in their thousands, and taking their tax contributions, investments and potential to create jobs with them. The latest report into the abolition of non-dom status by a former Treasury economist found that more than 10pc of non-doms have already left the UK. This follows analysis from the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) that found that once 25pc of non-doms have departed, the policy will end up actually costing the Treasury money. Tax advisers are predicting that 40pc, possibly more, of non-doms will leave the country. This will have a huge impact on our public finances, leaving the Chancellor with a multibillion-pound shortfall in tax receipts, which every other taxpayer will have to pick up. While Britain is showing these highly productive people the door, other countries are rolling out the tax red carpet. Italy recently introduced a flat tax regime for foreign investors, allowing them to pay a fixed annual payment of €200,000 (£170,000). In Greece, they are charged a flat annual tax of €100,000 if they invest in the country. America is planning to expand its golden visa programme and the UAE has built one of the world's fastest growing and dynamic economies by fostering an exceptionally welcoming environment for international entrepreneurs. As an entrepreneur with investors and clients based internationally, I am acutely aware of how this policy is damaging the UK's standing. Britain has huge advantages that can attract the world's best entrepreneurs to come here, especially our outstanding schools and universities. But the message I hear constantly from those affected by this tax change is that the UK is not somewhere that welcomes them. That perception urgently needs to be addressed. Despite the prevailing narrative that they are not paying their fair share, the somewhat inconvenient facts are very different. Non-doms currently contribute disproportionately to public finances. In 2022-23, the average non-dom paid 21 times more income tax than the median UK worker. They are not just taxpayers, they are economic catalysts. They build businesses, invest in start-ups, create jobs and contribute to philanthropic causes – hospitals, the arts, charities and even football clubs. Their financial footprint extends beyond income tax to VAT, capital gains tax and National Insurance. The CEBR estimates that in 2023 alone, this group generated £7.7bn in total revenue across all tax types and consumer activity. It is unrealistic to expect the Chancellor to backtrack completely on what was a flagship policy, even considering the enormous economic harm it is causing. Another reversal would likely be too embarrassing after the welfare debacle this week. But there are practical steps she can take to ensure Britain has a competitive offer in comparison to other countries, while ensuring these individuals pay their fair share of tax. Two changes would send an important message that Britain wants entrepreneurs and investors here. First, altering the rules so non-doms do not have to pay inheritance tax (IHT) on all their worldwide assets. These are businesses or assets they built away from Britain and before they came here – not only is it excessive overreach, but it is the single most uncompetitive policy a government could implement in a modern highly fluid and global world. The Government should ensure that the value of non-UK assets accrued by non-doms before 2025 will not be included in future IHT assessments. Returning to the rules before this year that ensured these assets were not subject to tax is the crucial first step in winning back confidence in Britain. Second, the Government bodged a Budget measure it thought would attract non-domiciled people to stay - the temporary repatriation facility. This was supposed to enable them to bring all their worldwide capital into the UK at a preferential 12pc rate. The problem is that tax advisers are warning, understandably, that they fear the government will find a way to tax this capital at higher rates in the future – retrospectively. A simple amendment to the next Finance Bill could offer greater certainty and security, but without it, few foreign entrepreneurs will want to risk bringing their global assets into the UK. The real question is whether the UK wants to remain a hub for global capital and entrepreneurship, or whether it's prepared to watch that capital and the entire ecosystem that depends on it move elsewhere. If the Chancellor doesn't fix this issue fast, the question will not be 'how many are leaving?' but 'why would they ever return?'.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Archbishop of Wales announces retirement after damning reports
The Archbishop of Wales, the Most Rev Andrew John, has announced his retirement 'with immediate effect', after calls were made for his resignation over reports on the culture within the cathedral in his diocese. The sudden departure of John, 61, marks the second time in six months that a British Anglican leader has had to step down, after the resignation of the Right Rev Justin Welby as Archbishop of Canterbury in January. The Church in Wales is the Church of England's sister church. There are no suggestions that John, who is also Bishop of Bangor, behaved inappropriately himself, however reports published last month laid bare 'a culture in which sexual boundaries seemed blurred' at Bangor Cathedral as well as other failings. These included 'conduct in some areas — relating to alcohol use and sexual behaviour — that did not reflect the professional standards expected in a Christian church'; 'the presence of hurtful gossip, both in person and online, which caused pain and division'; and 'weak financial controls, unclear reporting lines, and spending decisions that were insufficiently scrutinised'. The reports were only published in summary form, prompting criticism from Ruth Jones, the Labour MP for Newport West and Islwyn, who said of John last month: 'I would like him to come forward and explain what has happened and how he is going to put it right.' Ruth Jones ROGER HARRIS PHOTOGRAPHY Earlier this week, John, who became Archbishop of Wales in 2021, issued a statement which read: 'I wish to apologise for errors of judgment I have made that have caused anxiety and hurt. My apology to you all is heartfelt, unreserved and unequivocal.' John, who has also served as Bishop of Bangor since 2008, said that the reports on Bangor Cathedral revealed 'shortcomings and poor organisational practice which should not have occurred', and added: 'I deeply regret that they happened under my episcopate and I recognise I ought to have done more to ensure such failings did not occur.' Days later, on Friday night, John issued an additional statement which began: 'I am writing to you to announce my immediate retirement today as Archbishop of Wales. I also intend to retire as Bishop of Bangor on August 31.' He made no further mention of the scandal at Bangor Cathedral, and nor did the Bench of Bishops of the Church of Wales, who paid tribute to John by saying: 'We offer most sincere thanks, and our commitment to hold him and his family in prayer at this time and in the days ahead.' John's departure leaves both the Church in Wales and the Church of England in search of a new primate at the same time. • Welby says damning report that led to his downfall was flawed The BBC reported that six serious incident reports had been filed to Charity Commission related to charities linked to the Bangor diocese. Medwin Hughes, chairman of the Body of Representatives for the church, said he wanted to 'place on record my sincere gratitude for all he has achieved, together with my admiration for the integrity of his ministry to the people of Wales'. It is understood that a meeting was held this week in which the trustees of the Church in Wales declared that they no longer had confidence in the leadership of the Bangor diocese. John added in his statement: 'It has been an enormous joy to serve in the Church in Wales for over 35 years. I cannot thank you enough for the privilege of working at your side for the sake of our saviour Jesus Christ. I would very much like to thank the clergy and congregations of this wonderful diocese before I retire and I will be in touch again about the way in which this might happen.' Lord Williams of Oystermouth served as Archbishop of Wales before becoming Archbishop of Canterbury in 2002.
