Mister Hartmann, the 2021 coalition agreement announced a new approach in migration as well as integration policy. An important part thereof are comprehensive migration agreements with other countries, which could include components such as the expansion of economic cooperation, visa facilitation, and cooperation on the return of rejected asylum seekers. However, the federal ministries responsible for this (the development, foreign, interior and labor ministries) are expected to face considerable budget cuts. What does this mean for the conclusion of future agreements?

Sebastian Hartmann: For me, there are two important aspects to consider: If people live here, have been tolerated for a long time and meet further requirements – they speak our language, respect our laws, and have entered the labor market – then we have to be pragmatic. Why should we invest resources in ending this stay and initiate the return of someone who ultimately fulfills the requirements to re-enter the country and obtain a work permit? A solution is the Opportunity Residence Act that comes with a cut-off date.

To be fair, terms like ‘migration agreement’ may resemble terms from the past. But the approach is an entirely different one. It is about politics on equal terms, about negotiations between partners. The willingness to take back refugees also plays a role here. Ultimately, however, the focus is on other issues, such as combating the shortage of skilled workers, which is a key interest for Germany. The migration of highly qualified and qualified third-country nationals must also be organized in such a way that the individual interests of the partner country are considered. The society of the country in question must also benefit from such an agreement.

This brings me to my second point: Abroad, Germany is a respected partner and our development cooperation is an important characteristic of and advertisement for our understanding of society and sovereignty. Europe and Germany are perceived positively in terms of the rule of law and the degree of freedom. The moment we no longer advocate a balanced migration policy, we open up a space for other powers that are not interested in ethical principles and international legal standards, but are often only after economic gain or power politics. As the government under Olaf Scholz, we emphasize that internal, external and social security must not be curtailed. In my understanding, development cooperation and the opportunity to learn from one another is an integral part of external security.

Let's stay on the subject of recruiting skilled workers: The Immigration Act for Skilled Workers has significantly lowered the barriers to accessing the German labor market. However, there are still enormous hurdles for interested parties, e.g. in the form of waiting times during visa applications. Aren't disappointments on the part of partners inevitable?

We face great competition in acquiring highly qualified and qualified third-country nationals. We are talking about people who have already made up their minds about leaving their home country, but this desire for mobility is not limited to Germany. The difficulties of the German language are often taken into account, but the level of wages, social security standards or gender equality can also be key aspects as to why I, as a skilled worker, choose a region or not. And Germany is, unfortunately, not on the top of the list in all areas.

In order to enhance the appeal of our country, we need to completely digitalize and simplify a wide range of processes – especially visa applications. Although we, on the one hand, have a simpler points-system for skilled worker immigration than e.g. Canada, we, on the other hand, have to recognize that certain things must improve on a domestic level, such as recognition partnerships. This would e.g. entail the possibility of submitting documents and certificates at a later point in time – also in the context of employment and with the support of the employer. The current bottlenecks are largely in the area of processing capacity and the lack of digitalization.

The public debate on migration agreements is currently revolving around the externalization of asylum procedures. This is also perceived abroad. What impact does this have on the design of migration agreements and the positioning of potential partner countries in the negotiations?

We must not delude ourselves. Ultimately, we have a common European asylum system that first and foremost provides for uniform standards, procedures and a uniform level of rule of law within Europe, because decisions made by nation states simply require mutual recognition – in accordance with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. On the German side, however, there is more room for maneuver, in supporting Frontex, which regulates entry into the European Union, through the police, border police or regarding the capacities of our Federal Office for Migration and Refugees. Overall, I see a lot of potential for cooperation with other European countries, also with regard to better distribution and a restart for the European asylum system. The bottom line, however, is that we simply need to speed-up our decision-making processes. In this light, better equipping the courts, the public prosecutors' offices and the immigration authorities would achieve much more on the ground than investing money in the externalization of asylum procedures.

With today's conference, the SPD parliamentary group has opened a broad discussion on migration agreements that includes different perspectives. To what extent do these play a role in the selection of potential partner countries for migration agreements? Specifically, what role do domestic policy criteria play and what are they?

When we negotiated the Immigration Act for Skilled Workers, the Ministry of the Interior took the lead because we also must consider questions in terms of the right of residence. In the migration agreement with Georgia and in the negotiations with Moldova, we focused on domestic policies because we have extremely low recognition rates for asylum seekers there. In addition, countries are not always interested in letting skilled workers move abroad, which in turn increases competition. Incidentally, we also compete with Poland and France. Despite a unified, free-moving European labor market, competition for skilled workers remains quite the national issue.

In addition, we know where these people come from and where so-called traffickers are operating. This is a gigantic market that we want to combat because people's false hopes are being played on. False ideas are being spread about how our national processes actually play out. We want to ensure that, in the end, people have the opportunity to be integrated in our labor market, precisely because we need skilled workers and we want to avoid the right of asylum being misunderstood as a fast track. This is why migration agreements are important, because they capture the right information and create a clear framework.

What are the next steps after the conference?

The German Federal Government has already announced that there will be migration agreements with Kenya and Uzbekistan. This mean that we are now entering the parliamentary processes. There are further points for discussion, which were also raised in the workshops today: What makes a successful migration agreement? Are there specific success factors? Where can we learn from each other?

And ultimately, we are also proud of this exchange. The SPD is tackling the issue head-on. We don't want to hide at all when it comes to migration policy. In this sense, the conference is a starting signal.

Interview conducted by Joscha Wendland and Annette Schlicht.

The SPD parliamentary group's migration conference, entitled "Migration agreements – Managing immigration well", took place on 3 June 2024 at the German Bundestag in Berlin.