Fundamental rights | Violation of fundamental rights: Degrading cards

Springer's Bild newspaper opened on Thursday evening with the headline "Because of payment cards? More and more refugees are leaving." The accompanying article lists the numbers of refugees who have "left voluntarily" from various federal states, cities, and districts. The district of Greiz in Thuringia, which was the first to introduce payment cards in December 2023, receives particular praise. "Since then, the number of voluntary departures of asylum seekers has increased by 28 percent here as well. In 2024, 23 disappeared, compared to 18 the previous year," according to "Bild." However, municipalities with "significantly more lenient rules" are criticized, claiming that the "departure rate" there is stagnating or has even decreased. Hamburg and Hanover are cited as examples. Cities that, regardless of the design of the payment cards, probably offer better living conditions for many refugees than Greiz.

Well, if Bild is right with its arbitrarily compiled figures, the payment cards would have achieved their goal. That would be bad because it's unconstitutional, as an article in the Basic Rights Report published last week suggests. The article, by Pro-Asyl spokesperson Andrea Kothen, appears right on the first pages of the report because the payment card violates the first article of the Basic Law: "Human dignity is inviolable."

In order to "significantly and sustainably" reduce the number of refugees, the Conference of Interior Ministers decided in November 2023 to introduce payment cards. In her article, Andrea Kothen traces what has happened since then and how payment cards are making life more difficult for refugees. In some districts, the card is tied to the postal code area; purchases in neighboring districts are impossible. With other cards, transfers cannot be made. "In federal states like Bavaria, which use their own payment cards, individual transfers can be authorized upon request by the social welfare office, but this not only represents an immense effort but is also highly problematic from a data protection perspective," reports Kothen. Incidentally, the additional bureaucratic burden has led many municipalities in North Rhine-Westphalia to decide against introducing the cards. However, such an "opt-out" provision exists in only a few federal states.

From everyday problems to data protection and bureaucratic burdens, Andrea Kothen moves on to general criticism of the cards: "The payment card deliberately deprives those affected of the freedom to cover their needs independently and unhindered." This violates the right to a dignified minimum standard of living. Kothen recalls a 2012 ruling by the Federal Constitutional Court: "The human dignity guaranteed in Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law cannot be relativized in migration policy." Furthermore, the legislature "should not make blanket differentiations based on residence status when designing subsistence benefits." The payment card, however, addresses precisely this point and systematically disadvantages refugees.

Politicians failed to adequately address objections from academics and practitioners when introducing the payment card. There was also little evidence, for example, regarding the volume of international transfers that the payment card was intended to curb.

There is more than circumstantial evidence that the payment card is not compatible with German law. Kothen points to expedited proceedings that Pro Asy and the Society for Civil Rights won last year. Regular proceedings are now underway, and the author of the report hopes "that courts, constitutionally loyal politicians, and an active civil society will soon put an end to this nonsense."