That's true. But refugees who have lived and worked long-time in Germany can get the right to reside here permanently, independently from their right to asylum or similar protection. This is to encourage them to actually get a job rather than just rely on government handouts.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I think the idea of working while you are living as a refugee can be problematic. I'd be fine with refugees just relying on government assistance for the duration of their stay, assuming it isn't a decade long stay or something.

[–] manucode@feddit.de 23 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

In cases like the Syrian civil war or political prosecution in regimes like Iran, it can easily be more than a decade. If you prohibit anyone from getting any work for that long and force them to sit on their hands (or work illegally without a permit), they will have a hard time getting back into work and probably continue to rely on government handouts. Who wants to employ someone who hasn't worked any job for a decade (as an adult) after all?

So you have a choice: Either you allow and encourage refugees to get into the workforce early and accept that they will probably remain here even if they could return after like 5 years. Or you stop them from working for years and accept that many refugees will remain here for decades and rely on government handouts the entire time without ever finding a job.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 3 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I did specifically mention cases where the times as a refugee is very long. So I'd be fine with after that time, but not straight away. That opens up the door for too much abuse, both towards the system and towards the refugees themselves.

If you prohibit anyone from getting any work for that long and force them to sit on their hands (or work illegally without a permit), they will have a hard time getting back into work and probably continue to rely on government handouts. Who wants to employ someone who hasn’t worked any job for a decade (as an adult) after all?

But they're refugees. And that the situation is supposed to be temporary. If the they end up staying for a long time, that sort of gap in the resume is fairly easy to explain with them not being allowed to work during that time. Not to mention, it's not exactly picky jobs that someone who is on refugee status and just came into the country is typically working in.

So you have a choice: Either you allow and encourage refugees to get into the workforce early and accept that they will probably remain here even if they could return after like 5 years.

That's not really the intention of the system. It's not supposed to be just another form of migration or way to be able to work in the destination country. The cause for your temporary refuge in your source country is over, you're supposed to go back home.

Or you stop them from working for years and accept that many refugees will remain here for decades and rely on government handouts the entire time without ever finding a job.

Yes, I'd be fine with some of them staying for a long time if the situation calls for it and government taking care of them. That's sorta the responsibility the government has towards refugees. They are people who are (hopefully) temporary displaced and need a play to stay while the situation settles. And if after extended stay they need extra help to find work then government should absolutely help them there too.

[–] manucode@feddit.de 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

If the they end up staying for a long time, that sort of gap in the resume is fairly easy to explain with them not being allowed to work during that time.

I have a feeling that that's usually not the way most employers treat applicants. Migrants already have a harder time getting jobs. The government shouldn't make it even more difficult.

Yes, I'd be fine with some of them staying for a long time if the situation calls for it and government taking care of them.

Most refugees not working will just fuel anti refugee sentiments in the population.

I can see the argument for not allowing refugees to work for maybe the first one or two years. But if they have to stay longer than that, they will probably have to stay long term and the government should prioritise integrating them into society and into the workforce.

Furthermore, if we want to keep immigration as low as possible, it would make a lot of sense to prioritise training refugees for jobs where there's a shortage (like many blue-collar jobs here in Germany) rather than relying on hiring professionals from abroad in addition to housing refugees. While there's the additional training cost and time, these refugees will at least have been trained in German rather than their native language.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

I have a feeling that that’s usually not the way most employers treat applicants. Migrants already have a harder time getting jobs. The government shouldn’t make it even more difficult.

These are specifically not regular migrants who moved for work but refugees. Yes they are going to have harder time in that a lot of other things, whether they stay for a little while or end up living and working there. And government definitely should help them, once it's clear they haven't been able to return in any sort of sensible time and when there's strong indication they won't be able to return home soon or even indefinitely. But considering they are refugees, the thing is to give them a safe play to stay, temporarily, until they can return home. Not to lay the groundwork for living and working in the destination country indefinitely. That's not the intention of the refugee system.

Most refugees not working will just fuel anti refugee sentiments in the population.

Most refugees existing will fuel it. But pushing or allowing them to work, even though that's not at all what refugee status is supposed to be for isn't the solution to anti refugee sentiment. Hell, them working will piss others off. But a big talking point is the misuse of the refugee system as just another form of migration and working instead of the actual purpose of giving temporary shelter to people under threat.

Misuse of that sort is a huge talking point fueling anti-refugee sentiment right now, with people thinking they're just coming here for better life instead of escaping life threatening situation and that's what many have used to try and scrap the refugee system altogether. Actually keeping to the intended purpose of the refugee status would IMO help and not harm their situation.

But if they have to stay longer than that, they will probably have to stay long term and the government should prioritise integrating them into society and into the workforce.

That's something to do once it is clear they can't return home as intended.

Furthermore, if we want to keep immigration as low as possible, it would make a lot of sense to prioritise training refugees for jobs where there’s a shortage (like many blue-collar jobs here in Germany) rather than relying on hiring professionals from abroad in addition to housing refugees. While there’s the additional training cost and time, these refugees will at least have been trained in German rather than their native language.

That's not at all what the refugee system is for and shouldn't be used for. That can be very easily turned into exploitation and it just makes the whole system seem a lot sketchier. The purpose is to give them temporarily a safe place to stay while there's a situation in their source country why they've had to flee. It's not a solution for better off countries to fix their economic issues.

[–] manucode@feddit.de 4 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I agree that refugees who only need protection for a short period of time should return home afterwards and only really need shelter here. But other refugees won't be able to return to their homeland for much longer.

At some point in time the government has to switch from just sheltering a refugee to helping them integrate into society.

In my opinion, the government should make this switch rather early, in the interest of facilitating integration over keeping immigration numbers low. I would rather have more immigrants with a higher percentage of them being well integrated than having fewer immigrants but more of them being badly integrated.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

I think the time should rather be high to protect the integrity and purpose of the refugee system both to protect it from the harmful image of just another way of migration and to ensure it is not used as such. Another way is to make the refugee system more strict as for who counts as a refugee and being more lenient about working for those accepted, which would also be okay solution, but it still harms the actual function of the system imo. Integration is absolutely an important goal for those who end up staying, but there's other ways of doing that than just work, which is prone to abuse. And in the end it's something that has to be balanced with all of the goals. That's why I think working should be a rather exception for those who have been in the destination country for a long time without a clear path for returning than a rule.

[–] rumschlumpel@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 8 months ago

I'd assume that it's pretty rare that the situation that prompted someone to flee their home country actually resolves within a decade.