Effects of the payment card: The federal government doesn't know anything specific

A little more than two years ago, the traffic light coalition changed the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act. It created the legal basis for asylum seekers to no longer have their money paid out in cash or transferred to their account, but rather on a payment card with limited functions. The government justified this with less administrative work and the hope of making Germany less attractive as a destination for refugees because social benefits can no longer flow abroad or to smugglers.

Two years later, the card is in use in all 16 federal states, although not in all municipalities. However, the federal government cannot quantify what its introduction has achieved. The Green Party member of the Bundestag Timon Dzienus wanted to know from the responsible Federal Ministry of Social Affairs what knowledge was available about the extent of foreign transfers before and after the reform. The answer to his written question: “None”. Dzienus also received no answer regarding the development of the administrative burden: Since the implementation of the law is the responsibility of the states and municipalities, the federal government has no information.

“The payment card was supposed to limit cash payments and transfers, but it only prevented people from integrating and excluded them from everyday life,” the MP told the taz. "Today we know that the federal government cannot prove whether any abuse occurred before or after its introduction. The payment card was supposed to combat a problem that didn't exist, only to create bureaucracy that no one needed. It is fact-free nonsense."

The payment card works as a debit card to which new credit is loaded every month. The exact design varies regionally. In many federal states, a maximum of 50 euros per month can be withdrawn in cash from the card. Transfers are sometimes not possible at all and sometimes only possible with approval.

In the traffic light coalition, the Green Party parliamentary group initially spoke out against the change in the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act. In the end, they agreed, among other things, because of the concessions that states and municipalities are free to use it and cash withdrawals are not categorically excluded.