Mr. Koopmans, when your daughter was born in 2018, there were complications. A doctor rushes to help. And it turns out: he is a Syrian, a refugee. One can only say: Cheers to migration!

This man has written a true success story. Lucky for us! He quickly found a job and learned German. His example shows how well migration can succeed and how much we need certain migrants. Unfortunately, this doctor’s story is not the norm. The Syrian refugee group is also the one with the most welfare recipients.

So there is still a lot to do.

As a matter of fact. However, we should note straight away: in the case of refugees, the focus should not be on the benefit for us.

The Dutchman Ruud Koopmans has been a professor of sociology and migration research at the Humboldt University in Berlin since 2013 and has been director of the research department

According to the International Organization for Migration, 26,689 people have died or disappeared crossing the Mediterranean since 2014 alone. They say: The European asylum regime is to blame for this. Please explain that.

If you want to apply for asylum, you first have to make your way to Europe. We neither fetch people directly from the conflict regions nor do we distribute humanitarian visas to dissidents. Once you’re in Europe, you stay. Even if you are not recognized as a refugee. That’s unfair. Because anyone who doesn’t manage to make the long journey to Europe is left out. So women, old people, sick people.

An Allensbach survey from this spring shows that Germans are increasingly questioning the right to asylum. Only 39 percent still support it. 49 percent call for restrictions. What does this mean for politics?

One should not be guided by moods. The right to asylum is morally based. But it doesn’t work the way it is – and it has deadly consequences. People notice that and this is how such surveys can be explained. But surveys also show that Germans are willing to help refugees if they really need protection.

Migrants from certain countries have very low recognition rates. They advocate making agreements with these countries so that they can take back rejected migrants. In return, these countries receive legal quotas for economic migrants. So a barter. Which states are you thinking of?

Nigeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Senegal, Gambia, Guinea come to mind. Georgia too.

How many migrants are we talking about?

That’s maybe a seventh of the asylum seekers who come to the EU. So that’s not so much, but it’s just those who have been rejected and who have not yet been deported.

Why should these countries have an interest in losing the best professionals to Europe?

Such agreements must be a give and take. Then they are a win for both sides. The countries could therefore exclude certain professional groups. In general, however, they should have an interest: In many African countries, population growth is still high, but there are no jobs. Nigeria, for example, has a relatively good level of education on the one hand, and on the other hand the economy cannot keep up with giving people prospects. And countries like Nigeria are already benefiting from remittances from migrants.

In other words, whoever can work directly in Europe transfers more money home than a rejected migrant who is only tolerated and receives social benefits?

Exactly. And we would benefit from the skilled workers.

So that’s the one way you suggest. The other is to outsource asylum procedures to third countries. Which third countries are you thinking of?

A set of candidates could consist of Morocco, Senegal, Albania, North Macedonia. Then there would be Turkey should Erdogan lose the election. Tunisia is also an option.

Tunisia? Its president recently agitated against African migrants. He said they were infiltrating his country and taking away Tunisia’s Arab identity. Violence ensued. How could you in good conscience conclude an agreement with such a country?