Birgit Naujoks is the director of the Refugee Council NRW, which is based in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia.

Deutsche Welle: More stringent surveillance of external borders, overcrowded detention centers, so-called third state regulations meaning asylum seekers are denied entry if they pass through a safe third country - in your opinion, is Europe on the right path with regards to dealing with refugees fleeing Africa and other parts of the world?

Birgit Naujoks: No, most definitely not. When it comes to defense of its external borders, Europe is very one-sided and puts up with the fact that people die every day because of it. This is all based on the mistaken belief that Europe can protect its prosperity, its social system, and itself by erecting such high "walls." But this has proven to be a sophism, a fallacy. Think for example about the wall between East and West Germany, or the border between the US and Mexico.

How should Europe deal with the many undocumented immigrants already living in the EU?

Above all, Europe needs to treat refugees as human beings. The focus at the moment is not the question of how to deal with those refugees already living here, but rather how quickly can Europe get rid of them. Germany is in the "lucky camp" because it's surrounded by safe third countries, meaning very few people actually make it to German territory. Nevertheless, a policy of pure deterrence is being pursued, benefits given out to refugees are far below the subsistence level, there are restrictions on movement, limits on work, etc. These discriminatory regulations must be done away with. Within Europe, a more just system must be installed to help countries with external borders like Greece and Italy and ensure all refugees receive sufficient constitutional standards in asylum procedures.

Is Europe in some way responsible for the exodus of asylum seekers from places like Africa through, for example, its use of unfair economic policies?

Of course. Economic interests in particular dominate Europe's engagement with the countries from which irregular migrants usually come. When it comes to access to raw materials and markets, interests turn to "stable" deals and trade conditions, not to political and economic conditions. Even with dictators and oppressive regimes, good deals can be reached. Of particular note here are horrendous (European) farming subsidies and surpluses which destroy the livelihoods of small farmers in places like West Africa. The resulting impoverishment and lack of opportunity increase pressure to migrate.

In recent decades, poor countries have lost a significant portion of their academics through emigration to industrialized countries. Has migration to Europe destroyed the development potential of these countries?

Most definitely, yes. In particular, criteria in immigration policies based solely on the usefulness of a given migrant are to blame here. From the European point of view, it's clearly not a question of working in partnership to create strategies that open up opportunities to people in their home countries now and for the future, but rather to secure raw materials and access to markets, as well as access to the resource of qualified workers.

What would a forward-looking European migration policy look like?

Firstly, it's about understanding and accepting that the unjust distribution of resources, such as in their use, and the unequal allocation of opportunities in life for many people are not "organic," so to speak. Poverty, oppression, marginalization and permanent exclusion from participation have in the past always led to social or inter-state conflict. If we want to prevent this, or at least influence it, serious efforts must be made to address the causes of inequality. At the same time, legal channels of migration to Europe must be opened up.

Interviewer: Jan-Philipp Scholz / dfm
Editor: Sam Edmonds