PressSplit
Controls at the German external border: The Union wants as many refugees to be rejected as possible. © IMAGO/Revierfoto
The migration summit of the traffic light coalition, the Union and the states is discussing radical tightening of refugee policy. Is this necessary? A fact check.
The timing could hardly be more difficult: ten days after the apparently Islamist Solingen attack and just two days after the dramatic victory of the right-wing extremist AfD in the state elections, representatives of the troubled traffic light coalition met with representatives of the CDU/CSU and the states on Tuesday afternoon to discuss migration policy. In a “confidential” meeting, according to the federal government, but it was already clear that things were going to get heated.
After the election, the election campaign continues (for Brandenburg), and the Union – like the AfD and the BSW – is focusing entirely on the issue of migration. It is not enough for them that, as planned by the traffic light coalition and already partly implemented, more deportations are to be carried out, refugees who are required to leave the country are to be dealt with more harshly, and gun laws are to be tightened by banning knives. In view of the “still uncontrolled immigration pressure”, according to party leader Friedrich Merz, the Union’s goal is to significantly curb the entry of asylum seekers in general. But how?
Green Party leader Omid Nouripour indicated where the rub lies for him: Every idea is welcome, but it must be feasible, “it must be legal.” However, Merz brushed aside legal concerns last week: The population no longer wants to hear about everything that is not possible, he told journalists. Nevertheless: What do the facts and the law say?
How many people are coming?
The numbers are reasonably high, but significantly below the 2015/16 figures and are currently declining. The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) registered around 121,000 initial asylum applications in the first half of 2024, almost 20 percent fewer than in the same period last year. Around 70 percent of refugees receive protection status from BAMF or in court – so they have real reasons for fleeing.
The frequently claimed “overburdening” of municipalities does not exist: According to a study by the University of Hildesheim from the end of 2023, six out of ten municipalities say the situation is “(still) manageable”. Municipalities with fewer than 5,000 inhabitants most frequently report being “overburdened” (45 percent).
Does increased immigration worsen the security situation in the country?
The connection is often claimed without being fully proven. Non-Germans are certainly more heavily represented in police crime statistics and in violent crimes involving knives than their share of the population would suggest. However, according to experts, this is also because there are more young men among immigrants, who are often not well integrated socially or are psychologically stressed.
What about deportations to Syria and Afghanistan?
The German government has just deported 28 criminals who are required to leave the country to Kabul with the help of Qatar, and it wants to continue this – this should also be possible to Syria, said Chancellor Scholz. Repatriations to Syria have been demanded for some time, including by SPD state governments and without reference to criminality.
But regardless of whether they are criminals or not, according to EU law and the UN Refugee Convention, only those who are not in danger of their life or limb in their country of origin may be deported. The Foreign Office is skeptical: In “all parts” of Syria, the human rights situation and humanitarian conditions are “deficient”. On Tuesday, Tagesschau.de quoted a specialist lawyer as saying that the deportation of the Syrian Solingen attacker would hardly be legally permissible. In addition, regimes that are supposed to take back refugees are willing to pay for it: with money, with political upgrading, with the easing of EU sanctions, such as those against Assad’s Syria. The EU line so far has been: no relations with the Assad regime. It is not known to what extent concessions were made to the Taliban before the deportation flight on Friday.
FR podium
In Thuringia and Saxony, the issue of migration played a key role in the decision
of the voters. It now dominates all political debates. The discourse is moving to the right.
What are the parties’ calculations? How do narratives from politics and the media influence the mood? A panel discussion by the Frankfurter Rundschau and the Karl Gerold Foundation will seek answers on Thursday, September 19, at 7 p.m., in the Haus am Dom, Frankfurt am Main.
“Immigration – the issue of the right?” This is the title under which FR policy chief Christine Dankbar, migration researcher Birgit Glorius from the Council of Experts, MEP Erik Marquardt (Greens) and author Gilda Sahebi will discuss.
The event will be moderated by Nadja Erb from the Karl Gerold Foundation. Admission free. FR
Are too few people being deported in general?
CDU politician Thorsten Frei created this impression before the migration meeting by mentioning the number of “more than 226,000 people who are required to leave the country.” He did not say that 80 percent of these people have a tolerated status because they cannot be deported – for example because their country of origin does not want them, they are ill, have children here, etc.
Only around 44,000 people are actually required to leave the country. The “Repatriation Improvement Act” that came into force in February is aimed at this group. It provides for significant tightening of the rules, for example in the case of detention pending departure and deportation detention. The police are also allowed to enter rooms of uninvolved people in asylum accommodation without prior notice if they are looking for a person for deportation. The law has been heavily criticized by human rights organizations.
Are German authorities doing too little to transfer refugees to other EU countries that are responsible for the asylum procedures of those affected under EU law?
The EU’s Dublin system stipulates that the state in which refugees first reach the EU is responsible for an asylum procedure. In fact, the system does not work. In 2023, Germany submitted 74,600 Dublin transfer requests to other EU states, but in the end only 5,000 people were transferred. For example, courts prohibited transfers to Greece because of the catastrophic treatment of refugees there, and Italy does not take back any refugees.
The federal government is now planning to cut off refugees’ money if they are to be transferred to the EU state responsible for them and this state has also agreed. Pro Asyl calls this plan unconstitutional because the guarantee of a minimum subsistence level is a human right.
However, it is not certain whether the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe would object to the withdrawal of funds. In previous rulings, the Karlsruhe judges left open whether the minimum subsistence level is secured by cash or benefits in kind. Federal Minister of the Interior Nancy Faeser (SPD) has hinted at benefits in kind. In addition, when cutting Hartz IV benefits (now Citizens’ Allowance), Karlsruhe ruled that there is no longer any entitlement if the need was self-inflicted – in other words, if reasonable work was refused. It has not yet been decided whether the withdrawal of funds can also be justified in the case if there was an entitlement in the first receiving country.
Can migrants be turned back at the border?
The CDU politicians Boris Rhein, Thorsten Frei and Friedrich Merz are lawyers and know the legal situation that applies in the EU and Germany. Nevertheless, they ultimately demand that migrants be immediately turned back at the German border if they have entered via another member state. They fail to mention that the federal government cannot decide on this at will. According to the Dublin III agreement, the German authorities must first check which EU state is responsible and submit a request for transfer. However, this is not done by the local border police, but by the BAMF.
There is only one way to bypass this procedure: Germany would have to suspend the Dublin III procedure because its internal security or public order is at risk. According to the Union politicians, the federal government should declare this. But the federal government cannot decide this alone either; the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will ultimately clarify this. The federal government would be taking a high risk of failing in Luxembourg. But the Union should not care about this as long as it is not in government.
In addition, the radical Union demand is similar to plans by the Dutch right-wing government for a so-called “asylum crisis law”, which would include stricter deportations and significantly more border controls. The Hague also wants to work with “like-minded states” to enforce stricter asylum standards across the EU.
On Tuesday, migration researcher Gerald Knaus sharply criticized the Union’s demand for rejections at the border. “Suspending EU law would be an atom bomb,” he said, referring to the associated dangers for cooperation within the EU. However, Knaus applauds the Union’s even more far-reaching demand to outsource asylum procedures to “safe third countries” outside the EU. The concept has been heavily criticized by human rights experts because the standards for “security” are not clear.
