Union and SPD are facing significant differences in migration policy, which are likely to continue even in a coalition government. Proposed border changes include stricter migrant rejections and enhanced cooperation with European neighbors. While the SPD is cautious about legal implications, the Union parties are pushing for greater enforcement. Challenges include the effectiveness of rejections and the impact on family reunifications for recognized refugees, as well as the strain on the Federal Police due to ongoing border controls.
Understanding the Divergence in Migration Policy Between Union and SPD
The Union and SPD are currently navigating a complex landscape of differing legal perspectives on migration. This divergence is expected to persist even within a coalition government. What specific changes do these parties envision at the borders, and what challenges lie ahead? Here’s a comprehensive overview.
Proposed Changes at the Borders
At present, the situation at the borders remains unchanged. The exploratory agreement between CDU, CSU, and SPD serves merely as a preliminary guideline. In their joint document, the parties propose more robust rejections of migrants at national borders, coordinated with neighboring countries.
If a coalition agreement is finalized in the coming weeks, concrete measures are anticipated. The SPD is more cautious about the legal implications of rejecting asylum seekers at the borders compared to the Union parties. Consequently, CDU and CSU are keen on positioning one of their members at the helm of the Ministry of the Interior, currently managed by SPD politician Nancy Faeser. Although Faeser has initiated stationary controls at all national borders, allowing for the rejection of individuals with entry bans, she has refrained from further actions, citing the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) as a constraint.
Last year, the Federal Ministry of the Interior reported approximately 80,000 unauthorized entries, with about 47,000 resulting in rejections, particularly in cases involving forged documents or post-deportation entry bans. Since September of last year, systematic controls have been implemented across all German national borders.
Legal Framework and Cooperation with European Neighbors
The potential coalition partners have committed to executing rejections “in coordination with our European neighbors,” even for individuals expressing their intent to apply for asylum in Germany. Currently, this is not the case; individuals who declare their intention to seek protection at the border can enter Germany if no temporary entry ban is in effect.
Once inside, authorities assess whether another country is responsible for the asylum process. If the transfer is unfeasible, the German asylum procedure commences. Heiko Teggatz, deputy chairman of the German Police Union, believes that rejections of asylum seekers are feasible due to existing bilateral readmission agreements with neighboring countries, which predate the EU Return Directive. Should neighboring countries adopt similar measures, a beneficial “domino effect” could ensue.
However, the Dublin regulations, which dictate that an asylum seeker must undergo their procedure in a designated European state, pose a challenge. Some politicians and legal experts argue that these rules are ineffective and thus should not bind Germany. For instance, Italy has been reluctant to accept returns under the Dublin framework.
From Austria’s perspective, informal rejections of asylum seekers without adhering to Dublin protocols would conflict with EU law, and Austria has already indicated they will not accept rejected individuals at their border.
Moreover, extensive and permanent border controls could significantly disrupt the logistics sector.
The Effectiveness of Proposed Measures
The anticipated measures might not be particularly effective without the desired domino effect. “Many rejected individuals often reappear shortly thereafter at different locations,” notes Andreas Roßkopf, chairman of the Federal Police/Customs District of the Police Union (GdP).
Denmark has begun rejecting asylum seekers at its border with Germany, but the volume of those attempting to cross from Germany to Denmark remains relatively low. Denmark has consistently enforced border controls, and individuals lacking identification or a valid residence permit can be refused entry. Unlike Germany, Denmark is not bound by EU asylum and integration regulations due to a legal reservation negotiated upon its EU accession.
Rights of Recognized Refugees and Asylum Beneficiaries
Recognized refugees and asylum beneficiaries retain the right to reunite with their minor children, spouses, and, for unaccompanied minors, their parents. This remains unchanged even if they face challenges in providing housing and maintenance.
However, individuals with limited protection status, including many Syrians, are likely to face restrictions on family reunification. With the cap on visas for relatives previously set at 1,000 per month, a suspension of this regulation for two years could result in around 24,000 fewer family reunifications in Germany. Pro Asyl has criticized this potential separation as a violation of the right to family life for those entitled to protection.
Impact on the Federal Police
The Federal Police is already under considerable strain due to the ongoing controls at all national borders, a situation that is expected to intensify. CDU chairman Friedrich Merz has highlighted the need for increased border enforcement.
Furthermore, the coalition partners have agreed that the Federal Police will manage temporary detention and deportation custody for individuals subject to deportation obligations encountered at domestic train stations. This new approach aims to streamline the deportation process, which previously involved coordination with state police. The local immigration authorities will also remain integral to this revised procedure, necessitating the creation of additional accommodation options.