Federal Interior Minister Faeser is pushing for the planned new EU asylum rules to be implemented more quickly. People from countries with low recognition rates should be deported directly.
Controls at all German national borders, that’s how it stays for now. “We want to make it clear that not all asylum seekers who come to the EU can only be accepted here in Germany,” said Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser at a meeting of EU interior ministers in Luxembourg.
And the signal seems to have been set: 20 to 25 percent fewer asylum applications were made in Germany this year. This means that around a third of all applicants in Europe are still seeking protection in Germany.
The border controls will therefore remain in place until the European solutions take effect, said the SPD politician. “That’s why the most important thing for me is to implement the common European asylum and migration package as quickly as possible. We are in close contact with the EU Commission about whether we can bring forward some of the provisions of the pact.”
Expedited airport procedure
Other large EU member states – such as Spain, Italy and France – also want to start earlier by making some of the content of the pact passed in May compatible with their current legal situation. Faeser will present her draft bill on this in the coming days.
One aspect is aimed at German airports: “We want to apply the 20 percent rule at our external borders – which is usually the airport where people arrive,” says Faeser.
All those who have little chance of receiving asylum because they come from a country with a recognition rate of less than 20 percent would therefore be subject to an accelerated airport procedure in the future. Within 21 days we will see whether there is a prospect of asylum or not. “And that would also include the cases from Turkey,” says Faeser.
Low Recognition rate for Turks
Turkey is the number three country from which most asylum seekers in Germany come. However, this year only about one in ten received a positive decision. Around 14,500 Turks were recently required to leave the country. However, only 1,300 were deported in the entire year of 2023 – an example of the entire European problem with deportation practices.
However, outgoing EU Interior Commissioner Ylva Johansson sees a turnaround: “So far this year, 40 percent fewer people have come to the EU without an entry permit. And at the same time, we have increased the number of returns, to 18 percent.”
18 percent – that also means: Less than one in five of the almost 500,000 people who are required to leave the EU are currently actually leaving the EU. Almost all EU interior ministers are demanding that the six-year-old EU return directive be addressed.
Only together does it make sense, says Nicole de Moor, who is responsible for migration in Belgium. Otherwise you would have 27 different return systems. “And we need commitments so that people who are required to leave the country cooperate with our authorities.”
Uniform rules for detention pending deportation required
Specifically, it’s about sanctions and benefit cuts, according to Austria’s Interior Minister Gerhard Karner. “Austria has just managed to deport 10,000 people and we all have to be even more uncompromising.” They want to make detention pending deportation easier and cut off social benefits much earlier.
In a joint letter, 17 EU states – including Germany – also call on the EU Commission to draw up a list of clear reasons that justify detention pending deportation across the EU.
Third country models
There is also the idea of so-called return centers in third countries, for example in the Western Balkans. Following the example of Italy: The country is building two reception centers in Albania to examine asylum applications from migrants who were rescued from distress in the Mediterranean. Those who receive protection are allowed to enter Italy, those who are rejected should be repatriated from Albania.
The German Interior Minister refers to an ongoing legal review. So far, there have been very practical problems in trying to make the “Rwanda model”, which failed in Great Britain, implementable elsewhere, says Faeser. “In third-country procedures like this, you first need a suitable partner state. That’s the crucial thing.”
But also the most difficult.