faq
The asylum push from the CDU has rekindled an old debate. Is it more than hot air in a summer slump? The criticism is loud, the support restrained – an overview.
the initial situation
Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock described the CDU’s push for a fundamental system change in asylum policy as a “summer slump”. Irrespective of the time of year, however, it is undisputed that the federal government wants to make progress on asylum reform at EU level, despite the concerns of the Greens in particular. Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) relies primarily on the negotiations on a reform of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). In particular, many Green politicians reject the planned asylum procedures at the EU’s external borders.
The Union points out that the planned reform would not mean fewer asylum seekers coming to Germany in the short term. In the first half of this year, around 150,000 people applied for asylum at the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees for the first time. That was 77 percent more initial applications than in the same period last year. War refugees from Ukraine receive protection under an EU directive and therefore do not have to apply for asylum.
The CDU sees pressure to act in migration policy. Thorsten Frei now placed his radical proposal, presumably also with a view to the high approval ratings of the AfD via “FAZ”. Key point: The parliamentary manager of the Union faction wants to practically abolish the possibility of applying for asylum in Germany. Instead, Europe should take in a contingent of refugees every year who have already been selected abroad. The number of people coming to Germany to apply for asylum is clearly too high, agreed Saxony’s Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer.
How does she react? federal government on the push?
Pretty straightforward. She made it clear that she does not want to shake the individual right to asylum. Government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit answered a journalist’s question:
I am not aware of such considerations within the federal government, comma, and would also surprise me, period.
A spokesman for the SPD-led Federal Ministry of the Interior pointed out that refugees are already being admitted via quotas and so-called resettlement. Regarding difficulties in returning rejected asylum seekers, he said that deportations are basically a task for the federal states.
Foreign Minister Baerbock had already reacted to Frei’s suggestion on Tuesday: “Obviously we are already in the summer slump.” The Greens member of the Bundestag, Filiz Polat, criticized: “With such debates, the Union is only fueling the demands of right-wing populist and right-wing extremist parties and governments for a de facto abolition of refugee protection.”
Frei denies a connection with high AfD approval ratings. He does not look so much at the political values of other parties. “But I’m doing what I think politicians are there for: We have an objective problem that many people in our country identify as a big challenge and a big problem. And then it’s our job to make suggestions on how to do it has to deal with.”
To say something migration experts?
From the point of view of migration researcher Gerald Knaus, abolishing the individual right to asylum would not solve the current problems in accepting refugees in Europe. There were no agreements to bring back those who were obliged to leave the European Union, said the chairman of the Berlin think tank “European Stability Initiative”. ARD morning magazine. People also have to be sent back to safe third countries, for example to prevent Mediterranean refugees from having to return to Libya. Only with migration agreements is it possible to quickly send back those people who do not need protection and to give countries outside Europe an incentive to cooperate.
A few days ago, the EU Commission signed an agreement with Tunisia intended to limit refugee movements across the Mediterranean. However, the agreement is also controversial because of Tunisia’s current questionable handling of migrants.
Migration expert Daniel Thym told the “Welt” that Frei’s move would have serious consequences if implemented. People would then continue to come to Germany who could not apply for asylum, could not work and did not receive certain benefits. “If they are threatened with danger in their countries of origin, we must not deport them. As a result, Mr. Frei’s proposal would mean creating a large class of precarious people in Germany,” said the Konstanz immigration law expert.
Sharp criticism of Frei came from the Council for Migration. “The proposal is an attack on national and international human rights protection and contradicts European values and European law,” explained the coalition of 220 migration researchers from German-speaking countries. Implementing the CDU politician’s proposals would require the abolition of Article 16a of the Basic Law and the withdrawal of all EU states from the European Convention on Human Rights and the Geneva Refugee Convention.
The Jesuit refugee service made a similar statement. “The individual right of a persecuted person to be accepted and protected is laid down in numerous international treaties and also applies to Europe,” the organization explained at the request of the Catholic News Agency (KNA). “People cannot simply be distributed among the individual member states of the European Union on the basis of quotas, like crates of oranges.”
What is in the Basic Law and in international contracts?
In Germany, asylum seekers can refer to the Basic Law. “People who are politically persecuted enjoy the right to asylum,” says Article 16a. Each and every asylum seeker is checked individually to determine whether they are being subjected to political persecution. A two-thirds majority in the Bundestag and Bundesrat would be required to change the article.
The rules of international law are also part of German law. This is laid down in Article 25 of the Basic Law. The Geneva Refugee Convention, for example, protects people who are outside their home country because of a well-founded fear of persecution or because of their political beliefs from being deported to a country where there is a risk of persecution. In addition, authorities and courts in Germany must comply with European law, even if national law might conflict with this. This is regulated by Article 23 of the Basic Law. Through the EU treaties, the EU states have committed themselves to complying with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Protection for refugees can also be derived from these.
Does Frei also get support?
just behave. CSU boss Markus Söder spoke of an “exciting proposal” and thus showed a certain reservation. Above all, Söder doubted the feasibility. Bavaria’s demands, such as increased border controls, would bring “a faster return”.
CSU regional group leader Alexander Dobrindt put it this way: Frei’s initiative is a “long-term project”. It is about how to change the asylum system in Europe in the long term. However, the CSU is acutely concerned with how to limit the number of people moving in, said Dobrindt. These are instruments that are possible in the existing system, such as stronger protection of the EU’s external borders, asylum procedures already at these borders, reducing incentives for asylum services and more agreements with transit countries for refugees.
Saxony’s Prime Minister Kretschmer and the Union’s domestic policy spokesman in the Bundestag, Alexander Throm (CDU), made positive comments. Frei rightly pointed out “that our migration system is currently causing completely wrong conditions”.
What are the chances of implementation?
Minimal. Not only because the Union is in opposition and there is currently no political majority in Germany for Frei’s idea. At the national level, the traffic light government has set itself the task of turning migration policy upside down in its coalition agreement. These include the right of residence passed in December, a draft on simplified naturalization passed by the cabinet in May and the law on immigration of skilled workers passed in July.
An approach as suggested by Frei is not being pursued at the European level either. Here one is more likely to go the way of asylum procedures at the EU’s external borders and a better distribution of people in Europe. Plus the agreements with countries like Tunisia to prevent people from crossing the Mediterranean Sea.
What’s next?
Probably not at all. Frei has initiated a debate that fills the summer slump at most for a short time, but otherwise remains in a political vacuum. Politically, there are no majorities for implementation and the legal hurdles would also be difficult to overcome. Frei has to put up with accusations of “reliable populism.”