Migration policy in the Merz cabinet | Migration: "They want to break the law with open announcement"

After just 18 lines, the coalition agreement states: "Irregular migration polarizes our society." What do refugees and activists have to prepare for under the new government?

The coalition agreement reflects the idea that migration is the "mother of all problems," as Horst Seehofer once put it. Social issues are not addressed as prominently, but instead are always played through the card of allegedly irregular migration.

Irregular migration actually refers to people who stay in a country without the knowledge of the authorities and without permission. This does not apply to asylum seekers. Nevertheless, the term is increasingly used synonymously. What consequences does this have ?

This creates the impression that the people arriving here are here even though they shouldn't be. The opposite is true. Anyone with a reason to flee also has the right to apply for asylum, and their entry is subsequently legalized. And we have very high recognition rates for large refugee groups. In 2024, the so-called adjusted protection rate—which excludes applications without formal decisions, for example, because they were withdrawn or because the people were transferred to another EU country—for Afghan refugees was around 93 percent.

Before the election, the SPD rejected the CDU/CSU's plans to reject asylum seekers at Germany's external borders. Now the measure is included in the coalition agreement. How should this be assessed legally?

Rejections in the form proposed by the CDU during the election campaign are clearly contrary to European law. Now, the coalition agreement contains this phrase, "in coordination with our European neighbors." I can't imagine a situation where this could be legally compliant. What this ultimately aims at is a rollback at the European level. They want to openly break the law in order to fundamentally change the law. This is a new quality compared to previous federal governments, which also tightened asylum rights.

But the traffic light government has also increased border controls.

That's true, but it mostly affected people who hadn't explicitly requested asylum. Now it's being openly stated that people who apply for asylum should also be turned away. And that's not possible under current European law. A crucial question will be how the federal government reacts if administrative courts stop these rejections in summary proceedings. Will the federal government then openly deny justice, as we're seeing in the US?

Three years ago , in an interview with the newspaper "nd," you said about the pushbacks at the Polish-Belarusian border: "The dismantling of the rule of law at the external borders goes hand in hand with the dismantling of the rule of law within the European Union." How has this developed since then?

Back then, we had the discussion about states of emergency and state of emergency at Europe's external borders. And this has now spread to the core European states. One can blame the traffic light coalition for many things, but in some respects it has nevertheless held up processes that were being pushed forward by right-wing governments, for example, with regard to the Rwanda deal.

Now the CDU/CSU and SPD even want to take the initiative to abolish the so-called connection criterion . This means that asylum seekers could then be taken to third countries they have never visited before...

I think we have to assume that the connection criterion will no longer apply if there is no political pressure on the government to put a stop to this. But then you have to say: EU member states have been trying to implement these third-country models for 30 years. It's never really worked. And since it fails, the severity of migration policy will be played out on the continent itself. That's why I believe it's more crucial how the border regimes on the continent will be designed and what restrictions people are willing to impose on the rule of law.

The coalition wants to change the "principle of official investigation" in asylum law to a "principle of submission." What does that mean?

This is likely to be one of the most serious restrictions. The principle of official investigation means that every court has the task of investigating the facts itself. In asylum law, this means that administrative courts must obtain information on the security situation, healthcare, etc. in the country of origin. This makes sense because, in public law, citizens are confronted by the state as a powerful actor. If this principle is replaced by the principle of presentation from civil law, the court sits back and only listens to what the parties have to say. Asylum seekers without experienced lawyers then have little chance of enforcing their rights. If crucial information is missing, the court can ignore it – even if it knows it would be relevant. Here, the right to asylum is circumvented by technical means.

In addition, Ukrainians will in future be treated under the Asylum Seekers' Benefits Act – like other asylum seekers. What are the consequences?

We don't know how the war in Ukraine will develop. It could happen at any time that the US concludes an agreement with Russia that is detrimental to Ukraine. This could mean that hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will once again flee to Europe. What do we do then? Do we accept them without red tape, provide for them? Or has the tide changed so that we abandon our solidarity with Ukraine? This demonstrates how short-term this coalition agreement is. It provides no answers as to how structures will be created to respond to future refugee movements.

In any case, there should be no federal reception programs. Current ones, such as the one for Afghanistan, should be terminated.

Firstly, it eliminates the only possibility of legal refugee immigration. But I think the foreign policy issue is even more serious here. Germany bears a great political responsibility due to the Bundeswehr's deployment in Afghanistan. I believe any future Bundeswehr deployment will have a very difficult time recruiting local personnel from the population, because they will say, 'I can never be sure whether you will later hand us over to our persecutors.' Overall, this coalition agreement exudes a healthy dose of nationalism – without a clear commitment to global responsibility. We have seen that the traffic light coalition massively tightened asylum law without it having been previously agreed upon in the coalition agreement. I think we have to be prepared for even more tightening measures to come that are not yet included in the coalition agreement. Especially since the CDU now controls both key ministries, the Interior and Foreign Ministries, for the first time. This allows it to implement a tough policy across the board, without correction from coalition partners.