Despite signals of order and control in migration policy, Germany has not achieved a systemic shift, according to asylum law expert Daniel Thym. The professor of Public Law, European and International Law in Konstanz, who regularly advises the German government, identifies three key areas needing improvement and predicts the likely end of border controls by mid-2026.
Expert Insights on EU Migration Policy
Thym notes the German government is leveraging the EU’s new solidarity mechanism – a fairer distribution of migrants across Europe – to incentivize Southern European countries to resume accepting asylum seekers for whom they are responsible under the Dublin System. He characterizes this as a potential improvement, as the Dublin System had become dysfunctional. Germany is, in effect, demonstrating its own solidarity by highlighting the number of people it has already accepted who fall under the jurisdiction of countries like Greece and Italy.
The EU’s focus on processing asylum claims at its external borders is also under scrutiny. While Thym is optimistic about improved cooperation between countries, he cautions that this process will initially focus on those with limited prospects of remaining in Europe. Others, he notes, will likely continue to move freely within Europe, even if illegally. The success of this approach hinges on practical cooperation from Italy and Greece regarding returns.
Challenges to Implementation
Domestic hurdles remain. A draft law aimed at tightening rules regarding onward migration within Germany is currently stalled in the Bundestag due to opposition from the SPD. Even if passed, its effectiveness depends on consistent application by Germany’s federal states, which have historically struggled with efficient and rapid deportations.
The concept of “Return Hubs” – facilities outside the EU to which rejected asylum seekers would be sent – is also facing practical challenges. Potential partner countries like Uganda, Tunisia, and Ethiopia may be reluctant to accept individuals with no ties to their nations, particularly if they include individuals deemed dangerous or with criminal records. Successful implementation requires strong diplomatic efforts and financial incentives.
Three Key Areas for Reform
Thym argues that current reforms, while signaling intent, do not address the fundamental problems with Germany and Europe’s asylum policies. He identifies three key areas for improvement: improving the enforcement of decisions, streamlining EU asylum laws, and a stricter interpretation of human rights law.
Regarding enforcement, Thym suggests the federal government should assume greater responsibility for procedures like deportations and Dublin processes, currently largely handled by the states. He also points to the possibility of reinterpreting European human rights law, potentially reversing precedents set by the European Court of Human Rights that have complicated deportations. This could involve limiting protection status to those facing persecution or fleeing active conflict zones, rather than those facing extreme poverty.
The Future of Border Controls
Despite over 100,000 new asylum seekers arriving in Germany this year, Thym anticipates that border controls and returns will likely end by June 12th of next year. This expectation is based on the implementation of the new GEAS (Common European Asylum System) and the diminishing legal justification for maintaining the current measures.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Dublin System?
The Dublin System is an agreement determining which EU member state is responsible for examining an asylum application. It generally assigns responsibility to the first country of entry.
What is GEAS?
GEAS, or the Common European Asylum System, is a new set of EU asylum laws intended to streamline the process and ensure a more equitable distribution of responsibility among member states.
What role do human rights play in asylum decisions?
Human rights law, particularly the European Convention on Human Rights, influences asylum decisions by providing protections against deportation to countries where individuals face persecution or inhumane treatment.
As European nations navigate these complex challenges, how might a balance be struck between national sovereignty, international obligations, and the humanitarian imperative to protect those seeking refuge?
