CIVICUS discusses Germany’s tightening of border controls with Meral Zeller, Policy Officer with the European Department of PRO ASYL, a civil society organisation (CSO) defending the human right to asylum in Germany and Europe.

The German government recently expanded its border controls, temporarily suspending its passport-free policy as part of the Schengen area. The new migration policy, aimed at stopping what’s labelled ‘irregular migration’, comes at a time when rising anti-migrant sentiments are translating into far-right gains. Governing parties have taken an increasingly hard line on immigration and asylum in the hope of retaining power in next year’s election. This threatens to become a race to the bottom as numerous German states push for stricter deportation rules, reduced social benefits for migrants and restrictions on family reunification. Supposedly temporary measures could become permanent, setting a worrying precedent for other European countries.

Why has Germany tightened its border controls?

Some municipalities began to express concerns that they were reaching their capacity to accommodate and integrate asylum applicants. The idea that ‘the boat is full’ began to gain traction. Opposition parties such as the Christian Democrats soon amplified this message, which was eventually echoed by the government.

Political and public discourse lacks constructive ideas on how to deal with the challenge of welcoming refugees. Instead, the mindset has established itself that the only solution is to prevent immigration. This is particularly unfortunate in light of the fact that the successful reception of a million Ukrainians has shown we have the capacity and the strength to do so. Instead of addressing gaps in social policy, the government insisted the only solution was to close borders or increase controls to let fewer people in. In October 2023, Germany introduced controls at the Czech, Polish and Swiss borders.

Although these measures were initially intended to be temporary, they were soon extended and some have been in place for a year now, with no sign of an end in sight. Last September, Germany went even further and extended these controls to all its Schengen borders. This shift suggests that stricter border policies may be here to stay. We already know this from the border with Austria; in our view, unlawful border controls have been in place here since 2015.

Do you think anti-migrant policies will increase?

It indeed looks like they might get tougher. Some political groups are pushing for a policy of restricting asylum applications at the border, even if this is illegal. We’re already seeing people trying to apply for asylum at the borders being refused entry and sent back to neighbouring countries like Austria, the Czech Republic and Poland. Now the government has collapsed, there’s a chance this restrictive approach could become even more intense.

Germany’s position on the European Union’s (EU) pact on migration and asylum has also changed. Parties such as the Social Democrats and the Greens are softening their position and agreeing to this new package of stricter policies. We are seeing some strong initiatives on returns and asylum measures, while other more progressive projects are being discarded.

In the recently presented draft law on the implementation of the EU pact in Germany, which is currently on the table, the government has exploited room to implement tougher measures, for example when it comes to detention or with regard to the pact’s concept of a ‘secure state’. Either way, the implementation of the pact will result in the greatest tightening of asylum law in Germany for decades. The fact that the now-collapsed government now wants to make it as restrictive as possible is shocking.

In addition, the debate about models for outsourcing asylum procedures continues. German politicians are also following Italy’s policy to detain asylum seekers in Albania with great interest. This is very questionable in terms of human rights, as well as technically challenging.

To what extent are these policies an attempt to solve a real problem?

These policies seem less about solving a real problem than about political positioning. While Germany face reals problems – such as a housing crisis and education, labour and social services shortages – these are issues that need to be addressed through social policy, not by restricting other people’s human rights. Linking these problems directly to asylum and migration, as some politicians do, oversimplifies the causes and ignores the changes in social policy needed to address them.

This shift in asylum and migration policy challenges the post-war human rights commitments that have guided German and EU policy for decades. The new policies are often at odds with EU human rights standards and the principles of the Schengen Agreement. And they risk creating a ‘domino effect’ in Europe, with other countries adopting similar restrictions, which could ultimately threaten the open-border ideal within the Schengen area.

What do you think are the reasons for the rise of anti-migrant sentiment in Germany?

Germany’s approach to migration reflects broader European trends. Populistic and radical right-wing parties, which oppose migration and asylum, are growing in popularity and did well in recent elections in eastern German states. This anti-migration stance is also shared, to varying degrees, by other political parties. We can see similar patterns in Italy, the Netherlands and Poland, where far-right parties or positions are also gaining influence and pushing for stricter migration policies. It is also worrying that the European Commission, supposedly the guardian of treaties, is not fulfilling this function.

In Germany, these policies are very popular on social media and are echoed by the police and politicians, who reinforce the narrative that migration is the root cause of Germany’s economic and social problems. This creates a zero-sum mindset where migrants are seen as competing for opportunities and resources. People are led to believe migrants are somehow infringing on the rights of Germans, which only fuels resentment that leads them to support anti-migrant policies.

There is a more progressive part of society that supports migrants’ rights and opposes these policies, but they don’t seem to have the same political visibility and influence to counter the more vocal anti-migrant voices.

How is German civil society responding and what challenges does it face?

PRO ASYL has co-initiated the Hand in Hand alliance, a broad civil society coalition campaigning against Germany’ shift to the right and standing up for policies based on human rights.

Civil society has been active in countering the effects of the tightening of immigration policies and supporting migrants and refugees on the ground. Let’s take the ‘Bezahlkarte’ (payment card) system as an example. Instead of giving asylum seekers their social welfare money in cash, the government introduced a prepaid card, with the questionable justification of preventing asylum applicants transferring some of the very little money back to their home countries. This feeds the false assumption that refugees in Germany have a lot of money at their disposal. This is certainly not the case; their social benefits are lower than everyone else’s and are around the subsistence level. The payment card is creating significant challenges for asylum applicants trying to pay bills or cover legal fees. In response, activists have set up exchanges where asylum applicants can exchange vouchers, bought for example in supermarkets with the payment card, for cash.

On a structural level, CSOs that support migrants and asylum seekers are fearing growing challenges, particularly in Germany’s eastern regions, where the far right has won a large share of the vote. They fear government funding for migrant support projects will be cut and they won’t be able to continue their vital work. In response, many are developing alternative funding sources, for example by increasing the call for donations and partnerships with other organisations. But of course, the possibilities and capacities to bridge a lack of governmental funding are limited.