Migration: After the EU asylum compromise: Greens face heated debates

Migration: After the EU asylum compromise: Greens face heated debates

In their year and a half in government, the Greens have already made a number of compromises. Now, with the tightening of the EU asylum rules, there is another one. The toad belches some badly.

After the federal government’s approval of the planned tightening of European asylum rules, heated discussions are emerging among the Greens. No sooner had the EU interior ministers sealed the unification of their states in Luxembourg with applause than the dual leadership of the Green party and parliamentary group spoke up, each with two different assessments.

After the Greens, as part of the traffic light government with SPD and FDP, approved the difficult European compromise, some of the management staff publicly distanced themselves from it – a remarkable process.

what was decided

The asylum procedures in the EU are to be significantly tightened in view of the problems with illegal migration. A sufficiently large majority of ministers in Luxembourg voted in favor of comprehensive reform plans. In particular, a much tougher treatment of migrants with no prospects of staying is planned. In the future, people arriving from countries that are considered safe should come to strictly controlled reception facilities under conditions similar to detention after crossing the border. There, it would normally be checked within twelve weeks whether the applicant has a chance of asylum. If not, it should be sent back immediately.

In the negotiations, the federal government had emphatically advocated that families with children be exempted from the so-called border procedures. Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck (both Green) also spoke in this spirit. In order to make the breakthrough possible, however, they ultimately had to accept that this could be possible.

After the decision, however, Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) said that the federal government would continue to work with Portugal, Ireland and Luxembourg for exceptions. It is also conceivable that the EU Parliament will push through changes. It has a say in the reform and will negotiate the project with representatives of the EU states in the coming months.

Solidarity with burdened Member States

In addition to the tightened asylum procedures, the plans decided yesterday also provide for more solidarity with the heavily burdened member states at the EU’s external borders. In the future, it should no longer be voluntary, but mandatory. Countries that do not want to take in refugees would be forced to pay compensation. Countries like Hungary therefore voted against the plan.

According to the Commissioner responsible, Ylva Johansson, rejected asylum seekers can in principle also be deported to non-EU countries in the future. The only requirement should be that they have a connection to this country. What this should look like should be at the discretion of the EU member states that are responsible for the respective asylum procedure.

The federal government had actually advocated not recognizing a pure transit stay in a third country as a connection, but only, for example, family members living in the country. However, this demand had to be dropped in the course of the negotiations in order to make it possible to agree on the plans for the asylum reform.

The polyphonic Greens

After the obviously painful decision, leading Greens tried to communicate together, albeit not uniformly. Co-leader Omid Nouripour spoke up with a series of tweets in which he weighed up the pros and cons, with the result: “Overall, I come to the conclusion that today’s approval is a necessary step to move in moving forward together in Europe.”

Fellow party leader Ricarda Lang expressed similar differences, but with the result that “Germany should not have agreed to the proposal for the CEAS reform in the council today.” GEAS stands for Common European Asylum System. The faction leaders Britta Haßelmann (for) and Katharina Dröge (against) thought the same.

Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock and Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck defended the compromise, citing the need for agreement in Europe. “I have great respect for those who come to other ratings for humanitarian reasons,” Habeck told the German Press Agency. “I hope they also see that there are reasons to recognize this result.” A hope that not only he expressed that evening. In the first few statements, approval came from representatives of the Realo wing, rejection from the left-wing Greens.

Baerbock, while traveling in Colombia, spontaneously canceled part of her visit program in order to promote the compromise in a series of video broadcasts to her party and the Green Group. The fast switch always follows controversial decisions in the Greens.

The leadership duo of the youth organization Green Youth, Timon Dzienus and Sarah-Lee Heinrich, said they were downright shocked. Dzienus wrote about the compromise on Twitter: “This is inhumane and I will not accept it like this”. Heinrich wrote: “I’m stunned. Foreclosure doesn’t mean that fewer people flee. It means that more people suffer.” Hundreds of Greens had recently warned of the asylum plans in a letter to top representatives of their party.

FDP Minister of Justice Marco Buschmann, on the other hand, spoke on Twitter of a “historic breakthrough” and hoped that German municipalities would also be relieved.

Source: Stern

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Posts