The European Union has been struggling to reform the asylum system for years. Few topics have recently been discussed as hotly as migration. Now there is a breakthrough.
After a long struggle, the EU states and the European Parliament have agreed on a reform of the common European asylum system. It provides for a significant tightening of the rules for asylum procedures. Details of the agreement and what it means for Germany – the most important questions and answers:
Why is a reform of the asylum system needed?
Recently, the number of arriving refugees has risen sharply again. More than 800,000 asylum applications had been made in the European Union as well as Norway and Switzerland this year by the beginning of October. Compared to the same period last year, this is the highest figure since 2016. In Germany this year, more than 304,000 people had already applied for asylum for the first time by the end of November, more than twice as many as in the same period last year.
Intensive work has been underway on the reform since around 2016. In 2015 and 2016, countries like Greece were overwhelmed by the arrival of more and more people from Syria, for example. Hundreds of thousands were able to move on to other EU countries without being registered.
That shouldn’t have happened because, according to the so-called Dublin Regulation, asylum seekers should be registered where they first entered the European Union. As a rule, the asylum application should then also be processed there. This system is now being reformed. The aim is to limit irregular migration and better protect the external borders.
What should happen now at the external borders?
The reform provides for uniform border procedures at the external borders. In particular, there are plans to deal much more harshly with people from countries that are considered relatively safe. Until a decision on the asylum application is made, people should be able to be accommodated in detention camps under prison-like conditions for up to twelve weeks.
People who come from a country with a recognition rate of less than 20 percent and those who are considered a threat to public safety will in future have to go through such a border procedure. According to the project, arriving people can be registered with fingerprints and photos, also to check whether they pose a threat to public safety.
If there is a particularly strong increase in migration, the standard asylum procedures could be deviated from using the so-called crisis regulation. For example, the period during which people can be held in prison-like conditions can be extended. In addition, the circle of those eligible for the planned strict border procedures could be expanded. This would then apply to people from countries of origin with a recognition rate of a maximum of 50 percent.
What about rejected asylum seekers?
Rejected asylum seekers should be able to be deported to safe third countries more easily. With the agreement, more third countries can now be classified as safe, and even partial areas of states can be considered safe in the future. National assessments can also be the basis for this. If a third country is recognized as safe, people from countries with a high recognition rate – these are currently Syrians and Afghans – should also be able to be referred there.
How are the refugees distributed?
This question has been the eternal bone of contention between EU countries in recent years. According to the plans, the distribution will now be regulated using a “solidarity mechanism”: If member states do not want to accept refugees, they must provide other support, for example in the form of cash payments. Countries like Hungary reject a duty of solidarity. However, the EU states were able to agree on a common position in June even without Hungary’s consent.
The decision as to which EU state is responsible for carrying out the respective asylum procedure should be made more quickly than before using simplified rules. However, the principle of responsibility of the first EU state into which an asylum seeker has entered still applies. Family ties and whether someone has acquired an educational qualification in an EU country are also taken into account.
How did the agreement come about after years of stalemate?
First, the majority of EU states are determined to prevent Russian President Vladimir Putin from continuing to benefit from the European Union’s disagreement on migration issues. He is suspected of being the mastermind behind some migration routes that have been newly established in the past two years, for example via Belarus. His goal – at least that’s what people in Brussels believe – is to destabilize the EU. Secondly, many of the politicians who were recently involved in the negotiations want to slow down the rise of right-wing populist parties that take a strict stance against immigration. This also applies to representatives of the federal government such as Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) or Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock (Greens).
What does that mean for Germany now?
The situation in Germany will not change in the short term. It will be years before the now politically agreed regulations are put into practice. Nevertheless, in the long term there could be a decline in the number of people crossing German borders without a visa – because some of those seeking protection are sent back directly from the external borders and the stricter rules have a deterrent effect.
In addition to the negotiators, the CDU and CSU as well as states and municipalities are hoping for this. The latter sometimes feel overwhelmed by the high number of asylum seekers and Ukrainian refugees that they have to accommodate and care for. If the number of unauthorized entries falls significantly in the medium term, it can be expected that the federal police’s internal border controls introduced in mid-October will end at the German borders with Poland, the Czech Republic and Switzerland.
Does this end the dispute over migration policy in Germany?
No. Within the traffic lights, people have now moved closer together on this topic. And parallel to the agreement in Brussels, some points of contention between the FDP and the Greens regarding naturalization and deportation practices were also resolved in Berlin on Wednesday. But the opposition remains critical. The AfD does not consider the stricter rules to be sufficient.
Union politicians express satisfaction with the agreement. However, they are still criticizing Interior Minister Faeser, who has been significantly involved in the negotiations over the past two years. “European asylum policy is taking a step forward not because of, but despite the federal government,” says the deputy chairwoman of the Union parliamentary group, Andrea Lindholz (CSU). Fortunately, Faeser was apparently unable to prevail in Brussels with her demands for a “softening of the border procedure”.
Politicians on the left are simply horrified. Your domestic politician Clara Bünger sees the agreement as an “expression of the societal shift to the right that the federal government is fueling with its anti-asylum rhetoric and policies.” There is also disbelief among the private sea rescue associations. “It will be possible to detain people at the border simply because they are seeking protection in Europe, even families with children,” says Sea-Eye’s Gorden Isler. After this turning point in European asylum policy, future generations will have to “fight for the universal validity of human rights as an achievement of civilization.”
What’s next?
The agreement still has to be confirmed by the plenary session of the European Parliament and the EU states. This is normally a formality and should happen before the European elections in June next year. The member states have reportedly agreed on a two-year implementation period. This should give the states at the external borders enough time to create appropriate facilities to accommodate people from states with a recognition rate of less than 20 percent.
Source: Stern
I have been working in the news industry for over 6 years, first as a reporter and now as an editor. I have covered politics extensively, and my work has appeared in major newspapers and online news outlets around the world. In addition to my writing, I also contribute regularly to 24 Hours World.
