Border Control Battles: "Will Dobrindt's Struggle With Asylum Seekers Unravel Faster Than Expected?"
"Increased pressure on Dobrindt could potentially accelerate more swiftly than initially anticipated"
Get social with us! Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Email Print Copy Link
With a recent Berlin court decision favoring three Somalian asylum seekers, migration expert Raphael Bossong predicts a possible escalation in the government's migration policy.
If more courts side with Berlin like this one did, "the federal government may find it increasingly difficult to maintain its stance on expulsions," says Bossong in an interview with ntv.de. The Berlin court ruled against the expulsion of the three Somalian asylum seekers, a blow for Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt who had also ordered the expulsion of other asylum seekers.
An Unforeseen Ruling?
Though predictable, the clarity with which the court rebuked the government's argument left Bossong surprised.
Dobrindt, facing criticism, believes the government will "imminently" win in the main proceedings. However, the interim decision opens up another possible defeat, as the court asserts that the expulsion of the Somalian claimants will "likely" prove unlawful in the main proceedings.
Bossong sees two possible explanations for Dobrindt's stance - racket for time, or faith in the legal system.
A Ticking Clock vs. Belief in Law
The federal government may be strategizing, waiting for a legal dispute to reach the European Court of Justice (ECJ), all while pushing for political changes. But this tactic is questionable since it relies on a long-drawn-out legal process with uncertain outcomes.
Dobrindt's other option is to trust the legal system, relying on lawyers who deem expulsions justified. However, this belief has weakened substantially due to the Berlin court's ruling.
Estimated Time Frame
The duration of a legal case depends on several factors, including the ECJ's willingness to intervene. If they do, it may take up to two years to reach a resolution.
Article 72: A Shaky Legal Basis?
Dobrindt often encounters resistance when attempting to expand expulsions, since these expulsions violate the Dublin Regulation, an EU rule preventing asylum seekers from entering one country without proper examination by the state responsible for their case. However, Article 72, which allows EU states to deviate from European law in exceptional cases, has served as Dobrindt's go-to argument.
But the ECJ has previously clarified that Article 72 is not an open license for member states to flout European law, and the Berlin court's verdict reinforces this stance. As a result, Article 72's credibility as a legitimate legal basis is under pressure.
Moving Forward
If more courts follow the Berlin court's lead, the pressure on Dobrindt and the federal government will intensify, making the maintenance of their expulsion policy increasingly difficult.
The leeway granted to national governments for implementing strict migration policies is affected by EU law, court rulings, and international human rights standards. Thus, as long as governments prioritize adhering to these regulations, stricter policies become harder to enforce without risking legal and moral repercussions.
Like many unpredictable battles, the migration debate continues to unfold, leaving us in suspense.
Sources:- ntv.de
Topics: - Asylum seekers and immigration - Government policies - Judicial decisions - Alexander Dobrindt - Border controls - Interviews
- The Berlin court's decision favoring three Somalian asylum seekers could lead to a challenging situation for the federal government's migration policy, as other courts may follow suit, making it progressively difficult to maintain the stance on expulsions.
- The clarity exhibited by the Berlin court in rebuking the government's argument left the migration expert Raphael Bossong surprised, as he sees two possible explanations for Alexandra Dobrindt's insistence on pursuing the expulsion policy - racking up time or having faith in the legal system.
- If the European Court of Justice (ECJ) decides to intervene in a legal case, it could take up to two years to reach a resolution, which might question the government's strategy of waiting for a legal dispute to reach the ECJ while pushing for political changes.
- The Berlin court's verdict reinforces the stance that Article 72 is not an open license for member states to disregard European law, weakening its credibility as a legitimate legal basis for Dobrindt's expulsion policy.
- The strain on Dobrindt and the federal government to maintain their expulsion policy will intensify if more courts follow the Berlin court's lead, as government policies must adhere to EU law, court rulings, and international human rights standards to avoid legal and moral repercussions.
