"Our goal is clear and untested"
"Busting the Border: Rejecting Asylum Seekers - The Dubious Way?"
The fuss over asylum seekers at the borders continues, with Söder and Dobrindt advocating for their rejection on Sandra Maischberger on ARD and Markus Lanz on ZDF. But is it legal? Let's dive into the messy world of migration policy and uncover the truth.
By now, you probably know that the Administrative Court in Berlin ruled in favour of three Somalis who had appealed against their rejection at the border on May 9. Journalist and lawyer Melanie Amann from "Der Spiegel" clarified the situation on Tuesday evening: the decision is an individual one, yet it has legal arguments that suggest the government's practice might be against the law.
European law permits asylum seekers to be rejected at the border only in exceptional cases when there is a danger to public safety and order. The government is allegedly using this exception, but they're not providing reasons or arguments, notes Amann. Dobrindt is more concerned with symbolism than following the rule of law, she claims.
Some European countries are indeed violating the Dublin regulations, Amann admitted. The legal remedy against Dublin is now coming from Germany, and the court has confirmed it. The catch? They are challenging the Dublin regulations, not the general asylum laws.
So, Dobrindt must provide strong justifications for rejections at the border, but is Germany in a state of emergency? Dobrindt, it seems, is tight-lipped on this matter. Inresponse to the courts, Dobrindt claims they have a mandate to deliver justifications accurately.
Söder, on the other hand, insists there's room for maneuver and emphasizes the integration deficit in Germany leading to a danger to public order. But, that's not the problem. The real issue is the non-application of European law, Söder and Dobrindt argue.
It's a chicken-and-egg scenario—the number of migrants is decreasing, Söder claims, because the number of departures is at an all-time high. But, is this enough to declare an emergency?
In Bavaria, the number of asylum seekers has actually halved in the first half of the year, Söder boasts, but why is there no emergency when more asylum seekers were arriving? The answer remains uncertain.
")));
Enrichment Data:- The Berlin Administrative Court's ruling favours the protection of asylum seekers' rights.- The European Court of Human Rights and EU Charter of Fundamental Rights demand that exceptional measures, such as suspending asylum applications, can only be justified in extremely rare circumstances, typically involving a state of emergency, national security, or a threat to the public.- The German government's policy violates both German asylum law and EU legal frameworks, particularly the Dublin system, which requires a case-by-case examination of each asylum application.- Söder argues that Germany has an integration deficit, contributing to a danger to public order because European law is not being followed. He emphasizes the need to protect borders and is confident Germany will be given the right by the European Court of Justice.- Despite the court rulings, some European countries continue to violate the Dublin regulations, and this violation is now also coming from Germany.- The German courts have found the government's justifications for turning away asylum seekers at the border to be insufficient and incompatible with existing law and EU obligations. A formal state of emergency has not been declared, and the German policy is not considered an emergency by experts or the courts.
- The Berlin Administrative Court's ruling indicates a support for prioritizing the protection of asylum seekers' rights, contradicting the German government's policy, which is alleged to be against the law.
- Söder's argument of an integration deficit being a danger to public order may not be the real issue, as the root problem lies in the non-application of European law and the violation of both German asylum law and EU legal frameworks.
- Despite Söder's confidence that Germany will be given the right by the European Court of Justice to protect its borders, the courts have found the government's justifications for turning away asylum seekers at the border insufficient and incompatible with existing law and EU obligations.
