Slamming the Border Shut: A Showdown Between Söder, Dobrindt, and the Law
Over-reliance assertion by Dobrindt: A bold claim
On broadcasts from ARD and ZDF nights, Minister Alexander Dobrindt justifies his stance on border rejections of asylum seekers, all while Markus Söder lends a sympathetic hand. However, the question remains, is Dobrindt on the wrong side of the law in this migrant tug-of-war?
Legally, the matter isn't that simple. According to journalist and lawyer Melanie Amann from "Der Spiegel," who spoke on Markus Lanz on ZDF, it comes down to some confusing legal loopholes. "The government is using the exception, but it's not providing any reasons," she explains. "Dobrindt is just shouting 'asylum turnaround' to show off, while ignoring the legal grindle. Then, when lawyers step in and start pointing out some technicalities, they're met with complaints of being 'nitpickers.'"
European law does allow for rejection at the border, but only in cases where there's a substantial threat to public safety and order. The government, Amann argues, is failing to provide evidence that such a threat exists. If we dig a bit deeper, it seems Deutschland isn't exactly in an emergency situation, yet Dobrindt continues to enforce border rejections. This goes against the very principles he vowed to uphold.
But Söder sees things differently. He cites Bavaria's significant reduction in asylum seekers for the first half of 2021 as proof of an emergency. Yet, one can't help but wonder, if fewer asylum seekers are arriving, isn't the emergency abating? Söder seems to think not. "The real crisis," he insists, "is that not all European countries are sticking to the law. Germany is the one suffering because of this chaos."
Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig of the SPD criticizes Dobrindt's decisions but gets dismissed. Hubig questions Dobrindt's ability to legitimize overload without declaring an emergency. Dobrindt wants to change the broken European rules. "But if I keep explaining why it's impossible," he argues, "politics gets stuck, polarization continues, and the people lose faith."
While all this plays out, it's worth considering the legal grounds for rejecting asylum seekers at the border. European law supports two major concepts: the "Safe Country of Origin" and the "Safe Third Country."
- Safe Country of Origin (SCO): EU member states can utilize this concept to fast-track and potentially reject asylum applications from individuals originating from countries deemed ‘safe,’ meaning likely they won't experience persecution or harm.
- Safe Third Country (STC): Should the applicant potentially have received protection in another ‘safe' country during their journey to Europe, EU member states could reject their asylum claims.
Although applicable, EU nations must adhere to strict criteria when using these concepts to ensure upholding fundamental rights and legal safeguards. The question is, has the German government followed these guidelines while enforcing border rejections?
Only time will tell if Dobrindt's decisions are legally sound. As always, stay tuned for more updates from Berlin, the epicenter of Europe's migration policy firestorm.
- The government's decisions to reject asylum seekers at the border may be legally questionable, as journalist and lawyer Melanie Amann pointed out, arguing that the government is using the exception without providing reasons, which could potentially neglect the legal procedures.
- European law allows for border rejections in cases where there's a substantial threat to public safety and order, but it's unclear whether Germany is in such an emergency situation, especially with the significant reduction in asylum seekers.
- The Safe Country of Origin (SCO) and Safe Third Country (STC) concepts play a significant role in European law when it comes to asylum seekers, but the question remains, has the German government followed the strict criteria when using these concepts to ensure upholding fundamental rights and legal safeguards while enforcing border rejections?
