Border Controls and Asylum Seekers: The Debate Between Söder and Dobrindt
Overreliance Assertion: Dobrindt's Bold Statement
In the world of politics, two heavyweights, Markus Söder and Alexander Dobrindt, recently debated the issue of immigration policy, specifically the rejection of asylum seekers at Germany's borders. Let's dive into the controversy surrounding their stances.
Legal Implications of Border Rejections
In the legal arena, the matter is contentious. The Administrative Court in Berlin, on Monday, ruled in favor of three Somalis who were rejected at the border on May 9. The journalist and lawyer Melanie Amann from "Der Spiegel" explained this ruling on Tuesday evening in ZDF's "Markus Lanz." The decision is an individual one, and Dobrindt is legally allowed to continue rejecting asylum seekers at the border. However, the court's ruling also implied that the government's practices may be illegal due to lacking clear reasons or arguments.
Söder and Dobrindt’s Differences in View
While both Söder and Dobrindt argue for border rejections, they seem to have differing opinions on the existence of an emergency situation. Söder claims an emergency situation exists due to the high number of departures and Germany's integration deficit, while Dobrindt maintains that overload, not emergency, warrants border rejections.
Söder sees Germany as being subjected to threats to public order because other European countries fail to adhere to the law, and he believes that this justifies protecting Germany's borders. Amann, however, argues that every court would likely deem Söder's justification as senseless.
The Controversy Unfolds
The coalition is not entirely in agreement with Dobrindt's decisions, as Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig of the SPD critiques them. Yet, Dobrindt remains steadfast, aiming to change the EU rules. He fears that continued explanations of inability to apply rules and the polarization in society will lead to the populists winning and citizens feeling that politics can no longer make decisions.
The EU's Role and the Dublin Regulation
European law offers grounds for the rejection of asylum seekers at the border, but only in exceptional cases where there is a danger to public safety and order. The Dublin Regulation determines which EU member state is responsible for examining an asylum application, typically the first country where an asylum seeker enters the EU. Countries like Greece are implementing stricter policies, while others, like Germany, face legal challenges to their border control practices.
The Overload versus Emergency Dilemma
In the debate on immigration policy, understanding the nuances between overload and emergency can be crucial. Overload, despite overburdening national resources, may not justify declaring an emergency without specific conditions or threats to public order and national security. In the heated discussions between Söder and Dobrindt, it appears that both sides have compelling, yet potentially contradictory arguments. Ultimately, it is up to the public and the European Court of Justice to decide on the legitimacy of border rejections and their related justifications.
[1] Legal Grounds: https://burschenschaft-askania.de/2018/03/30/dublin-law-key-points/[2] Asylum Seekers’ Rights: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum/apply_for_asylum/asylum_procedures_applicants_rights_en[3] Greece's Strict Policies: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/02/greece-migrants-forced-to-sign-voluntary-departure-documents-that-aren-t-voluntary/[4] Deportation and Returns Challenges: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/11/european-leaders-undermining-right-to-asylum-by-ignoring-shipwreck-deaths-and-refusing-to-save-lives/[5] Temporary Protection Directive: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/asylum/family-reunification/temporary-protection_en
- In the heated debate between Söder and Dobrindt on immigration policy, their contrasting views on the existence of an emergency situation highlight the complexity of the issue, as Söder emphasizes the threat to public order due to non-adherence to law in other European countries, while Dobrindt contends that overload, not emergency, justifies border rejections.
- The controversy surrounding the employment and community policies of both Söder and Dobrindt extends beyond the borders of asylum seekers and border controls, raising doubts about the legitimacy and legal compliance of their policies in various domains, as shown by recent court rulings.
