"Skating on thin ice" – The conundrum facing German border guards due to Dobrindt's orders
Potential deadly consequences for border agents due to Dobrindt's strategies
By Sarah Platz
Informal, approachable, and straightforward style.
Sitting pretty on the edge of a legal chasm, over 17,000 law enforcement officials grapple with the quandary that arises from Minister of the Interior, Alexander Dobrindt'sOrder of the Day: keep out migrants without the right papers. The Berlin Administrative Court has ruled that such rejections flout EU law, setting the stage for minefield-level challenges for our border enforcers.
This sticky wicket for the Federal Police raises questions about adherence to the rule of law and takes a tantalizing dive down a rabbit hole that potentially bodes ill for these frontline heroes.
The main tango between Dobrindt's orders and migrants seeking asylum has played out like a clandestine fox-trot. Section 18 of the Asylum Act, according to Dobrindt's instructions, requires rejecting those who hail from nations deemed safe, like Poland, Austria, or France. But the higher authority, EU law, threatens to overpower our national asylum law. Politely put, Section 18 takes a backseat to the Dublin Regulations, according to consensus within the government.
Ah, but what a catchy little tune, huh?
Judges from Berlin couldn't buy this jive anymore than you could get a hog flying. The government leaned on Article 72 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, an escape hatch of sorts. The argument hinged on Germany experiencing an emergency due to the sheer number of asylum requests - 229,751 total last year. The European Court of Justice has nixed this argument repeatedly, as the numbers had dwindled before Dobrindt's dictum. This transpires as an elementary school math problem with dignity and respect at stake.
Flouting Judicial Orders – Well, Isn't That a Kicker?
"Saw it coming," posits Patrick Heinemann, in an interview with ntv.de, "But the government's reaction was a head-scratcher." Dobrindt huffed and puffed, swearing blind that they stick to the expulsions, citing Section 18 of the Asylum Act as their legal footing. Yup, those Berlin judges took personal issue with that. Their verdict on the unlawful nature of deportations had already arrived, cast-iron and indisputable.
Designating Dobrindt a champion of the loophole law, canine enthusiasm notwithstanding, seems a disservice to humanity's legal finesse. Administrative courts in Germany are the magistrates who lend a keen eye to the legality of the executive's actions, according to Heinemann, touching on the very core of our system of checks and balances.
Breaking down barriers, the decision in the Berlin case broadly impacts other asylum seekers, not just the trio of Somalis in question. The matter surfaced before the same judges, alleging "fundamental significance," and was passed to a panel of three justices for deliberation. Talk about showcasing the heavyweight importance of the topic!
Dancing Around the Elephant in the Room
Clarity, thou art a rare and precious commodity. Dobrindt emphasized the necessity of justifying the alleged emergency situation should the European Court dash into the fray on these expulsions. Wonderful! But the numbers Dobrindt and the lot presented are nationwide, and questions beg to be asked: Is there any secret fortune-teller in the shadows revealing future courtroom maneuvers or powwows at the EU level?
"A smoke screen," shouts Heinemann. The current nonsense at the borderline is, yeah, patently illegal. The court underlined this unambiguously – and Dobrindt and co haven't even taken a quick peek at that irrefutable evidence. Self-proclaimed titans of law-bending should slip on their dancing shoes and hasten the shimmy, lest they tangle with further judge-wielded Sabres, according to Heinemann.
This tug-o-war leaves our courageous border enforcers in an awful pickle, indeed. Save for the intervention of almighty Zeus, they seem to be pulling with all their might on one side of a rope, while the court weighs firmly on the other. "I see 'em scratchin' their heads, wonderin' if these orders steamroll right over our duty to uphold the law," readily admits Federal Police Ombudsman Uli Grötsch to the Rheinische Post.
"Compromising position" only skims the surface of their confounding situation, according to Andreas Roßkopf, the chairman of the Federal Police in the Police Trade Union, speaking to RTL. The prospect of entanglement in illegality leaves some at the brink of appealing for immunity from prosecution. Charming, ain't it?
Integration of Insights:
- German border officials bear full personal responsibility for adhering to the law, under the Federal Civil Service Act.
- Border guards could face personal legal liability if asylum seekers are prevented from crossing the border, which is likely coercion under German law.
- Personnel liability is not guaranteed for border guards who are acting under clear instructions, as asserted by Dobrindt.
- Border guards may remonstrate their concerns about illegal orders, first to their superior and then to the next-higher authority, to avoid personal responsibility in the case of rejections at the border.
- Juso Chairman Türmer demands Federal Chancellor's intervention due to ongoing rejections at the border, highlighting the potential damage to public trust and legal implications.
- The River of Rules deepens with every additional administrative court ruling deeming the border rejections illegal.
In the face of the Berlin Administrative Court's ruling against rejections of migrants without the right papers that allegedly contradicts EU law, the integration of insights pertains to the 17,000 law enforcement officials grappling with conflicting employment policies, such as the Community policy and the general-news-related politics surrounding the crime-and-justice issue of border control. The significant ruling highlights the necessity of adherence to the rule of law and potentially sets a dangerous precedent for these frontline employees, raising concerns about their employment policy and personal liability stemming from the conundrum posed by Dobrindt's orders.
