This is the last chance to implement the EU Commission’s proposal for an asylum and migration package that has been on the table since 2020 in this legislative period. The Brussels timetable envisages an agreement in the Council of Member States by June, followed by negotiations with the EU Parliament and completion in the spring.
However, many EU Parliamentarians see Germany’s current initiative as a calculated move before next week’s refugee summit.
Calculated political Strategy
According to Green Party MEP Erik Marquardt, Faeser wants to send a message to the states and municipalities that everything is under control. However, there are hardly any more concrete plans beyond intentions, which is why the German government should first present in detail what they actually plan to do.
Current Plan Follows Brussels’ Proposals
What is known so far differs little from the EU Commission’s previous positions. It mainly concerns accelerated asylum procedures, which are supposed to be carried out on the EU’s external borders, and simplified deportations. Parliament and the Council of 27 EU member countries also agree that everyone arriving at the external borders should be registered, undergo medical examinations, and security checks.
After this screening, all arrivals from countries with a low recognition rate or from a safe third country undergo an expedited procedure. While Berlin wants this accelerated border procedure to apply only to persons coming from a country with a recognition rate of less than 15 percent, the EU Commission has proposed a limit of 20 percent.
Changes in Refugee Routes?
It is also unclear under what conditions families with children are exempt from the expedited procedures. These processes should take a maximum of twelve weeks, during which asylum seekers can also be housed under detention-like conditions. During this time, they are not legally considered to have entered.
An appeal against the rejection of an asylum application would also not have a suspensive effect. In the three-month accelerated process, the question arises whether the application is admissible and a regular asylum procedure begins or whether it is rejected, with a reason being that the person came from a third country, such as Turkey, where they were already safe.
Critics of the plans argue that this would water down existing rules and standards. It is also suspected that many migrants would try to circumvent border procedures on new routes in the future.
This desired agreement on a European asylum law is considered its abolition, not only by the EU MEP Cornelia Ernst of the Left Party.
Secondary Migration within EU
However, few of the proposals currently being debated in the EU are new. They have often failed in the past because countries of origin or so-called safe third countries refused to take their citizens back. At the same time, states under pressure at the EU’s external borders allowed asylum seekers to continue their movements within the EU as so-called secondary migration.
Therefore, first arrival countries are to be held more accountable. If an arriving person does not apply for asylum there and travels to another EU country on their own, that country now has twelve months to return them to the country of first arrival. Previously, this return had to happen within six months. If the person goes into hiding, there will be six months to return them after being spotted – even if the one-year deadline has already passed.
Should countries at the EU’s external borders be at the limit of their capacity, it is planned to significantly reduce the number of accelerated procedures. Refugees from countries with a recognition rate of five percent or higher would no longer go through the expedited procedures at the external borders. A significantly larger proportion of those arriving would then be distributed to other EU countries under a solidarity mechanism. However, it is still questionable whether the affected countries will accept such a vague formulation.
