Germany Pushes Tougher Asylum Law

Federal Government Proposes Expanded Authority Over Asylum Rules

Germany’s federal cabinet has approved a draft law that would significantly change how the country handles asylum cases. The proposal, spearheaded by Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt, seeks to grant the federal government the power to unilaterally classify certain countries as “safe countries of origin”—without requiring consent from the Bundesrat, the legislative body representing the federal states.

This shift is part of a larger strategy aimed at streamlining asylum procedures and enabling faster deportations. The measure specifically targets countries like Algeria, India, Morocco, and Tunisia for reclassification. The proposed law also includes the cancellation of mandatory legal representation in deportation detention cases, a right only introduced last year under the previous government.

Critics from various corners, including legal associations and political opposition, have raised alarms. Legal experts argue that bypassing constitutional checks and relying solely on EU law could complicate judicial processes instead of speeding them up. Refugee advocacy groups such as Pro Asyl called the move legally questionable and fundamentally undemocratic, warning it could strip vulnerable individuals of their right to protection.

Constitutional Principles Under Scrutiny

The German constitution currently requires Bundesrat involvement when determining which countries are considered safe for asylum decisions. The government now cites an EU directive that allows member states to define such classifications through simple ordinances. If passed, the law would effectively sideline the federal states in one of the most sensitive areas of migration policy.

Green Party lawmakers have reacted sharply. Filiz Polat, a prominent voice on migration policy, accused the government of undermining core democratic values. According to her, classifying countries as “safe” is not an administrative procedure, but a serious legal determination that directly affects people’s access to asylum and must not be handled unilaterally.

The SPD, one of the ruling coalition parties, defended the reform as necessary to overcome legislative deadlocks in the Bundesrat. Dirk Wiese, parliamentary secretary of the SPD, said the proposal was a response to repeated resistance from opposition parties, particularly the Greens.

Church Asylum Cases Rise in Response to Deportation Threats

Parallel to the federal initiative, an increasing number of asylum seekers in Germany are turning to churches for sanctuary. Known as “church asylum,” this practice provides temporary protection from deportation. Most of these cases involve “Dublin cases”—individuals who have already applied for asylum in another EU country and are therefore subject to transfer under EU law.

The rise in church asylum cases suggests that many asylum seekers fear the consequences of being sent back to countries they passed through or originated from, which may now be designated as “safe” under the new proposal. Churches, though lacking formal legal authority to block deportations, serve as last-resort shelters, often sparking complex legal and ethical debates.

Growing Divide in Migration Policy Debates

Beyond Germany, the migration debate is unfolding across Europe in more aggressive terms. Albanian philosopher and political scientist Lea Ypi strongly criticized her home country’s cooperation with Italy in building detention centers for migrants. In her view, these facilities are prisons for people who have committed no crime beyond fleeing conflict or economic collapse.

Ypi called the initiative a product of political opportunism and neocolonial ambition, designed to present Albania as a “developed” EU candidate willing to host migrants. She emphasized that such measures mask deeper issues, such as the mass emigration of Albanian youth and the state’s failure to offer real economic prospects.

She also warned that the increasing reliance on detention and deportation to manage migration reflects a broader political failure. According to Ypi, deportation has become a tool to discipline populations and redefine citizenship as a privilege rather than a right. She called out governments, including progressive ones, for adopting the rhetoric of the far-right, hoping to reclaim public consensus through harsh immigration policies—a tactic she described as fundamentally flawed.

A Dangerous Political Illusion

Ypi argues that the idea of restoring societal cohesion through stricter immigration controls is a dangerous illusion. In her view, this strategy only reinforces the influence of right-wing parties that have long dominated the conversation around identity, borders, and belonging. The real conflict, she believes, lies not between migrants and citizens, but between those who hold economic power and those excluded from it.

Her criticism extends to European center-left parties, including the UK Labour Party under Prime Minister Starmer, which she accuses of mimicking conservative policies rather than offering meaningful alternatives. She sees this trend as a betrayal of postwar ideals of international cooperation, social justice, and inclusive citizenship.

Ypi calls for a return to class solidarity as a political framework that can unite both migrants and native workers in a common struggle against systemic inequality. She warns that failing to address the economic roots of exclusion only fuels the rise of identity-based politics, which ultimately weakens democracy.

Political Momentum vs. Legal Safeguards

The German government’s current strategy seeks to regain control over migration policy by accelerating deportations and curbing legal protections. But the move is encountering serious resistance from both civil society and within parts of the governing coalition. It also touches on larger debates about the role of the state, the limits of executive power, and the responsibilities of countries that benefit from global economic systems that often contribute to the very displacement they now seek to contain.

At the heart of the controversy is a fundamental question: Should the efficiency of migration control come at the cost of legal oversight and human rights guarantees? For many observers, the current approach suggests a drift away from inclusive governance and toward a model that prizes exclusion as a sign of political strength.

As the legislation moves forward through the Bundestag and Bundesrat, Germany finds itself once again at the crossroads of legal integrity, political expediency, and international responsibility.