[ad_1]
Objections to the EU Commission’s proposals on how to control migration to Europe come from both the right and the left. German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, on the other hand, is satisfied that the reform addresses a central issue.
Asylum seekers from the burning Greek refugee camp Moria. For many of them, Germany is a place of longing. Picture taken on September 9.
The call for a European solution has been the standard answer in Germany to many unanswered questions in asylum policy for years. However, EU countries fell desperately on the issue. On Wednesday, the EU Commission made a further attempt to go ahead with the faltering reform of asylum and migration policy. According to the Commission, asylum seekers should in future undergo an examination at the EU’s external border. Christian Social Interior Minister Horst Seehofer praised the Commission’s proposal. Effective protection of the external borders is a major concern for all Member States, as two thirds of asylum seekers arriving in Europe do not need protection. Seehofer described this as a “core problem”.
The SPD sees it differently. In a statement from his parliamentary group, it is said that care will be taken “that there are no preliminary examinations or border procedures in which people without a proper asylum procedure are turned away at the external borders.” Everyone has the right to an individual examination of their asylum application and should have access to legal advice. Similar tones came from the Left Party: deciding in rapid procedures at the external borders on the right to protection contradicts the principles of the asylum law, according to a statement by Ulla Jelpke, internal political spokesperson for the Left Group.
A mechanism for the next crisis
The leader of the Green Group, Katrin Göring-Eckardt, also criticized the Commission’s proposal. You miss solidarity with asylum seekers. These would have to be quickly distributed in Europe after registration. However, the Eastern European member states in particular are blocking this. Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz also believes that the distribution of asylum seekers in the EU has failed. Seehofer said Wednesday that Kurz’s attitude saddened him. In the event of a migration wave like the one in 2015, the EU Commission plans to use a crisis mechanism in the future. Federal states host migrants, including those with no prospect of protection, or create a certain number of rejected asylum seekers.
Linda Teuteberg, a migration policy spokeswoman for the FDP parliamentary group, criticized that it was not yet clear how to convince member states that refuse to accept asylum seekers. It is also unclear by what means the Commission wants to stop so-called secondary migration, in which asylum seekers continue to travel to a European country of their choice. As Germany currently holds the Presidency of the Council of the EU, the federal government must propose solutions.
The AfD rejects the plans completely
The internal policy spokesman for the CDU and CSU parliamentary group, Mathias Middelberg, said: “It cannot be that asylum seekers can choose the EU country where the application is made.” We must now carefully examine whether the reform proposals could lead to a fairer distribution of the burden.
The AfD completely rejects the Commission’s proposals. Party leader Jörg Meuthen described the commission’s approach as “suicidal.” Europe must not only be protected from illegal migration, but also “from the policies of this EU”. Alexander Gauland, head of the AfD parliamentary group in the Bundestag, said that the decision on the admission of asylum seekers should rest solely with the EU member states. “Any attempt to undermine the sovereignty of nation-states on this issue with tricks and pseudo-incentives is, therefore, doomed from the start.”
The head of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, described the plan on Wednesday as a “new beginning”. The reactions of German politicians, on the other hand, do not give the impression that the Commission’s proposals can bridge the well-known differences.
