Despite the judgement of the Berlin Administrative Court, which found illegal the return of asylum seekers without appropriate procedure, Home Secretary Alexander Dobrindt announced the continuation of this practice. In his opinion, the judgement concerns only a circumstantial case and does not undermine the general approach of the government to border controls.
Dobrindt stated that it was about 3 Somali citizens who tried to cross the border respective times from Poland, and only on the 3rd time did they invoke the right to asylum. The Minister considered this to be a adequate reason to proceed the policy to date and detailed justifications are to be provided in further judicial proceedings.
The minister's decision was met with harsh criticism from the Greens and the Left. Their representatives accuse the government of breaking the law and utilizing refugees for political purposes. In their view, the regulation of law cannot afford to ignore the rules simply to send a signal of force to voters. Greens emphasise that, in accordance with the EU Dublin Regulation, all asylum seeker in the territory Germany has the right to carry out the full procedure for determining the associate State liable and it is only then possible to take further decisions. In the judgement of the court, there is presently no legal basis for applying exceptions, as the government has not demonstrated a real threat to public security.
The CDU and CSU provided more balanced comments. Günter Krings, vice-president of the parliamentary club, considered the court's decision as the result of a preliminary procedure which is not precedent. He pointed out that many lawyers consider the government's actions to be legal and consistent with the intention of European law. In his opinion, there is no request to change the current practice until the final judgement is given in the main proceedings.
The German government's decision to proceed to bring asylum seekers back despite a court ruling is not just a dispute over the explanation of the rules – it is simply a clash of 2 approaches to the regulation of law and migration policy. On the 1 hand, we have a pragmatic approach to part of the political class, which sees in mass migration the hazard to social stability, public order and the efficiency of the welfare system. On the another hand, human rights defenders, NGOs and any political groups, who stress that even in hard times the principles of global and constitutional law must stay inviolable.
The problem is besides that German society is increasingly divided on migration. As the cost of housing, wellness care and integration of refugees increases, there are voices that the state is incapable to cope with the influx of thousands more. In many places there are no infrastructure, no teachers, no nursery and no schools. However, statistic show that any people who go to Germany do not meet the conditions for obtaining exile status, but inactive stay in the country for many years thanks to extended appeal procedures.
Supporters of a more restrictive policy point to the request for greater efficiency, including at borders. For them, Dobrindt's decision is an expression of work for the state and its citizens. They argue that if the strategy is to work, there must be a clear limit: who meets the conditions and has the right to apply for asylum and who is not – and who should be returned.
In turn, critics inform against the erosion of legal foundations. They indicate that the borders of the regulation of law begin where the government ceases to respect the judgments of the courts. Even if the ruling concerns 1 case, its ignoring may make a dangerous precedent. If the protection of Somali refugees is denied today, the rights of another groups – all in the name of "exceptional circumstances" can be disregarded tomorrow.
In the context of this debate there are besides relations in the European Union itself. Germany cannot unilaterally pronounce the provisions of the Dublin Agreement as they themselves request solidarity in the relocation of migrants. Any departure from common rules undermines the coherence of EU migration policy. Therefore, the way Berlin will resolve this dispute will substance not only to the 3 Somalis, but to the full European consequence to the exile crisis.
