The German government recently implemented new regulations to strengthen border control with other Schengen Area member states across all German borders. These measures, which came into effect on September 16, 2024, are aimed at curbing the influx of irregular migrants and are set to last for six months.
Context of the Decision
This decision stems from several significant developments, most notably:
1. Influx of refugees and migrants:
Germany has experienced a substantial influx of migrants and refugees in recent years. This trend began with German Chancellor Angela Merkel's 2015 "open-door policy," which welcomed nearly a million Syrian refugees. The policy was further extended in 2022 when Germany received over a million Ukrainians, bringing the total number of migrants that year to 1,462,000. These large-scale arrivals have sparked anger among conservative groups in Germany and fueled "identity politics," raising concerns about the perceived threat to German identity. Consequently, far-right parties have adeptly capitalized on these sentiments.
2. Anti-refugee sentiments following violent attacks:
A series of violent incidents resulting in casualties has provided a strong impetus for measures to appease conservative and angry segments of the population. These groups view these incidents as a breach of security, attributing them to lax immigration policies and freedom of movement within the Schengen Area. Notable incidents include:
a. Solingen attack: On August 24, 2024, during a large-scale celebration marking the city's 650th anniversary, a Syrian individual who was supposed to be deported to Bulgaria carried out a stabbing attack, resulting in three deaths. The Islamic State later claimed responsibility for the attack.
b. Munich incident: On September 5, 2024, German security forces apprehended a person of Bosnian origin with Austrian citizenship near the Israeli consulate and the Nazi Documentation Center in Munich. The individual was carrying a rifle and a knife, prompting right-wing groups to raise concerns about the ease of travel between Schengen Area countries.
c. Mannheim incident: An Afghan man, whose refugee application had been rejected and who was awaiting deportation, attacked and killed a police officer in Mannheim. This tragic incident led to accusations of laxity against German law enforcement due to their failure to carry out the deportation.
3. Results of regional elections:
Recent regional elections in two states revealed significant gains for far-right parties whose platforms primarily oppose immigration. The "Alternative for Germany" party secured first place in Thuringia and second place in Saxony, while the populist anti-immigration party "BSW" came in third in both states. In contrast, the Social Democratic Party led by Chancellor Olaf Scholz achieved weak results, ranging between 6% and 7% in both states. These outcomes have put considerable pressure on the ruling party to improve its standing, especially in eastern Germany, where there is strong support for far-right, anti-immigration platforms.
4. Internal pressures (withdrawal of the Christian democrats):
The issue of immigration has intensified internal pressures within the German governing coalition. Despite the coalition's efforts to address the situation through internal talks on migration, which involved opposition parties and representatives from the federal states, progress has been hindered by political disagreements. Notably, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), one of Germany's largest parties, withdrew from these discussions. The CDU cited the talks' failure and the governing coalition's inability to fulfill its promises regarding systematic deportations as reasons for their withdrawal. This development has further complicated the political landscape surrounding immigration policy, highlighting the deep divisions and challenges facing the German government in addressing this contentious issue.
Similar Precedents
The Schengen Agreement establishes rules for the free movement of people among its signatory states, encompassing 25 out of 27 EU member states and four non-EU countries. While this agreement ensures unrestricted movement within the Schengen Area, it also provides flexibility for member states to implement temporary measures limiting movement when necessary to safeguard internal security. This provision has gained particular significance during major events, such as large-scale sporting competitions. In these instances, security forces require tighter control over the influx of people for the duration of the event.
Several countries have invoked this exception, implementing various measures to restrict movement:
1. Austria has introduced controls on people entering from Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and Hungary. While the Austrian government justified these measures as a response to security concerns stemming from the Ukrainian war, many analysts suggest they were adopted under pressure from far-right parties to curb irregular migration into Austria.
2. Denmark conducts inspections at land and sea crossings from Germany, citing security concerns related to the war in Gaza and increased Russian espionage activities following the Ukrainian conflict.
3. France performs security checks on arrivals from the Schengen Area, pointing to a recent surge in terrorist threats.
4. Italy, Norway, Sweden, Slovenia, and Finland have also implemented border inspections. These countries cite various reasons for their actions, including potential terrorist activities, the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, Russian intelligence operations, and the rise in migration flows and organized crime in the Balkans.
Reactions
1. Austria:
The Austrian government has firmly rejected Germany’s measures. Vienna's stance was unequivocal, with the Austrian Interior Minister declaring that Austria is not prepared to receive any migrants returned at the border with Germany. He emphasized the rigidity of their position, stating, "there is no room for maneuver in this matter."
2. Poland:
Similarly, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk strongly opposed the German measures. He argued that these actions effectively amount to a large-scale suspension of the Schengen Agreement. Tusk highlighted the potential consequences for Poland, asserting that if Germany rejects migrants at its border with Poland, Warsaw will be forced to address the situation. During a meeting with several ambassadors, the Prime Minister underscored Poland's position, declaring that "such actions are unacceptable from the Polish point of view."
3. European Commission:
While acknowledging the right of member states to implement such measures in response to "serious threats," the European Commission provided a more nuanced perspective. The Commission stipulated that any such actions must be "necessary and proportionate." Furthermore, they emphasized that these measures should "remain strictly exceptional."
Potential Outcomes
Based on the above developments, several key points can be noted:
1. Domino effect:
Germany's restrictive measures pose a significant danger due to its leading role in the European Union and historically open and supportive stance towards migrants. By adopting these policies, Germany may inadvertently signal to other EU countries that similar measures are acceptable. This could trigger a cascade effect, giving the migration issue greater public momentum and potentially resulting in further gains for far-right political parties.
2. A composed response from the Commission:
Despite the German decision’s potential threat to one of the EU's most important foundations—freedom of movement—and its possible multi-pronged impact due to Germany's status as the largest EU country, the European Commission's response has been calm. This measured reaction stems from several factors, most importantly:
a. The Commission understands the nature of the internal pressures faced by centrist parties due to the rise of the far-right and its exploitation of the migration issue. Their cost-benefit calculation suggests that accepting temporary measures restricting migrants' freedom of movement, which could relatively improve centrist parties' positions, is far preferable to allowing the far-right to gain more popularity. The alternative could accelerate the far-right's rise to power, forcing the Commission to confront it for years to come.
b. Germany's relative weight within the European Union is influenced by several key factors. As the largest population on the continent, Germany wields the greatest voting power on issues decided by qualified majority, which requires approval from 55% of countries and 65% of the population. The nation's financial contribution to the EU budget is substantial, ranking first with a contribution of approximately 33 billion euros in 2021. Furthermore, Germany maintains a strong presence in various EU institutions, most notably exemplified by the European Commission, which is currently headed by Ursula von der Leyen, a German national. These elements collectively contribute to Germany's significant influence and importance within the European Union framework.
3. The continuity of the Schengen:
The German political and economic elite are well aware of the importance of preserving the Schengen rules. Therefore, talk of a future retreat from Germany's commitment to these rules may be far from reality—unless the far-right manages to come to power. This is due to the enormous financial cost that all EU countries would incur if they returned to national border closure procedures, estimated at 470 billion euros over a decade.
4. Limits of effectiveness:
Questions arise about the effectiveness of these measures in limiting the flow of migrants. Rigorous implementation requires more financial and human resources to tighten border control, which implicitly means completely halting Schengen operations. Moreover, the lack of cooperation from Germany's neighboring countries will pose a major challenge to the success of these measures.
5. Limited political gains:
The governing coalition aims to compete with the far-right's migration discourse through these measures in hopes of securing the German public’s approval. However, experience has shown that the solid far-right bloc remains loyal, and other groups opposed to immigration prefer decisive discourse to moderate attempts at matching it. The French experience under François Hollande has demonstrated that adopting restrictive immigration policies causes centrist parties to lose some of their original popular base without attracting immigration opponents, who usually prefer the original far-right rhetoric.
6. The need for labor:
These measures raise numerous issues, chief among them the demographic changes in Europe, particularly in Germany. The country suffers from a high aging rate and a shortage of workforce needed to meet market demands. Estimates indicate about 700,000 unfilled job opportunities in the German market. Simultaneously, far-right pressures limit the recruitment of migrants who could potentially fill these positions, creating a paradoxical situation where restrictive policies conflict with economic necessities.
