Recently, the German government issued new regulations to tighten entry procedures for individuals coming from Schengen Area countries. This measure is aimed at reducing the flow of irregular migrants and will be implemented at all German borders starting September 16, 2024, and will remain in effect for six months.
Context of the Decision:
This decision comes amid various developments that have prompted it, the most significant of which are outlined below:
Flows of Refugees and Migrants: Germany has experienced a substantial influx of migrants and refugees in recent years. A pivotal moment occurred in 2015 when then-Chancellor Angela Merkel announced the acceptance of nearly one million Syrian refugees under what was termed a “policy of open doors.” This policy continued and intensified with the reception of over a million Ukrainians in 2022, bringing the total number of migrants received by Germany that year to 1,462,000. These significant flows have raised concerns among conservative groups in Germany and have fueled discussions about the potential risks these refugee influxes pose to German identity. This narrative has been effectively exploited by far-right parties.
Accusations Against Refugees in Recent Violence Incidents: Various violent incidents resulting in casualties have heightened calls for measures that would appease conservative and disgruntled segments of society. These groups perceive these incidents as threats to security stemming from leniency towards migrants and the freedom of movement within Schengen Area countries. Notable incidents include:
- Solingen Attack: On August 24, 2024, an individual carried out a stabbing attack during a major celebration marking the city’s 650th anniversary, resulting in three deaths. It later emerged that the assailant was a Syrian man slated for deportation to Bulgaria, where he had sought asylum. The Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack.
- Munich Incident: On September 5, 2024, German security forces neutralized a person of Bosnian descent, holding Austrian citizenship, who was armed with a rifle and a knife near the Israeli consulate and the Nazi Documentation Center in Munich. Right-wing groups raised concerns about the ease with which this individual crossed from Austria into Germany under current Schengen regulations.
- Mannheim Incident: A man of Afghan nationality attacked and killed a police officer in Mannheim after his asylum request was denied, and authorities had failed to deport him. This incident led to accusations of negligence against German law enforcement agencies regarding deportations.
Results of Regional Elections: Recent regional election results in two states revealed significant victories for far-right parties, whose platforms are primarily based on rejecting migrants. The Alternative for Germany (AfD) party secured the first position in Thuringia and the second in Saxony. Additionally, the populist party “BSW,” which also opposes migrants, came third in both regions, while the Social Democratic Party (led by Chancellor Olaf Scholz) achieved modest results, ranging between 6% and 7%. These results have placed considerable pressure on the ruling party to improve its standing, especially in Eastern Germany, where there is strong support for extremist anti-immigration platforms.
Internal Pressures (Withdrawal of the Christian Democrats): Internal pressures on the governing coalition regarding immigration issues have intensified. The coalition held a series of internal discussions involving opposition parties and representatives from federal states. However, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), one of Germany’s largest parties, withdrew from these negotiations, stating that the talks had collapsed and that the coalition had failed to systematically carry out deportations as promised.
Similar Precedents:
In principle, the Schengen Agreement allows for freedom of movement among its signatory countries (25 out of 27 EU member states, plus four non-EU countries), ensuring there are no restrictions on this movement. However, the agreement does permit member states to implement temporary measures that limit movement if necessary to protect internal security. Traditionally, these measures have been invoked during major events, such as large sporting occasions, allowing security forces to manage incoming individuals until the event concludes. Consequently, several countries have used this exception, including:
Austria: Austria has taken measures to control the flow of individuals entering from Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and Hungary. The Austrian government justified these actions as necessary for protecting internal security from the impacts of the Ukrainian war, although many analysts suggest they were adopted under pressure from far-right parties to curb the movement of irregular migrants into Austria.
Denmark: Danish security forces have been conducting checks on land and sea crossings from Germany, citing security concerns arising from the war in Gaza and increased Russian espionage activities following the Ukrainian war.
France: French security forces have been conducting security checks on individuals arriving from the Schengen Area, claiming an increase in recent terrorist threats as justification.
Italy, Norway, Sweden, Slovenia, and Finland: These countries have also implemented border checks, citing concerns about potential terrorist activities, wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, Russian intelligence activities, and increasing flows of migration and organized crime in the Balkans.
Reactions:
Austria: The Austrian government expressed its opposition to Germany’s measures. The Austrian Interior Minister stated that Vienna was not prepared to accept any migrants turned away at the German border, emphasizing that “there is no room for maneuver on this issue.”
Poland: Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk rejected the German measures, arguing that they amounted to a widespread suspension of the Schengen Agreement. He noted that if Germany refused migrants at its border with Poland, Warsaw would have to address the situation. In a meeting with several ambassadors, he stated, “Such actions are unacceptable from a Polish perspective.”
European Commission: The European Commission confirmed that member states are allowed to implement such measures in response to a “dangerous threat,” but emphasized that the measures must be “necessary and proportionate” and should remain “entirely exceptional.”
Potential Outcomes:
In light of the points presented, several conclusions can be drawn:
The first concern is the domino effect. The seriousness of the German measures lies in Germany’s position as a leading country in the European Union (EU) and its previous role as one of the most supportive nations for welcoming migrants. Therefore, the adoption of such measures by Germany would likely signal a green light for other EU countries to implement more restrictive policies regarding migrant flows. This, in turn, would give further momentum to the immigration issue, inevitably leading to greater gains for the far-right political factions.
Next is the subdued response from the European Commission. Despite the German decision posing significant risks to fundamental principles of the EU, particularly the freedom of movement, and its amplified impact due to its origin from the largest member state, the European Commission’s reaction has been notably calm. This can be attributed to several reasons, primarily:
The Commission’s understanding of the pressures faced by centrist parties domestically due to the rise of far-right movements exploiting the immigration issue. Consequently, the cost-benefit analysis for the Commission reveals that accepting temporary measures to restrict migrant freedom of movement, which could relatively improve the standing of centrist parties, is far preferable to allowing the far-right to gain additional popularity and expedite its rise to power, thus necessitating future engagement and confrontation with it over the coming years.
The relative weight of Germany within the EU, which is influenced by several factors. First, Germany is the largest country in terms of population, granting it a significant voting weight in decisions requiring a double majority (which necessitates the approval of 55% of member states along with 65% of the population). Second, Germany’s substantial financial contribution to the EU budget—approximately €33 billion in 2021—positions it as the leading contributor. Third, Germany’s prominent presence within various EU institutions, particularly the European Commission, which is led by Ursula von der Leyen, a German national, enhances its influence.
The continuity of the Schengen Agreement is another crucial point. The German political and economic elite are well aware of the importance of maintaining Schengen rules. Therefore, any discussions about a potential German retreat from these commitments in the future appear unrealistic unless the far-right manages to gain power. This consideration stems from the substantial financial costs that EU countries would incur if they reverted to pre-Schengen national border closure measures, estimated by some reports to be around €470 billion over a decade.
Questions also arise regarding the effectiveness of these measures in curbing migrant flows. Strict enforcement would necessitate increased financial and human resources to effectively control borders, implying a complete halt to Schengen operations. Additionally, a lack of cooperation from Germany’s neighboring countries would pose a significant challenge to the success of these measures.
The political gains from these actions appear to be limited. The governing coalition aims to compete with the far-right on immigration rhetoric to secure some political advantages in the German public sphere. However, experience shows that the core far-right electorate remains loyal to their original cause, and other anti-immigration groups prefer a more decisive and authentic rhetoric over a centrist approach that attempts to mimic original stances. Moreover, the experience in France during François Hollande’s presidency demonstrates that centrist parties adopting restrictive immigration rhetoric may lose some of their original popular support without successfully attracting anti-immigration factions, which typically favor the more authentic far-right discourse.
Lastly, the contradiction between restrictive immigration policies and the need for labor raises significant issues, particularly regarding demographic shifts in Europe, and specifically in Germany. The country faces an aging population alongside a decreasing workforce required to meet market demands. Estimates indicate that there are approximately 700,000 unfilled job vacancies in the German market. Simultaneously, pressure from the far-right limits the recruitment of migrants who could fill these roles.
