Migration policy on ARD and ZDF: "You won't get away with it"

Asylum seekers should continue to be turned back at the borders. This is what Söder and Dobrindt demanded on Tuesday evening in a speech to Sandra Maischberger on ARD and Markus Lanz on ZDF. According to one expert, this would require an emergency. The two CSU members apparently disagree on whether such an emergency exists.

Legally, the matter is clear. On Monday, the administrative court in Berlin ruled in favor of three Somalis who had filed a lawsuit against their rejection at the border on May 9. Melanie Amann from "Spiegel" is a lawyer. She explained the matter on Tuesday evening on Markus Lanz's ZDF television program as follows: The decision was an individual decision, which is why Federal Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt is right to continue rejecting asylum seekers at the border. "But this emergency ruling contains legal arguments. And these legal arguments are so general that it can be deduced from them: This practice is illegal."

European law allows asylum seekers to be turned back at the border, Amann said. "But only in exceptional cases where there is a threat to public safety and order. What the government has done so far is say: We are making this exception, but it has provided no reasons or arguments. It hasn't explained why it is doing this legally."

Amann sharply criticizes Dobrindt's decision. "It doesn't matter to Dobrindt that he doesn't provide these reasons, that he says they're going ahead because it's about having this symbolism: We're rejecting people, look, we're bringing about a turnaround on asylum. And all those who now somehow come up with the law are the nitpickers, the nitpickers who then point to certain paragraphs. Everyone can see that the system isn't working; the mood in the country says: These lawyers should stop with this nonsense."

The motto is: No one's complying, so we won't either. "And in this climate, a Minister of the Interior can of course afford to act in this way." European countries are partially violating the Dublin Laws, Amann admits. "The violation of Dublin Law now also originates in Germany, and the court has established this," she summarizes the decision of the Administrative Court in Berlin.

Dobrindt: Overwhelmed, but not an emergency

On Tuesday evening, two CSU grandees will be guests on two talk shows. Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt will explain his decision to Sandra Maischberger on ARD, and Markus Söder could help him with this on Markus Lanz on ZDF. However, the two don't seem to be entirely on the same page.

Let's start with the similarities. "We've looked at the court ruling. It's not conclusive," says Markus Söder, a man considered a law-and-order figure. Dobrindt is acting accordingly, continuing to turn back asylum seekers at the borders. However, according to European law, he is only allowed to do this if he can declare that Germany is in an emergency. But Germany is not in an emergency, Dobrindt had said just a few weeks ago. He had just been appointed Federal Minister of the Interior and was appearing on Maybrit Illner's ZDF program. He did not want to declare an emergency.

Things sounded a little different on Tuesday evening on Maischberger. The court ruled that the justification for the rejections was insufficient. "We have a mandate," said Dobrindt: "We must provide this justification accordingly."

Many people recognize that Germany is overwhelmed. Migrants can no longer be adequately integrated. "You can feel that in the kindergartens, in the schools, in the language and integration courses that someone has to take. You can clearly see it in the housing market. The municipalities are overwhelmed. We realize that we can't afford it. And we have the right to assert this overburdening." Overburdening, but not an emergency. The question is how Dobrindt intends to justify "overburdening" without declaring an emergency.

Dobrindt's decisions are not met with unanimous approval within the coalition either. Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig of the SPD criticizes them. However, this leaves Dobrindt cold. He wants to change the dysfunctional European rules. "But if I explain every time why it doesn't work, why we are no longer able to apply the rules, if we can no longer manage it and don't even try, then the polarization in society will continue, then the populists will win, and then citizens will feel that politics can no longer decide anything. And I consider that the greatest danger." Now the European Court of Justice must take up the matter. "It would be good if we had such a decision," says Dobrindt.

Söder sees emergency situation

Markus Söder continues to confuse the situation. He's happy. "We've seen a halving of asylum seekers in Bavaria in the first half of the year," he proudly announces. This raises the question: How can you declare an emergency when fewer asylum seekers are coming into the country? And why was it apparently not there when even more asylum seekers were coming into the country?

According to Söder, the number of migrants is declining, as the number of people leaving the country is also at a record high. So, it's not an emergency? Yes, says Söder. But not because of the high number of refugees in Germany. Or maybe a little bit. Germany has an integration deficit, Söder supports the Interior Minister. But that's apparently not the problem at all. Rather, "Public safety and order are at risk because the law is not being applied in Europe," Söder explains.

Germany has been vainly requesting its European partners to comply with the law for years. "This means that we have to protect our own borders ourselves." They also have no problem justifying this to the European Court of Justice. Söder is absolutely certain that the court will agree with Germany.

"You won't get away with that," says Amann. "Any court will tell you: That's nonsense." "I respect your opinion, but I don't share it," replies Söder. "Some of the countries around us aren't adhering to European law, which poses a threat to public order."

The two CSU representatives presented their arguments calmly and confidently on Tuesday evening. It's a pleasant observation. What's not pleasant is the observation that in one of the three governing parties, one hand apparently doesn't know what the other is doing. When it comes to the emergency and its origins, the two don't seem to agree. Meanwhile, chaos at the borders and the uncertainty among federal police officers on the ground are growing. One of the federal government's most important projects could fail legally. If that happens, two CSU politicians may have contributed to it on Tuesday evening.