How the German election may shape migration in the entire EU

Permanent controls at the Schengen borders. The denial of entry to people seeking asylum at the German border if they have already traveled through another EU country. Detention of those who have been told they have to leave the country.

These are just some of the measures that Friedrich Merz, the Christian Democrats’ (CDU) candidate for chancellor, wants to see implemented. He currently leads the polls and has the best chance of forming the next German government.

Earlier this year, with votes from the liberal Free Democrats (FDP) and the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), he was able to push through a motion in parliament proposing that migrants be turned away from German borders.

Merz’s willingness to cooperate with the AfD was seen as breaching a taboo and endangering the “firewall” that separates the mainstream German political parties from the extreme right. The move triggered mass protests across Germany. But if he becomes chancellor, Merz’s plans could have an impact on all of Europe.

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Helena Hahn from the Brussels-based think tank European Policy Center explained to DW that the basis of Merz’s proposals was article 72 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The treaty allows member states to deviate from their responsibilities under the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) for reasons of national security — for instance, if they declared a state of emergency. 

Merz mentioned this article last summer, and his motion states that it is the German government’s “duty” to prioritize “national law if European regulations do not function.”

Anne Koch, a researcher at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, told DW that the number of asylum applicants had fallen and that she did not think it was credible that there was an emergency. In 2024, 28.7% fewer applications for asylum were made than in 2023, she said, adding that resorting to emergency clauses undermined the common approach of the EU.

While legal experts argue whether the German Christian Democrats’ plans are compatible with EU law, a spokesperson for the European Commission, the bloc’s executive branch, said that it did not “comment on political announcements, drafts or party programs.”

Is free movement in Schengen area at risk?

Another question that has raised debate is Merz’s plans of making internal border controls permanent, said Hahn.

The border-free Schengen area is supposed to guarantee freedom of movement, allowing people to travel from one country to the next without controls. However, last year the rules were reformed, and the European Commission made some concessions to member states.

Hahn explained that there was now more flexibility regarding the amount of time that states can implement border controls even if these should not be permanent but that they would be accepted so long as the European Commission had nothing against the reasons provided. She added that border controls could also lead to problems between bordering countries.

Koch said that regardless of whether it was legally allowed to deny entry to a person seeking protection at a German border, such an approach would also lead to problems with neighboring countries. When Germany introduced border controls last fall, Austria declared that it would not take in anybody who had been denied entry by Germany.

Denying entry to people could lead to a chain reaction right up to the EU’s external borders, Koch said, saying that the blanket refoulement, the practice of sending refugees or asylum-seekers back to their countries of origin or to a country that could put them in danger, of people at external borders would be “highly problematic under European law.”

German political parties disagree on migration matters

The election manifesto of the Social Democrats (SDP), whose top candidate is current Chancellor Olaf Scholz, speaks out against “border closures and blanket denial of entry at internal borders.”

The Greens are also against permanent border controls and underline asylum seekers’ right to have their applications examined on a case-by-case basis. The Left Party says that “systematic internal border controls and the denial of entry to asylum seekers at the borders” are inadmissible.

The liberal FDP, on the other hand, supports a trial run of denying entry at Germany’s external borders, while the AfD wants to leave the European legal framework altogether and use the German federal police as the border authority. The far right proposes that asylum applications be submitted from outside of Germany.

EU takes tougher stance on migration

Koch said that the most recent reform of the CEAS, which will come into force in 2026, was essentially restrictive.

Its main aim is to create fast-track procedures for applicants from countries with low recognition rates. It will introduce an “mandatory expressions of solidarity” approach to relieve the burden on countries at the EU’s external borders. Member states that refuse to take in people will have to pay compensation or provide other means of support.

Hahn said that the EU’s member states had generally taken a tougher stance on asylum matters in recent years, and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had allowed this.

A buzzword in Brussels currently is “innovative solutions.” In May 2024, 15 member states called on the EU to propose “new solutions to address irregular migration in Europe.”

Von der Leyen responded by promising to examine “innovative solutions” that complied with EU law, putting her new Commissioner for Internal Affairs and Migration, Magnus Brunner, on the case. She said that lessons could be learned from Italy’s attempts to outsource the processing of asylum applications to Albania.

Koch forecasts that the reform of the Return Directive, which has been announced for next month, would also tighten rules in the EU. The Return Directive lays down common rules and procedures on return, which are implemented by the EU member states. Koch forecasts that there would likely be changes to the rules regarding the countries to which people whose applications are rejected can be sent. Currently, people can only be deported to third countries with which they have a prior connection.