Doubts are emerging within Germany regarding the recent agreement reached by EU interior ministers, spearheaded by German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt of the CSU party. The deal, intended to resolve longstanding disputes with Greece and Italy, stipulates that those countries will accept asylum seekers previously registered in Germany. While the principle of processing asylum claims in the responsible country is acknowledged as fundamentally sensible, critics are questioning the fairness and effectiveness of the resulting distribution.
Katharina Dröge, leader of the Green Party’s parliamentary group, expressed concern that Dobrindt’s deal fails to ensure a truly equitable sharing of responsibility among EU member states. While acknowledging the logic of localized asylum processing, she argues that the agreement’s success hinges on all nations accepting a proportionate share of those being transferred. Germany, however, is expected to leverage an exemption from the established solidarity mechanism, citing its historical burden from previous migration patterns. Dröge vehemently opposes this exemption, pointing to the planned distribution of 21,000 individuals under the mechanism and asserting that Dobrindt’s reluctance undermines both German and European interests.
Further complicating matters, Dröge warns that Germany’s persistent unwillingness to collaborate fully with other EU nations will inevitably exacerbate pressure on external borders, leading to instability and increased irregular migration across Europe. Her criticism extends to the proposal to establish deportation and return centers in third countries, labeling previous attempts as “illegal, expensive and inhumane.
The Green Party politician delivered a damning overall assessment of Dobrindt’s approach, describing it not as “wise asylum policy, but rather a damaging one”. The push for asylum procedures outside the EU, coupled with the continuation of stringent border controls within Germany, appears to be generating significant internal political friction and raising profound questions about the long-term viability and ethical implications of the current strategy.