A contentious debate has ignited in Germany regarding the responsibility for the recent decline in asylum seeker applications, highlighting a persistent political tug-of-war over migration policy. Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt of the CSU claims credit for the downturn, asserting that the current government has initiated a “migration turnaround” and brought an end to “migration policy chaos”. In an interview with “Süddeutsche Zeitung”, Dobrindt emphasized stricter border controls, the curtailment of perceived incentives like expedited naturalization and the suspension of family reunification programs as key drivers behind the diminished numbers. He declared Germany is no longer acting as a “migration magnet” a claim intended to underscore the effectiveness of his government’s approach.
However, Wolfgang Schmidt, former head of the chancellery under the preceding “traffic light” coalition government (SPD, Greens and FDP), fiercely disputes Dobrindt’s assertion. Schmidt argues that the current reduction is a direct consequence of policies implemented by Scholz’s administration. Referencing internal projections from April, which forecast asylum requests below 100,000 for this year – a projection that appears to have borne out, with roughly 108,000 applications received through mid-December – Schmidt pointedly stated, “If there has been a migration turnaround, it was under Scholz.
This disagreement underscores a significant political point: both administrations are keen to portray themselves as responsible for managing migration flows, despite potentially differing approaches and timelines. While the overall number of initial asylum applications has roughly halved this year, experts remain cautious about attributing the decline solely to the current government’s actions.
Gerald Knaus, a leading migration researcher, questioned the extent of the impact from Dobrindt’s government, stating that a demonstrable shift in asylum applications has not been observable since their assumption of office in May. He noted that initial application numbers throughout the autumn period largely mirrored those seen in the spring, suggesting external factors or broader geopolitical shifts may be playing a more substantial role than domestic policy changes. The ongoing dispute reveals the complexities of migration management and the political imperative to control the narrative surrounding a highly sensitive issue, even in the face of nuanced data and expert analysis.