The implementation of the EU’s proposed asylum and migration reform, known as the Common European Asylum System (GEAS), is facing increasing resistance from German states, highlighting a growing political rift over financial responsibility and operational burden. While federal officials hail the reform as a vital step towards a unified EU migration policy, several Länder are openly criticizing the current plans and demanding greater federal engagement.
Brandenburg’s Interior Minister René Wilke, while acknowledging the importance of the new framework and specifically the “external border procedure” has bluntly stated that the federal government must “pay the bill”. The core issue revolves around the responsibility for executing asylum proceedings at EU external borders and subsequent returns. Under the new system, Germany, possessing airports and seaports categorized as external borders, is obligated to provide facilities for these procedures. The current federal proposal places the onus of providing these spaces largely on the Länder, a prospect met with growing discontent.
Wilke articulated a stark choice: the federal government must either fulfill its mandated responsibility or leverage the resources and expertise of the Länder. However, any such draw upon state capacity hinges on a “concrete offer” outlining cost-sharing arrangements – an offer conspicuously absent thus far. He cautioned that simply passing the burden onto the states is “not an acceptable option.
Baden-Württemberg’s State Secretary for Migration Siegfried Lorek, while supportive of the overarching goal of regulating and limiting migration, echoed this sentiment. He affirmed the state’s willingness to contribute to the GEAS implementation, but stressed the expectation of “adequate financial support” from the federal government if Länder are to assume responsibility for providing facilities and processing asylum cases.
The most pointed criticism came from Saxony’s Interior Minister Armin Schuster, who is actively advocating for the federal government to establish dedicated federal return centers. Schuster contends that effective loosening of border controls is contingent on the EU executing successful return measures – a direct consequence of the intended functionality of the GEAS legislation. The proposal to establish a return center at Leipzig Airport, already utilized for central transport hubs, exemplifies this demand.
This escalating pushback from Länder reveals a complex political dynamic. While the federal government seeks to project an image of unified commitment to the EU’s ambitious migration reform, the reality on the ground suggests a growing tension between national and regional responsibilities. The current impasse risks undermining the practical implementation of the GEAS, potentially hindering a truly harmonized European approach to asylum and migration. The Bundestag is currently debating the draft legislation and the outcome of these negotiations will be crucial in determining whether the federal government can appease the growing concerns of its constituent states and secure a viable path forward for the implementation of the new EU asylum system.