A unilateral approach

In recent years, the issue of border checks and pushbacks has repeatedly sparked intense debate within the EU and Schengen. Earlier this year, the German government introduced these very measures on its borders and is persisting with its tough stance on irregular migration despite a Berlin court ruling that found the refusal of entry to asylum seekers at Germany’s borders to be unlawful under the provisions of the EU’s Dublin system. An online discussion hosted by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung on 1 July 2025 – part of a series of events entitled “Understanding Migration” – explored the political and legal dimensions of this approach as well as the practical implications.
 

Dublin system remains in force

Although media reports on border controls and pushbacks often refer to Germany’s external border, strictly speaking these are internal borders with another EU member state. As asylum law expert Prof. Hruschka explained, the relevant legal framework here is the Schengen Borders Code, which states that internal border checks may essentially only be imposed in exceptional circumstances – for example, in response to a sudden substantial influx of third-country nationals. In view of its declining immigration, Germany cannot claim that this is currently the case. In any case, the Schengen Borders Code does not override the rights of asylum seekers and the Dublin system must be upheld unless officially suspended, as ruled by the European Court of Justice in 2015. Thus, Hruschka argued, it is clear that both the German border checks and the rejection of asylum seekers at the German–Polish border is in violation of European law. He also highlighted that the European Commission was planning to request a reasoned opinion – the first formal step in infringement proceedings against Germany.
 

Falling short of the political goal?

Germany has more than 3,700 kilometres of land borders, yet operates only around 50 checkpoints. Given this imbalance, it is clear why – despite some enforcement successes – border controls are not a particularly valuable tool from a migration policy standpoint, noted Sven Hüber, Deputy Chairman of the German Police Union (GdP). Between 8 May to 22 June this year, he explained, around 6,000 individuals were identified as entering the country illegally, yet just over 300 of them were asylum seekers. By way of comparison, the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) registered almost 5,500 asylum seekers from 8 May to 4 June of the same year. These figures cast serious doubt on whether one of the goals of the current border checks – to curb migration – is being achieved in practice.

At the same time, border controls involve a huge amount of work for civil servants, partly due to the significant administrative workload, which requires police officers to put in an enormous amount of overtime. Another reason is the inadequate infrastructure, which has resulted in unsatisfactory working conditions for the border officials: many former border posts were dismantled when Poland and the Czech Republic joined Schengen, meaning current checkpoints are often very much provisional setups. If border controls are to be used in the longer term, major investment will be required to improve this infrastructure and thus also border officials’ working conditions.
 

Creating legal certainty

The difficult situation faced by border officials was also a subject of discussion, with civil servants at border checkpoints often caught between following operational instructions and adhering to legal rulings that may contradict these instructions. According to Aydan Özoğuz (member of the Bundestag for the SPD and former government Commissioner for Immigration, Refugees and Integration), legal certainty must be established so that civil servants at checkpoints are not exposed to legal liability for their actions in the future. After all, in a democracy, trust in government actions and the rule of law is essential. And if this is to be achieved, a government cannot declare an alleged state of emergency or link migration to crime in order to justify measures that do not stand up in a court of law. Moreover, Özoğuz warned, unilateral border controls and pushbacks risk triggering a potential domino effect across Europe – the first sign of which is Poland’s recent decision to reintroduce border checks.
 

Risk of securitisation

Warsaw-based migration researcher Dr Olena Babakova believes that Germany’s border checks and pushbacks have become a reference point for Poland’s radical right. A look at Poland also shows that a restrictive migration policy – such as the country’s rejection of third-country nationals since 2021, especially on the Belarusian border, where a physical barrier was erected in June 2022 – ultimately does not achieve the desired goal of reducing immigration. Instead, this practice leads to a securitisation of migration policy, where migrants are dehumanised and the dignified treatment of asylum seekers no longer plays a role.

In closing, the participants called for more clarity with a view to making German asylum and residence laws easier to use. To make asylum policy more effective and better at protecting human rights, they stressed, new innovative approaches are needed at the European level that no longer rely on fear and deterrence.