A serious risk: The gradual undermining of the asylum system

Migration and forced displacement dominated the 2025 German federal election campaign. Against the backdrop of growing support for the AfD, the CDU/CSU parties framed their plans for a “migration turnaround” as a necessary response, justifying the accompanying tightening of asylum law as necessary to safeguard the foundations of refugee protection. What this line of argument overlooks, however, is the serious risks posed by the gradual erosion of asylum rights.

Relevant passages in the coalition agreement

The German government’s coalition agreement sets out the direction of the new administration’s planned changes to asylum policy. The chapter on “Migration und Integration” begins by reaffirming – at least rhetorically – the right to asylum enshrined in Germany’s Basic Law. However, it then proceeds to outline a series of measures that would effectively restrict the rights of those seeking protection. Immediately after taking office, the coalition government launched several key initiatives, including the suspension of family reunification for individuals with subsidiary protection status; the accelerated designation of countries as “safe countries of origin”; and the rejection of asylum seekers at Germany’s borders. These measures were advanced both through legislative proposals and concrete steps to reinforce border controls. The coalition partners have also agreed on three additional key measures. First, voluntary admission programmes – such as those for individuals from Afghanistan – are to be discontinued. While this sends a politically weighty message signalling control and border tightening, the impact in absolute numbers is marginal. Second, the government advocates the removal of a provision known as the “linking clause” from EU Asylum Procedures Regulations in order to enable the transfer of asylum seekers to “safe third countries”. This marks a clear move towards the externalisation of asylum processing – and potentially of refugee protection itself – to states with which applicants have no meaningful connection. Third, the current principle of Amtsermittlung (official investigation) in German asylum law is to be replaced with the principle of Beibringung (individual responsibility), effectively shifting the burden of proof from the authorities and the courts to the individual applicant, who would be responsible for presenting evidence of risk in their country of origin.

From incremental changes to fundamental questions

While changes to asylum law following a change in government are not unusual and could be seen as business as usual, the current debate over asylum policy is marked by a shift towards more fundamental questions that strike at the core of the international refugee regime. In particular, three key issues are at stake: access to protection, ensuring fair asylum procedures, and international responsibility-sharing.

Access to protection: Criticism of the existing German and European asylum systems often centres on the fact that they force people seeking protection to undertake long and dangerous journeys, ultimately systematically disadvantaging vulnerable groups. One alternative model frequently cited is the Australian model, which is centred on resettlement, offering legal pathways to protection for larger groups while categorically rejecting spontaneous arrivals. In contrast, some of the changes set down in the coalition agreement, such as the termination of humanitarian admission programmes and the suspension of family reunification for those with subsidiary protection status – one of the few safe migration routes for women and children from crisis-affected regions – run counter to this approach. Rather than expanding safe and legal access, these measures further restrict the already limited legal pathways available to those seeking refuge.

Ensuring fair asylum procedures: For any functioning asylum system, upholding the rule-of-law principles that underpin fair procedures is key. The federal government’s seemingly technical proposal to replace the principle of official investigation (Amtsermittlungsgrundsatz) with a duty to provide evidence principle (Beibringungsgrundsatz) carries significant risks – particularly for asylum seekers from countries where the situation on the ground is poorly documented. The ongoing debate over the externalisation of asylum procedures – which has gained momentum over the past 18 months – is reflected indirectly in the coalition agreement, which supports the removal of the “linking clause” from the EU Asylum Procedures Regulation, raising additional, serious concerns about procedural standards and access to legal counsel and possibility of appeal in third countries.

International responsibility-sharing: Here, the planned – and in some cases already implemented – asylum policy changes seek to reduce the number of asylum applications filed in Germany. This strategy includes a deterrence element and hopes for a chain reaction extending to the EU’s external borders, ultimately resulting in fewer asylum claims across the entire EU. This approach, however, is at odds with the principle of burden-sharing enshrined in the preamble of the 1951 Geneva Refugee Convention and further elaborated in the Global Pact for Refugees. This is further undermined by the German government’s plans to end humanitarian admission programmes – particularly if this were to affect Germany’s resettlement programme, which is implemented in collaboration with UNHCR – as well as by the ongoing debate about transferring asylum processing, protection responsibilities and return operations to third countries.

Far-reaching implications

None of the measures set out in the coalition agreement formally challenge the fundamental right to asylum. At the same time, current German policy is contributing to the gradual erosion of the asylum system – and, at least in part, runs counter to the spirit of the Geneva Refugee Convention. These developments are unfolding in the context of a broader public debate over whether the existing European asylum framework is still fit for purpose, and whether it places undue constraints on national policymaking. Despite the coalition agreement’s stated commitment to implementing the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, this raises serious questions about the future of the Common European Asylum System – and, more broadly, about the potential risks to international refugee protection.