Costly, ineffective and humane?

In harmonising national legislation with the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), the German federal government has expressed its intention to attach equal importance to humanity, solidarity and order. However, the bills currently under discussion in the Bundestag largely focus on tightening regulations, in particular when it comes to asylum seekers’ freedom of movement. Whether this undermines basic humanitarian principles – and whether it genuinely contributes to a more structured and effective asylum policy – was discussed on 15 October 2025 as part of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung’s event series Migration verstehen.

Upholding the rule of law

With these new laws, the German government plans to make full use of the discretionary powers granted by the EU directives as part of the CEAS reform. Terms such as “extended residence requirements”, which can mandate up to 24 months of residence in newly established “secondary migration centres”, or “obligation to stay”, which requires permanent residence in these same centres, are no more than euphemisms that conceal the de facto detention these measures entail, says Professor Markard, co-founder of the Refugee Law Clinic in Hamburg. Together with the proposed “detention during asylum proceedings” provisions, which would allow asylum seekers to be held by court order while their claims are being processed, these measures risk recklessly undermining asylum seekers’ fundamental right to personal freedom. This is because detention is not always used as a last resort (ultima ratio) on a case-by-case basis; instead, there is a real danger that these measures, which are optional under EU law, could be applied systematically. However, since freedom of movement is essential for human existence and a fundamental prerequisite for upholding other basic rights, and as such inalienable, current indications suggest that Germany is pursuing an inhumane policy towards asylum seekers. As Markard emphasises, the intimidation of asylum seekers and the harsh treatment they receive upon arrival has little to do with the principles of the rule of law.

Advocating alternatives

Frequently, this tough approach not only violates applicable law, but also fails to achieve its intended goals. Carolina Gottardo, lawyer and executive director of the International Detention Coalition, for instance, points out that detaining children constitutes a form of violence that is fundamentally prohibited under international law, noting that Germany had explicitly committed to ending the practice of child detention at the International Migration Review Forum in 2022. At the same time, Gottardo emphasised that there are effective alternatives to detention. This includes, in particular, individual case management which enables asylum seekers and migrants to live in a local community while their applications are processed. Not only is this more humane and effective; it is also significantly more cost-efficient in terms of accommodation, care and administrative processing. In Gottardo’s opinion, tight restrictions that limit asylum seekers’ freedom benefit only two groups: private companies offering services and ready-made solutions in this sector, and right-wing populists seeking to criminalise migration.

Ensuring access to advisory services

The actual circumstances of the detainees themselves are usually completely overlooked. They often feel helpless, at the mercy of others, and have little understanding of why they are being detained, reported Stefan Keßler, director of the Jesuit Refugee Service in Germany. He fears that the planned establishment of secondary migration centres and the obligation for asylum seekers to stay there permanently will likely increase their isolation. Keßler also argued that the municipalities hosting the centres are likely to face major challenges, and ensuring access to legal advice could become an almost insurmountable challenge. Providing such support mandatory by law and should not represent an additional burden for those affected, who already face language barriers and a highly complex legal situation.

Adjustments required

According to Sebastian Fiedler, spokesperson on internal affairs for the SPD parliamentary group, SPD members of the Bundestag are well aware of the criticism, and the issues will be discussed during the upcoming parliamentary deliberations. So far every law introduced has been submitted to changes, Fiedler emphasised.

The discussion also addressed the social and symbolic dimensions of the bills. It is essential that the parliamentary debates do not lose sight of the asylum seekers themselves, that lawmakers are aware of the signal these laws send and seek to counter the progressive fragmentation and dehumanisation of asylum policy. After all, rather than fighting against it, Germany will soon need to promote migration.

By the end of the event, it was clear that deterrence and detention neither help manage migration nor weaken right-wing extremist forces. The speakers called for future negotiations to prioritise evidence-based migration policies that take alternatives to detention seriously and seek to put an end to the inhumane treatment of asylum seekers.