German Federal States demand progress on outsourcing asylum applications to third countries

In a lasting dispute over asylum policy between the German federal states and the government, the states have now made demands to proceed with outsourcing asylum applications to third countries, setting a deadline for the government.

On Wednesday, the state premiers stepped up the pressure in a coordination meeting with Scholz. The issue is now on the agenda for their next meeting with the federal government in June.

“Of course, I would have liked more progress […] from November to January,” Minister-President of Hesse Boris Reihn (CDU) said in a press conference following the meeting, adding that it “will certainly be a topic that we will discuss together.”

In November, opposition-led federal states and lawmakers, as well as Scholz’s junior partner, the FDP, urged the government to establish agreements with third countries to process asylum applications to discourage irregular migration.

After side-lining Scholz with the idea to follow in the footsteps of the UK and Italy to establish asylum application agreements in third countries, the government reluctantly agreed to investigate the legality of external asylum application procedures. “We will check the idea,” Scholz said then.

However, the consultation of experts on whether determining the protection status of refugees in transit or third countries is in line with the Geneva Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights has been slow. According to the Federal Ministry of the Interior, a first hearing was held on 22 February, and the investigation is ongoing.

The states have increased the pressure on Scholz to move forward with the idea. By 20 June, the government will present its position at their next conference of minister-presidents.

“The results should be available by the time the heads of government of the federal states meet with the Federal Chancellor on 20 June 2024,” the resolution by the 16 states reads.

The crux of the issue is the terminology of “third-country agreements” in itself.

Migration researcher Victoria Rietig, one of the experts who took part in the first hearing, said that “in the public debate, completely different models are lumped together under the heading ‘third country solution’,” according to tagesschau.de.

Current agreements between Italy and Albania, as well as the UK and Rwanda, are taken as examples. While the Italian-Albanian deal allows Italian officers to conduct the asylum assessment on Albanian soil, the agreement between the UK and Rwanda has a different approach.

The UK plans to bring every migrant directly to Rwanda, where the application is being assessed. If asylum is granted, it will be carried out in Rwanda under local supervision.

However, both initiatives have been criticised for their compliance with international law. The British Supreme Court has questioned the standard of protection in Rwanda. In Albania, the Constitutional Court narrowly supported the deal after initially stopping its ratification, and it faces significant backlash from the public and opposition.

(Kjeld Neubert | Euractiv.de)