Germany’s Migration Reset and What it Means for the EU

• Commentary Europe and Global Governance · Migrations
  by Gaia Mastrosanti

Germany's conservatives, led by Friedrich Merz, have struck a deal with the Social Democrats to govern Europe's largest economy, five months after the previous government collapsed. Merz framed the coalition agreement as evidence that "Germany is back", amid ongoing upheaval.

The likely future chancellor made immigration the centerpiece, and rallying cry, of his campaign ahead of the federal elections in February. Public debate was heavily shaped by narratives linking migration to crime, especially in the wake of a failed attempt to pass new immigration legislation before the vote. The country now enters a phase marked by economic downturn and growing pressure to deliver stable governance amid external challenges, including President Donald Trump's ongoing trade war and the geopolitical threat posed by Russia's Vladimir Putin.

Migration stands out as a priority in the 144-page coalition agreement, alongside economic policy and defence. This reflects increasing public unease over crime allegedly tied to migration, as well as the surging popularity of the far-right party Alternative for Germany (AfD), which has made the issue central to its platform. A recent Ipsos poll showed that the AfD, led by Alice Weidel, is now the most popular party in Germany, with Merz's conservatives following closely behind.

Tighter controls, but no permanent border checks

Ahead of the vote, Merz presented a five-point plan to reduce irregular migration and enhance border enforcement, following a fatal knife attack in Aschaffenburg, involving an Afghan national who had been slated for deportation. However, the plan faced significant legal challenges under both EU and German law. Among the most disputed measures, there were proposals for permanent border checks and broad entry bans for undocumented migrants. Under the Dublin III Regulation, asylum applications must be examined in the first EU country entered. In theory, this implies that individuals arriving in Germany via another EU member state should be returned there. However, entry into Germany is still required before a transfer can be initiated, and exceptions apply, for instance, if close relatives are already residing in the country.

Permanent border checks would also run counter to the foundational principle of the Schengen Area, which guarantees the free movement of people across internal borders. While the coalition agreement does support reinforced border measures, the most controversial aspects of Merz's original plan have been softened. The deal omits any mention of permanent controls or blanket denials of irregular entrants. Instead, it proposes that asylum seekers arriving from another EU or Schengen state be refused entry, building on the logic that, as Germany is effectively surrounded by EU states, migrants should have already submitted their asylum claims elsewhere. As of now, only individuals without a valid visa or residence permit may be turned back at Germany's borders. Extending this policy to include asylum seekers could raise legal concerns, as EU law obliges member states to assess asylum claims prior to any return. Merz has stressed that such measures would be coordinated with neighboring countries, though how this will play out, especially with Austria, which has expressed reluctancy to take back rejected migrants, remains uncertain.

Asylum: A shift in direction

The agreement also provides for the termination of ongoing voluntary resettlement schemes for vulnerable individuals with specific protection needs, such as unaccompanied minors, torture survivors, or those in urgent need of medical treatment. During coalition talks, Germany temporarily suspended its participation in a UN-led refugee resettlement programme that had been in place since 2012.

Additionally, the deal introduces a two-year suspension of family reunification rights for individuals granted subsidiary protection. This provision affects those who cannot be deported due to unsafe conditions in their countries of origin or those who have received subsidiary status for other reasons, including high asylum recognition rates for certain nationalities.

The coalition also outlines a "return offensive" intended to streamline and increase deportations, particularly of individuals deemed security risks or criminal offenders. The plan includes extended detention periods before deportation and eliminates the requirement for automatic legal assistance prior to removal. The list of safe countries is also set to expand, with Algeria, India, Morocco, and Tunisia expected to be added. These priorities align closely with Brussels' ongoing push to significantly increase the EU's return rate, which currently hovers around 20%.

What does this mean for the EU?

Recent years have seen a shift across Europe toward a stricter asylum policy, with new proposals under the EU's current policy cycle aiming to address irregular migration. Notable developments include expanded use of safe country clausesto expedite the examination of asylum applications and the adoption of a flexible solidarity mechanism allowingsolidarity through financial contribution to third countries. Not to mention the Commission's latest proposal on returns, unveiled last March, which further underscores a European preference, and growing appetite, for externalized solutions over internal burden-sharing.

In this context, the new German coalition's migration strategy does not significantly diverge from broader EU trends, particularly regarding returns and detention. However, its emphasis on tightening border controls adds new pressure to the Schengen system, and, by extension, to the Dublin framework. The core logic behind Germany's proposed border checks and entry rejections is rooted in its landlocked position within the EU: asylum seekers arriving in Germany should have already applied for protection elsewhere. This illustrates the deeply intertwined nature of Schengen and Dublin, even though the two legal frameworks are distinct, they remain practically and politically connected.

Schengen's vision of free movement hinges on the assumption that the Dublin system works as intended: asylum claims are made in the first country of entry and transfers happen promptly. Yet in practice, this mechanism has long been criticized. Southern states argue that geography forces them to shoulder a disproportionate share of responsibility, while northern countries highlight delays, low return rates, and poor cooperation from those tasked with processing claims. This breakdown in mutual trust has fueled the reintroduction of internal border controls, now echoed in Germany's proposed policies.

Fragmented responses

Recent amendments to the Schengen Borders Code were partially aimed at addressing these tensions. They clarified when internal checks can be reinstated, extended permissible durations, and established new procedures to manage secondary movements. Still, they also reflect the normalization of practices that have long operated in legal grey areas. Rather than restoring collective confidence, these reforms risk institutionalizing a patchwork of national responses. Germany's plans, therefore, shed light on the structural flaws of the EU's asylum system, where Schengen and Dublin are legally distinct but operationally entangled, and national policy often steps in where EU solidarity falls short.

Whether Merz's government can implement its migration agenda will depend on both domestic constraints and legal limits at the European level. A continued focus on migration and deportations is unlikely to address Germany's underlying economic challenges. What is clear, however, is that Schengen is under renewed pressure, driven by a growing willingness among member states to tighten control over irregular migration and secondary movements. In this context, Germany's political comeback could prove decisive in shaping the direction of EU migration governance in the years ahead.