Several German states are openly challenging the federal government’s plans for implementing the EU’s proposed Asylum and Migration Management (GEAS) reform, signaling a potential constitutional and political showdown. While acknowledging the reform’s importance in reshaping European asylum processes, regional leaders are voicing significant concerns regarding financial burdens and a perceived lack of federal commitment.
Brandenburg’s Interior Minister René Wilke, while affirming the GEAS reform as a crucial step towards a unified EU approach, directly questioned the funding model. His statement to “Welt” highlights a core issue: “Whoever orders, must also pay”. The new system mandates member states, including Germany, to handle initial asylum procedures directly at the EU’s external borders, facilitating rapid returns to countries of origin following negative decisions. This places a considerable operational and infrastructural demand, particularly given Germany’s status as a hub for both air and sea transport.
Wilke’s critique centers on the Bundesregierung’s current proposal, which leans heavily on the federal states to provide the necessary infrastructure and personnel. He argues that the federal government must either directly assume responsibility for executing these border procedures or, if relying on state resources, offer a concrete and appropriately funded arrangement. Simply passing the burden onto the states, he contends, is unacceptable.
Baden-Württemberg’s State Secretary for Migration, Siegfried Lorek, echoed this sentiment, recognizing the need to “order, steer and limit” migration while emphasizing the expectation of commensurate federal engagement. He insists that if states are tasked with specific duties, “the federal government must at least ensure adequate financing.
The most pointed demand comes from Saxony’s Interior Minister Armin Schuster, who advocates for the federal government to establish centralized deportation centers – “Bundesausreisezentren”. Schuster argues that relaxing border controls hinges on demonstrating effectiveness at the EU level, tied directly to the legislation underpinning GEAS. Saxony has proactively suggested the Leipzig airport as a potential location for such a center, citing its existing logistical advantages for connecting flights.
The escalating tensions underscore a fundamental power dynamic within Germany’s federal system. States are signaling a willingness to cooperate with EU-mandated reforms, but only under the condition that the federal government bears a substantial portion of the financial and operational responsibility. Failure to address these concerns risks paralyzing the implementation process and triggering further constitutional challenges, potentially undermining the EU’s broader asylum policy objectives. The ongoing debate in the Bundestag will be critical in determining whether a compromise can be reached that satisfies both the federal government’s ambition and the concerns of Germany’s states.
