The migration policy agreements proposed in the working document put forth by the Left Party, the Greens, and the Social Democrats (SPD) in Berlin are facing significant skepticism from federal government factions.
Sebastian Fiedler, the SPD’s domestic policy spokesman in the Bundestag, told Bayern’s media group that, like the federal government and every other constituent state, Berlin is bound by the rule of law. Consequently, he argued, the migration agreements in the Berlin proposal are “hardly implementable.”
Fiedler used state reception programs as an example of the conflict. While states do possess the right to initiate these programs, their final implementation requires the approval of the Federal Interior Minister. He reminded the public that the federal coalition agreement stipulated the end of all such reception programs and prohibited new ones. Therefore, he deemed federal approval for any potential Berlin reception program “more than unlikely.”
Regarding deportations, the potential government coalition intends to proceed with extremely restrictive measures. Fiedler emphasized that if the conditions for residency rights are not met, the obligation to leave must, in all reasonable doubt, be enforced by force. He also pointed out that the federal government possesses several mechanisms to override a state’s fundamental refusal to deport individuals.
In contrast, Alexander Throm (CDU), the Union faction’s internal spokesman, threatened the state of Berlin with federal command if the left-green-social democratic coalition managed to prevent deportations. Speaking to the same media group, Throm stated that if deportations were resisted, the federal government might have to resort to federal coercion. Furthermore, he argued that federal funds allocated to Berlin-for example, for housing and caring for refugees-would have to be withheld in such a scenario.
Throm also ruled out the possibility of new reception programs. He asserted that Berlin cannot introduce either new or old reception programs without the consent of the federal government, and he strongly maintained that this consent “definitely will not happen,” adding that the matter wasn’t even worth documenting in a written paper.
