Pushbacks and the narrative of ‘illegal’ entry
As a psychosocial centre for refugees in Brandenburg, we are observing the current developments at Germany's external borders, and particularly at the German-Polish border, with great concern. The stricter border controls introduced by the new German government and the associated rejections of people seeking protection raise serious humanitarian and legal questions.
New border practice: How rejections undermine the right to asylum
On his first day in office, Chancellor Friedrich Merz announced the comprehensive tightening of border controls. Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt instructed the federal police to turn back asylum seekers without valid entry documents at the borders - based on Section 18 (2) No. 1 of the Asylum Act. This effectively suspends the Dublin procedure, which is normally mandatory. Only those considered ‘recognisably vulnerable’ are to continue to be transferred to the responsible authorities or initial reception centres.
This practice contradicts fundamental international agreements, in particular the Geneva Refugee Convention, which has been ratified by Germany, and protects the right to asylum regardless of the method of entry. A blanket rejection without an individual assessment of the need for protection violates these obligations under international law.
This assessment has now been confirmed by a judgement of the Berlin Administrative Court in May 2025: The rejection of three Somali asylum seekers at the German-Polish border was categorised as unlawful, as the mere expression of a request for protection is sufficient to be entitled to an asylum procedure. This judgement makes it clear that the current practice of the federal police is not compatible with applicable law. Nevertheless, the Federal Government intends to continue with this unlawful practice.
Schengen under pressure: legal situation and reality of internal border controls Germany is part of the Schengen area, which guarantees the free movement of people within the EU. According to the Schengen Borders Code, border controls at internal borders are only permitted in clearly defined exceptional cases - such as in the event of a serious threat to public order or internal security - and are strictly limited in time. The reform of the Borders Code in 2024 specified these conditions and set a maximum duration of such measures of up to three years, subject to the approval of the EU Commission.
In reality, however, border controls have often been extended beyond the permitted time limits - particularly at the German-Austrian border, where they have continued since 2015 with reference to migration movements. Since 2023, additional controls have been introduced at the borders with Poland, the Czech Republic and Switzerland. These measures are increasingly coming under legal criticism: in March 2025, both the Munich Administrative Court and the Bavarian Administrative Court ruled that the border controls at the Austrian border, which lasted longer than six months, were unlawful. Even if border controls are permitted on a temporary basis, they do not justify turning back people seeking protection from political persecution.
‘Illegal entry’? Why language criminalises people seeking protection
In public discourse, people often talk about ‘illegal or irregular entry’ when referring to asylum seekers coming to Germany without valid documents. However, this overlooks the fact that many people on the move have no way of obtaining valid documents. They often have to leave their countries of origin at short notice and at the risk of their lives. Persecuting states often refuse to issue passports and there are no visas that would authorise entry for the purpose of applying for asylum. Although there are legal ways of admitting refugees, such as via resettlement programmes, the federal admission programme for Afghanistan or family reunification, these are only open to very few people in practice. In addition, according to the coalition agreement, the German government is planning to end voluntary admission programmes and further restrict family reunification - which will make access to protection even more difficult.
From a legal perspective, it is therefore explicitly permissible for people seeking protection to enter Germany without a passport or visa in order to apply for asylum here. The Geneva Refugee Convention protects them from prosecution for illegal entry. The Basic Law guarantees politically persecuted people an individual right to asylum. The corresponding provisions in the Residence Act, which criminalise entry without valid documents, explicitly do not apply to people who apply for asylum. The use of the term ‘illegal’ or ‘irregular’ suggests a criminal offence where one does not exist. It criminalises people seeking protection, even though they are exercising their legitimate right to seek protection in a safe country.
Legal situation at the border: when refoulement is (not) permitted
A strict legal distinction must be made between refoulement and deportation. Refoulement takes place directly at the border before a person has officially entered the country and, according to Section 15 of the Residence Act, is only permitted under certain conditions - for example, if no travel documents are available and no request for protection has been made. Deportation, on the other hand, concerns people who have already entered the country and whose stay is subsequently established to be illegal or no longer legal.
However, refoulement is always inadmissible if an application for asylum is made - i.e. if a person clearly indicates that they are seeking protection in Germany. Such a request can be made verbally, in writing or non-verbally. In this case, the Federal Police is obliged to transfer the person concerned to the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) for asylum proceedings (Sections 13 and 18 Asylum Act).
So-called ‘pushbacks’ - i.e. rejections without registration, examination or access to the asylum procedure - are incompatible with this legal situation. They are a clear violation of German asylum law, the Geneva Refugee Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights and EU rights (Dublin III Regulation).
No generalised solutions: The obligation to assess individual cases in the Dublin system
Whether Germany or another EU country is responsible for the asylum procedure is assessed in the so-called Dublin procedure. According to this system, the first member state in which a refugee sets foot on European soil is usually responsible - often states on the EU's external borders such as Italy, Greece or Poland.
Germany benefits structurally from this regulation, but is obliged under the Dublin III Regulation to transfer every person seeking protection to a fair procedure in which it must be determined which member state is responsible. An individual examination is essential and must not be replaced by quick decisions or blanket border measures.
This is because, according to the Dublin III Regulation, asylum seekers may not be returned to a country in which the asylum and social system has systematic weaknesses. (e.g. Italy, Greece, Hungary, Bulgaria, Croatia) and there is a right to admission if there are willing spouses, minor children, siblings or relatives in need of assistance living in the destination country or if there are other urgent (health) reasons.
Between fear and exclusion: Psychosocial consequences of the policy of refoulement
The consequences of the practice of refoulement are profound for the people affected. Many refugees have already suffered severe trauma in their countries of origin and during their journey. The experience of being turned away at the border despite expressing a need for protection can exacerbate these traumas or cause new psychological stress.
In our counselling practice, the concrete humanitarian consequences that hostile political rhetoric and restrictive border policies can have for people seeking protection become clear on a daily basis. We are increasingly encountering people who are suffering from severe psychological stress - including depression, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic symptoms and psychosomatic complaints. The uncertainty about their own status, the fear of repatriation and the lack of prospects for a safe life further exacerbate these burdens. The structural rejection by state authorities violates the fundamental need for protection of those affected by this situation and can have a retraumatising effect.
An attack on the rule of law and human dignity
The Federal Government's current measures not only contradict international human rights obligations, but also jeopardise the domestic rule of law. The Geneva Refugee Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights and EU law oblige Germany to grant those seeking protection access to a fair asylum procedure. The practice of rejecting asylum seekers across the board and without examining their individual need for protection seriously violates these obligations.
Our appeal: For an asylum policy based on human rights
As a psychosocial centre for refugees in Brandenburg, we are committed to an asylum policy that focuses on the protection of people - based on the principles of the rule of law and universal human rights. Instead of isolation, we call for legally sound and solidary ways of receiving refugees and, ultimately, the social participation of those seeking protection.
Additional information:
https://verfassungsblog.de/zuruckweisung-grenze-kontrolle-dobrindt/
https://www.proasyl.de/news/was-sind-eigentlich-zurueckweisungen/
https://aktionsbuendnis-brandenburg.de/faktencheck-scheinloesung-grenzkontrolle/
https://aktionsbuendnis-brandenburg.de/faktencheck-einreisewege-nach-deutschland/