Border Controls in Germany
The success of fringe parties shift mainstream policy. But does it mean they win?
Source: Frank Hammerschmidt/dpa/picture alliance
Germany’s decision to reinstate border checks at all land crossings isn’t just about managing migration or tackling extremist crime. It’s a striking example of how fringe parties, even when they’re not in power, can reshape political discourse—and eventually, government policy itself. The fringes are far from governing Germany, but growing popularity is clearly shifting the national debate, and now, concrete policy.
Last week, Germany's Interior Minister Nancy Faeser announced new border controls, ostensibly aimed at addressing threats from "Islamist terrorism and serious crime.” The controls now require passport checks when entering Germany. These are planned for six months, but could be extended. The motivation for this policy shift isn’t entirely baseless: Germany has suffered disturbing attacks recently. These include a knife attack in Solingen last month by a Syrian asylum seeker, that left three people dead—an attack claimed by ISIS. Incidents like this dominate the headlines and have a chilling effect on public support for immigration.
And the numbers reveal part of the story: as of May, Germany had 365,000 pending asylum applications, the highest in Europe. Add to that growing public dissatisfaction with the government and electoral gains by both the right and left extremes, and you can see why policy is shifting. In recent elections in Saxony and Thuringia, the far-right AfD had double the support of parties that form the governing coalition in Germany combined. This isn’t some fringe party yapping away — it’s getting more and more votes.
Fringe parties have been faster at picking up on issues like migration and European integration—topics that established parties have either failed to address or avoided altogether. This gap between ruling parties and the electorate has pumped electoral oxygen into parties like the AfD, which is now driving real political change. As political scientist Endre Borbáth put it:
"The change in society due to new issues, such as migration, European integration or climate change, are the reason for the change. These issues are not well represented by the mainstream parties." (DW).
When Chancellor Olaf Scholz stood in front of the Bundestag last week, and said, “We must be able to choose who comes to Germany.” It represents a big departure from the Willkommenskultur — the welcome culture of 2015. Back then, Angela Merkel flung open its doors to the refugees emerging out of the civil war in Syria and Iraq. In fact, Merkel was able to persuade other European leaders like France’s François Hollande and Spain’s Mariano Rajoy to soften their stances on immigration.
It was a claim of moral leadership, and while there were concerns about the economic costs, the public largely supported it. A 2015 poll by the German broadcaster ARD showed that 93% of Germans believed it was right to grant asylum to people fleeing war or civil conflict. Even the right-wing tabloid Bild, known for its populist leanings, supported the cause of refugees.
Now to 2024. That popular consensus has evaporated. The governing coalition - The SPD, the Greens, and the FDP— are now embracing tighter controls. And it’s not just about immigration. Germany is grappling with broader concerns about its economic outlook, political stability, and role in the world.
In last week’s budget debate, Alexander Dobrindt from the conservative Bavarian CSU was quick to capitalise on the growing discontent. "Is Germany safer today than in 2021? No. Is Germany more competitive today than in 2021? No. Is Germany more politically stable today than in 2021? No."
Dobrindt’s remarks were an indictment of the current government, and the Chancellor Scholz—clearly irritated—spent much of the debate on the defensive. The tension was heightened by the failure of a recent bipartisan conference on immigration policy. What was once a battle between left and right has now become a race to see who can be tougher on immigration.
When both parties are competing on the same issue, now, that’s when an issue has crashed into the center of politics.
But this isn’t about the far-right winning. As fringe parties successfully capitalise on the falling support for open borders, mainstream parties are being forced to consider more conservative policies on immigration and national security. This does not necessarily undermine liberal principles or free movement in Europe.
This happened with the question of trade policies with China. in 2016, Trump managed to catapult himself into the White House, in part, because of his hostility towards trade with China. Now, Biden’s administration has largely kept these trade policies.
What we’re seeing with regards to immigration is a broader trend across Europe. In the Netherlands, far-right Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders asked, “If Germany can do it, why can’t we?” Just today, the four-party Dutch government requested an opt out clause from the EU’s migration and asylum system. It is unprecedented from any founding member state.
The question remains: if centrist parties reasonably take on the issue of immigration, does it take away oxygen from the far-right, or does it feed it to them?
In other news
Hezbollah vows to retaliate after nine die from pagers exploding (The Guardian)
UK: Inflation held steady at 2.2% (BBC)
Netherlands requests opt-out clause of EU Asylum rules (Euronews)
Check out the new lineup at the European Commission (Euronews)
New French PM judges France’s fiscal context “very grave” (Le Figaro)