Table of Contents
- What are the regulatory prerequisites?
- Why was the individual from Solingen in Germany?
- How does the expulsion process ensue?
- What transpires when there's resistance against expulsion?
- Which nations is Germany not presently relocating individuals to?
- Typically, deportation proceedings involve the following steps:
The proposed offender from Solingen – a 26-year-old Syrian – should have been expelled last year. Regrettably, an expulsion attempt failed since authorities couldn't locate him at his residence. Government sources claimed there were no subsequent attempts. NRW Interior Minister Herbert Reul (CDU) denies political accountability in this matter, instead referring to the North Rhine-Westphalian Ministry for Children, Youth, Family, Equality, Refugees and Integration, and the responsible Minister, Josefine Paul (Greens). "There are unanswered questions that Minister Paul is currently investigating," Reul stated. While there are clear regulations on the legal and practical proceedings of expulsion, there are indeed open queries.
What are the regulatory prerequisites?
Upon rejection of an asylum application by the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (Bamf) or if an immigration authority determines that someone isn't entitled to stay in Germany, the affected individual needs to be notified in writing including a ban on re-entry and re-stay. Followed by a deadline for voluntary departure from Germany. Persons affected can lodge an objection within one month. If the deadline is surpassed or the objection failed, expulsion becomes imminent.
If the individual refuses to leave voluntarily, an expulsion order is issued by the respective authority, which then informs the Central Deportation Authority (ZAS) of the respective state. The ZAS then books the flight and communicates the expulsion details to the immigration authority, state police, and federal police. No longer is a three-day notice required for expulsion announcements.
Why was the individual from Solingen in Germany?
Actually, the now-suspected individual should have been expelled to the EU country he first entered according to the Dublin Regulation: Bulgaria. He would have needed to file his asylum application there. However, German authorities attempted to expel the Syrian directly to his homeland. Bamf's statistics for January to May 2024 reveal a problem: EU border states take back only a minimal fraction of refugees. For instance, Germany requested other EU countries to take on 6141 cases in January 2024, of which 3171 were granted. The actual transfers in that month: 482.
How does the expulsion process ensue?
Routinely, the law enforcement takes action early in the morning and picks up the affected individuals from their beds. Following which they are brought to the airport or train station. In case of a controlled departure, the police intervention ends there. In case of an accompanied expulsion, the federal police now takes charge and accompanies the persons to their destination country. A deportation stamp is placed on their passports, and an entry ban is imposed. The duration of this ban varies on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes, individuals are expelled individually whereas sometimes, entire planes are chartered for mass expulsions to a single country.
What transpires when there's resistance against expulsion?
Typically, the affected individuals are confined during expulsion, wearing handcuffs or even foot restraints. Authorities also administer medication to sedate individuals on a case-by-case basis, thus minimizing the possibility of resistance.
However, a letter from the state immigration office to the federal police caused a stir, stating: "If the affected individual refuses to board the plane or resists expulsion in any manner (active/passive resistance), they can be released and travel independently to their assigned accommodation."
The state immigration office later clarified: "The aforementioned documentation was an internal memorandum from the Lower Saxony state immigration office to the federal police, which was unfortunately framed in a highly misleading and imprecise manner. It was not employed in this form in general and will not be employed in the future. The office is not authorized to issue such instructions to the federal police. The memorandum was merely intended as a reminder to the federal police that a judicial order is necessary in the event of a failed expulsion to detain the individual."
Which nations is Germany not currently expelling to?
No fixed list exists of nations to which expulsion is prohibited. However, the BAMF checks for dangers in the "destination country-specific deportation bans." For instance, there was a deportation ban for war-torn Syria from 2012 to 2020 which wasn't extended. Yet, no expulsions to Syria have taken place since then. The same applies to Afghanistan, as the Taliban gained power in the country in 2021. No expulsion ban exists, but expulsions to Afghanistan from Germany continue.
The political debate around the assessment of life-threatening dangers in Syria and Afghanistan is currently gaining momentum following the incident in Solingen. Nevertheless, the Scientific Service of the German Bundestag concluded in March 2024: "Despite each case being unique, the dismal security situation and grim humanitarian situation in Syria and Afghanistan would habitually prevent expulsions to these countries under Article 3 ECHR." Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) states: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
The proposed Syrian from Solingen was originally intended for deportation due to the rejection of his asylum application or lack of entitlement to stay in Germany. However, an expulsion attempt failed last year due to authorities being unable to locate him at his residence.
If an affected individual refuses to leave voluntarily after an expulsion order, they may be sedated with medication to minimize resistance, as outlined in an internal memo from the Lower Saxony state immigration office. However, it was clarified that this memorandum was not intended for general use and did not authorize the state immigration office to issue such instructions to the federal police.
