In Germany’s 2025 parliamentary election campaigns, migration was not treated as an expression of social diversity, nor was it viewed as an issue to be addressed with justice or solidarity. It was treated — almost exclusively — as a threat. There was talk of “irregular” or even “illegal” migration. How can we stop it? How quickly can we deport people? The discourse was brutal. Facts were distorted, European law misquoted, and constitutional principles openly called into question. Even within parties that had once fought for humanitarian standards, willingness to resist pressure from the right seemed to be waning. Parts of the social left also held back: Should the topic of migration be addressed at all? Wouldn’t that only play into the hands of the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD)?
Clara Bünger is an attorney and and an MP for Die Linke.
And then came the speech in the Bundestag by Die Linke co-chair Heidi Reichinnek. It was a moment that galvanized the party and showed what it meant to stand firm when it matters. Her speech was a crystal-clear commitment to an open and compassionate society, human rights, and solidarity with refugees. Because what was at stake in that moment was more than just a parliamentary motion. For the first time, the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) had openly sought — and found — a parliamentary majority with the AfD, a party defined almost entirely by its anti-migration stance. It was a historic turning point. Reichinnek called it what it was: a line that had been crossed — not just in form, but in substance. The new government is going to continue this kind of politics under Friedrich Merz, which is why we will continue to need a clear and vocal opposition.
Migration Policy Opens the Door for the Authoritarian Turn
The coalition agreement between the CDU/Christian Social Union (CSU), on the one hand, and the Social Democratic Party (SPD), on the other, outlines a series of measures which, taken together, will further entrench a repressive system. The new government has no shortage of ideas — many addressing seemingly minor details with significant consequences. Broadly speaking, these measures can be divided into three areas: shutting down migration routes, increasing deportations, and dismantling the asylum system.
First, in regard to migration routes, so-called “irregular” entry points into the country are to be closed. Even before the election, Merz and CSU parliamentary group chairman Alexander Dobrindt (now Germany’s Minister of the Interior) had announced that, there would be a concrete change at Germany’s external borders starting on day one of the new government: previously, there were border checks, but anyone who expressed an intention to claim asylum was allowed to enter. At least in theory, this meant there were no pushbacks at German borders, although in practice, it was well known that officials often ignored asylum claims.
This practice is now set to become the norm: even people in need of protection will be turned back into neighbouring European countries at the border. In addition, the new government intends to shut down legal escape routes wherever possible. This includes ending existing resettlement programmes, such as the Federal Admission Programme for Afghanistan. Family reunification for people with subsidiary protection status will also be suspended for at least two years — even though it is currently capped at just 1,000 visas per month. The aim of these measures is clear: to prevent as many people seeking protection as possible from entering Germany.
The coalition also wants to ensure that as many people without secure residency status as possible leave the country. Among other things, asylum seekers who have arrived in Germany via another EU country are to be denied state benefits, effectively forcing them to leave. This policy was already passed under the previous “traffic light” coalition (consisting of the SPD, the Free Democratic Party (FDP), and the Greens), but has not been implemented in several federal states because it would effectively lead to homelessness and starvation for those affected.
Migration has been turned into a symbol of loss of control, being overwhelmed, and the supposed breakdown of a once-homogenous society.
However, the new federal government wants to push for “consistent implementation” of these measures. Such “incentives” for “voluntary returns” are to be backed by a “repatriation offensive”. The government is planning more deportations to neighbouring countries and countries of origin. Even deportations to Afghanistan and Syria are back on the table, despite the mortal danger. One small but crucial detail: the coalition agreement specifies that these deportations will begin with convicted criminals and so-called “dangerous individuals”. Because these groups are vilified as dangerous, little resistance is to be expected. Once the public becomes desensitized, the next step will be to deport people to unstable Syria or Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. To support this “offensive”, the police will be granted expanded powers, and additional deportation detention centres are to be built. Yet these detentions are already proving to be unlawful in many cases — something that is likely to worsen, especially as the CDU/CSU-SPD government plans to abolish the recently introduced mandatory legal counsel for detainees facing deportation.
The right to asylum is to be further hollowed out through the so-called “burden of proof” principle. Until now, it was the responsibility of the authorities and the courts to ensure they had the necessary information about the conditions in an applicant’s country of origin in order to make a qualified decision. Now that burden is being shifted onto the asylum seekers themselves, many of whom are often unfamiliar with the expectations of German courts and the requirements of asylum law and thus find it difficult to provide this information independently.
The fact that the government intends to “openly evaluate” the recently introduced independent asylum counselling service is also cause for concern. It raises the fear that asylum seekers will soon be left to navigate the process alone, forced to convince authorities of their need for protection without support. While the individual right to asylum may remain “untouched” on paper, as the coalition agreement claims, in practice it is being reduced to an empty promise that no longer protects anyone. The rule of law is being dismantled precisely where it is needed most. This is not a change of course. This is an authoritarian turn by legal means.
The truth is that previous governments — both the traffic light coalition and the grand coalition (consisting of the CDU/CSU and SPD) — had already introduced numerous restrictions on asylum and migration. In practice, asylum law has long been transformed into a kind of exceptional law. What we are seeing now, however, is not just a legal rollback — it is part of a broader authoritarian shift with a clear strategy.
First, an existential threat is constructed: migration is framed as a security risk. This creates an atmosphere in which legal exceptions targeting refugees as a group appear necessary, even though they undermine democratic principles. These exceptions do not remain temporary, but rather become the new norm.
Second, rights are stripped away, but selectively. Today it is asylum seekers; tomorrow it could be other groups. Distributing welfare benefits through prepaid cards instead of cash, applying a burden-of-proof principle, and housing people in camps — these are all prototypes of disenfranchisement.
Third, historical achievements are reinterpreted: the right to asylum is not a technical regulation — it is a legacy of the experience of fascism, persecution, and extermination. It was established because, under the Nazis, people were turned away at borders and handed over to their murderers. Today, this very right is increasingly being portrayed as a “problem” — as outdated, naïve, or as an invitation to the “wrong” people. What even CDU politicians once saw as a key lesson of the Holocaust is now being cast as a burden. This is not just historical amnesia, it is the deliberate rewriting of history, and it is being driven by the so-called centre.
Fourth, society is systematically divided — no longer into rich and poor, but into “us” and “them”. This undermines solidarity in the face of rising fascism. The root causes of social insecurity — poverty, marginalization, precarious work — are no longer addressed through the lens of class or power structures, but rather are interpreted as consequences coming “from outside”. Refugees and migrants become scapegoats that distract from the real culprits.
This division is reflected in political rhetoric. Politicians like Jens Spahn (CDU), who has spoken of stopping migration “with physical force” if necessary, or Friedrich Merz (CDU), who uses populist phrases like “benefit tourism”, are loosening constraints on political discourse. Combined with the increasing hardening of the state’s external borders, this is setting the stage for more attacks — on refugees, on people with migration backgrounds, and on anyone who does not conform to a narrow vision of German national identity. The potential for violence is rising, and the state is not offering protection. On the contrary: in many cases, it is part of the problem.
This includes the arbitrariness faced by many people seeking protection. Rights are no longer reliably upheld, but rather selectively applied or denied depending on the person’s status, country of origin, federal state, or even the individual caseworker. Migrants and refugees live under constant uncertainty, never knowing whether they will be allowed to stay or face deportation. Even political engagement is met with threats to one’s residency. Anyone who becomes politically engaged can be threatened with deportation, even without a criminal conviction. This was demonstrated by the case of four pro-Palestine activists who received deportation orders despite not being convicted. The potential for violence is rising — not despite, but because of political rhetoric. And this is not just a German issue, as is apparent when we look at Hungary or the United States, where arbitrary, unlawful deportations are now the norm.
All of this is presented under the pretence of technocracy: it is “administrative modernization”, “digitization”, or “efficiency”. But in reality, what is being shaped is a different kind of state — one in which institutions that support people are dismantled, while repressive elements such as (deportation) prisons, police, and the military are expanded.
Our Counterstrategy: Political Resilience
What we are witnessing in the political debate around migration is merely the point of entry for a broader agenda that will, in time, impose similar rules across all areas of society. Migration is the starting point because it is where the least resistance is expected. Everything that is being tested on refugees today can be used against other groups tomorrow. Those who still have rights today may lose them tomorrow, if fundamental rights are no longer upheld universally. That is why we must fight for fundamental rights for everyone. What we need is not a moderate correction, but a clear alternative: a party that stands firm when doing so is uncomfortable; a movement that is not on the defensive, but rather knows what it is fighting for; a society that will not be divided. Those who believe migration is a topic best avoided make themselves complicit in the process of disenfranchisement. Human rights are not a secondary issue. They are the core. And they are non-negotiable — even for the sake of electoral strategy. That kind of thinking only ever benefits the AfD.
The real conflict between those at the top and those at the bottom is systematically obscured by an artificially constructed divide between inside and outside.
Resilience means grassroots solidarity. While the government is shutting people out, resistance is growing in many places: in towns and cities, migrant-led organizations, refugee councils, civil society, and companies that stand by their employees who are facing the threat of deportation. These efforts prove every day that a different migration policy is possible — one that offers protection instead of deterrence, fosters participation rather than enforcing isolation, and puts the common interest in affordable housing, higher wages, and a functioning infrastructure at the centre, rather than fear.
Defend the Basic Law, But Don’t Stop There
It is true: the German constitution (known as the Basic Law) is not what we on the left would present as a truly social, democratic, and solidarity-based constitution. Despite rejecting the Basic Law, Max Reimann, who represented the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) in the Parliamentary Council that wrote and adopted the constitution, said that “We will not sign it. But the day will come when we Communists will defend this Basic Law against those who adopted it.”
That time is now. Wanting more than what the Basic Law offers does not mean we will not defend it. On the contrary, because we know that it could be better, we also know how much we stand to lose if even the rights currently enshrined in it are dismantled. We must not be satisfied with it, but we also cannot abandon it to the people who are quietly hollowing it out. We have to create our own narrative, one that defends the rights enshrined in the Basic Law while also fighting for those it still fails to include. For greater social security with an economic policy that puts economic and social rights at the service of people’s real needs. For freedom of movement. For the right to equal participation — regardless of passport, income, or background.
This Fight Must Be Organized in the Real World
Migration has been turned into a symbol of loss of control, being overwhelmed, and the supposed breakdown of a once-homogenous society. That is precisely why it has become the right’s main target. It serves as a vessel for fears that actually stem from other places: social insecurity, loss of inclusion, and the widespread experience that, no matter how hard we work, nothing gets better.
The real conflict between those at the top and those at the bottom is systematically obscured by an artificially constructed divide between inside and outside. And yet it is clear that those who are on the bottom today are often migrantized, precarious, and marginalized. The class we fight for is not homogeneous, but it does still exist. It is female, queer, Black, East German, temporarily employed, underpaid, and often disenfranchised.
Organizing as a class means starting from real-life conditions, not getting caught up in symbolic debates, but rather tackling concrete issues: decent work, affordable housing, and equal rights — for everyone. Not with appeals, but through collective action.
We are not doing clientelism. We are doing class politics. For the migrant care worker. For the single mother. For the contract worker in Gelsenkirchen. For the queer teenager in a small East German town. For the refugee labourer working for a logistics company. For those who are never asked, but without whom society would collapse.
Because this class depends on mutual solidarity. When refugees’ rights are attacked, it affects all of us. When labour rights are dismantled, the invisible people — such as those without work permits — are hit first, but they are never the only ones. Our struggles are not separate. They are interconnected — or they are lost. Our task is to make this shared struggle visible and organize it — against the authoritarian restructuring being imposed from above. Always together, never alone.
This article first appeared in LuXemburg. Translated by Alice Rodgers and Joseph Keady for Gegensatz Translation Collective.