“The rule of law is being dismantled where it is most urgently needed. This is not a change of course. It is an authoritarian turn using legal means.”
The attack comes from the right – the defense from below
The new federal government wants to further erode the right to asylum. Especially now, when everyone is shifting to the right, it is important that the Left takes a stand and fights back.
By Clara Bünger
[This article posted in May 2025 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://zeitschrift-luxemburg.de/artikel/der-angriff-kommt-von-rechts-die-verteidigung-von-unten/.]
In the 2025 federal election campaign, migration was not seen as an expression of social diversity, a matter of justice, or a field of 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 twisted, European law was misquoted, constitutional principles were openly questioned. Even in the parties that had once fought for humanitarian standards, the willingness to resist right-wing pressure seemed to be waning. And in parts of the social left, there was reluctance: Should migration even be an issue? Wouldn’t that benefit the AfD?
And then came Heidi Reichinnek’s speech. It was a moment that pushed Die Linke forward and showed what it means to take a stand when it counts. Her speech was a crystal-clear commitment to an open and supportive society, to human rights, to solidarity with refugees. Because what was at stake at that moment was more than just a motion: for the first time, the CDU had openly sought and found majorities with the AfD, whose unique selling point is an almost exclusive focus on anti-migration policies. It was a historic turning point. And Heidi Reichinnek named it for what it was: a taboo breach—not only in form, but also in content. The new government will continue this Merz policy. That is why this clear and loud opposition is still needed.
Authoritarian turn with migration as a gateway
The coalition agreement between the CDU/CSU and SPD contains a series of measures that, taken together, will further cement a repressive system. The new federal government has numerous ideas, some of which relate to small details with a big impact. However, the measures can be roughly divided into three areas: closing migration routes, more deportations, and dismantling the asylum system.
With regard to migration routes, the first step is to close supposedly “irregular” migration routes. Dobrindt and Merz had already announced before the elections that there would be a very concrete change at Germany’s external borders from day one of the new government: Until now, checks were carried out there, but anyone who had applied for asylum was allowed to enter. At least in theory, there were no pushbacks at German borders – but in practice, it is well known that asylum applications were often ignored by local officials. This practice is now set to become the norm, with people seeking protection being turned away at the border and sent back to neighboring European countries. In addition, the new government also wants to close legal escape routes as far as possible. It is therefore ending existing admission programs, such as the Federal Admission Program for Afghanistan. Family reunification with beneficiaries of subsidiary protection will also be suspended for two years, even though it is already limited to only 1,000 visas per month. The aim of these measures is clear: as far as possible, no more people seeking protection should come to Germany.
The coalition also wants to ensure that as many people as possible without secure residence rights leave Germany again. Among other things, asylum seekers who have come to Germany via another EU country will no longer receive benefits from the state and will thus be forced to leave the country. A corresponding regulation has already been decided by the traffic light coalition, but is not being implemented in several federal states because it would effectively lead to homelessness and hunger among those affected. The new federal government wants to push for “consistent implementation.” Such ‘incentives’ for “voluntary return” will be supplemented by a “repatriation offensive.” The government plans more deportations to neighboring countries and countries of origin. Even deportations to Afghanistan and Syria are to be made possible again, despite the danger to life. A small but crucial detail is that the coalition agreement stipulates that these deportations will “begin” with criminals and so-called dangerous individuals. Little resistance is to be expected from these groups, which are defamed as dangerous. Once people have become accustomed to this, the next step will be to deport everyone to unstable Syria or Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. The police will be given additional powers for this “offensive.” In addition, more detention centers for deportees are to be set up. However, these detentions are already proving to be unlawful in many cases. This problem is likely to worsen in the future, not least because the black-red federal government wants to abolish the recently introduced mandatory legal representation for detainees awaiting deportation.
“The rule of law is being dismantled where it is most urgently needed. This is not a change of course. It is an authoritarian turn using legal means.”
The right to asylum is to be further eroded by the so-called principle of provision. Whereas previously the authorities and courts themselves had to ensure that they had the necessary information about the situation in the respective country of origin in order to make a qualified decision, this responsibility is now being shifted to asylum seekers. However, asylum seekers are often unfamiliar with the specific requirements of German courts and asylum law, making it difficult for them to provide this information on their own. The fact that the federal government wants to “evaluate without prejudice” the recently introduced independent asylum procedure counseling service does not bode well—it could mean that asylum seekers will soon have to convince the authorities of their need for protection on their own. The individual right to asylum may remain “untouched” on paper, as promised in the coalition agreement, but in reality it is degenerating into a hollow formula that no longer protects anyone. The rule of law is being dismantled where it is most urgently needed. This is not a change of course. It is an authoritarian turn using legal means.
The truth is that previous governments—both the traffic light coalition and the grand coalition—had already implemented numerous massive tightening measures in the area of asylum and migration. As a result, the right to asylum had already been de facto transformed into a special right for many decades. However, what we are experiencing in terms of migration policy is not just a legal dismantling; it is part of an authoritarian shift that follows a clear strategy:
First, an existential threat is constructed: migration is declared a security risk. This creates a mood in which exceptions to the law for refugees as a group appear necessary, even though they actually violate democratic principles. These exceptions do not remain temporary, but become the new norm.
Second, rights are withdrawn, but selectively: asylum seekers today, other groups tomorrow. The payment card, the principle of self-support, camp accommodation—all these are prototypes for disenfranchisement.
Third, this goes hand in hand with a reinterpretation of historical achievements: The right to asylum is not a technical regulation—it is a consequence of the experience of fascism, persecution, and extermination. It was created because people were turned away at the borders under National Socialism and left at the mercy of their murderers. Today, however, this very right is increasingly portrayed as a “problem” – as outdated, naive, or an invitation to “the wrong people.” What was once considered an important lesson from “never again” even by CDU politicians is now declared a burden. This means that history is not simply forgotten—it is actively reinterpreted, and from the so-called center.
“The right to asylum is not a technical regulation—it is a consequence of the experience of fascism, persecution, and extermination.”
Finally, fourthly, society is systematically divided: no longer into top and bottom, but into ‘us’ and “them.” This breaks solidarity against fascist developments. The causes of social insecurity—poverty, exclusion, precarious work—are no longer negotiated along class or power lines, but interpreted as consequences “from outside.” Refugees and migrants become projection screens that distract attention from the actual causes.
This division is also evident in political rhetoric. Politicians such as Jens Spahn (CDU), who says that migration movements should be stopped “with physical force” if necessary, or Friedrich Merz (CDU), who uses populist terms such as “social tourism,” are de-inhibiting the discourse. Together with increasing state isolationism, this paves the way for more attacks on refugees, people with a migration background, and anyone who does not fit into the national self-image. The potential for violence is increasing, and the state is not protecting its citizens. On the contrary, in many cases, it is part of the problem.
This includes the experience of arbitrariness that many people seeking protection encounter. Rights are no longer reliably enforced, but are applied differently or denied depending on status, origin, federal state, or case worker. Migrants and refugees live in constant uncertainty as to whether they will be allowed to stay or be deported. Political engagement is also met with measures affecting residence rights. Those who are politically active may face deportation even without a conviction. This was demonstrated by the case of four pro-Palestinian activists who received deportation orders without conviction. The potential for violence is increasing – not despite, but because of political rhetoric. A glance at Hungary or the US, where arbitrary and unlawful deportations of people have become the norm, shows that this is not only a problem in Germany.
And all this is apparently happening in a technocratic manner: as “administrative modernization,” “digitization,” or “efficiency measures.” But in reality, a different state is being formed here—one in which institutions that support people are being dismantled, while repressive elements such as (deportation) prisons, police, and the military are being expanded.
Political resilience – our counter-strategy
What we see in the political debate on migration is only the gateway to a policy that can and will impose similar regulations in all areas of society in the future. Migration is the starting point because it is where the least resistance is expected. Everything that is being tested on refugees today may affect other groups tomorrow. Those who still have rights today may lose them tomorrow – if fundamental rights no longer apply to everyone. That is why we must fight for these fundamental rights for all. What we need is not a moderate corrective, but a clear alternative: a party that takes a stand when things get uncomfortable. A movement that does not get on the defensive, but knows what it is fighting for. A society that does not allow itself to be divided. Anyone who believes that migration is a topic best avoided is complicit in the deprivation of rights. Human rights are not a secondary issue. They are the core issue. And they are non-negotiable – not even for tactical electoral reasons. This way of thinking only ever helps the AfD.
Resilience means solidarity from below. While the federal government is closing its borders, resistance is growing in many places: in cities and communities, in migrant organizations, in refugee councils, in civil society, and in companies that stand up for their employees because they are threatened with deportation. Here, it is proven every day that a different migration policy is possible. One that protects instead of deters. One that organizes participation instead of isolation. One that focuses on common interests in affordable housing, higher wages, and a functioning infrastructure – not fear.
Defend the Basic Law – but don’t stop there
It’s true: the Basic Law is not what we on the left would imagine a truly social, democratic, and solidarity-based constitution to be. Max Reimann, who sat in the Parliamentary Council for the KPD, said despite his rejection of the Basic Law: “We will not sign it. But the time will come when we communists will defend this Basic Law against those who have accepted it.”
That time is now. Because the fact that we want more than this Basic Law does not mean that we will not defend it. On the contrary: because we know that things can be better, we also know how much we would lose if even what is enshrined in it today were to fall. We must not be satisfied with that. But we must not leave it to those who are quietly gutting it. We must develop our own narrative: one that defends the rights enshrined in the Basic Law and at the same time fights for the rights that are missing from it. For more social security with an economic policy that considers economic and social rights from the perspective of people’s needs. For freedom of movement. For the right to equal participation – regardless of passport, income or origin.
This struggle must be organized in reality.
Migration has been made a symbol: of loss of control, of being overwhelmed, of the disintegration of a supposedly homogeneous society. That is precisely why it has become the main target of the right wing. It allows them to bundle fears that actually have their roots elsewhere: in social insecurity, in the loss of participation, in the experience that for many, nothing gets better no matter how hard they work.
“The class we are fighting for is not homogeneous, but it still exists. It is female, queer, black, East German, employed on a temporary basis, poorly paid, often disenfranchised.”
The conflict between the top and the bottom is systematically obscured by an artificially created conflict between the inside and the outside. Yet it is obvious that those who live at the bottom today often live as migrants, in precarious conditions, marginalized. The class we are fighting for is not homogeneous, but it still exists. It is female, queer, black, East German, temporarily employed, poorly paid, often disenfranchised.
Organizing as a class means starting with reality. Not with symbolic debates, but with concrete contradictions: for good work, affordable housing, equal rights—for everyone. Not through appeals, but through joint action.
We do not engage in clientele politics. We engage in class politics. For the migrant caregiver. For the single mother. For the temporary worker in Gelsenkirchen. For the queer youth in the small town in eastern Germany. For the refugee worker in the logistics company. For those who are not asked, but without whose work society would collapse.
Because this class needs each other. When the rights of refugees are attacked, it affects us all. When labor rights are dismantled, it first affects the invisible, such as people without work permits – but never only them. Our struggles are not separate from each other. They are connected – or they will be lost. It is our task to make this commonality visible and to organize it: against the authoritarian restructuring from above. Always together, never alone.
Clara Bünger
Clara Bünger is a lawyer and politician. Since January 2022, she has been a member of the Bundestag and spokesperson for refugee and legal policy for the Left Party parliamentary group. In 2017, Bünger co-founded the association Equal Rights Beyond Borders, which provides individual case counseling and strategic processes for refugees, especially in Greece.