Germany cracks down on illegal immigration
Germany's new government has ordered tighter border controls, marking a sharp shift in immigration policy and fulfilling a key campaign promise of Chancellor Friedrich Merz.
The leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party, Merz was elected chancellor on the second attempt on Tuesday after failing his first confirmation vote in parliament earlier in the day. He had pledged to turn back illegal migrants at the border on his first day in office.
On Wednesday, newly appointed Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt signed an order banning asylum applications at all land borders. In a letter seen by Bild, he instructed the head of the Federal Police, Dieter Romann, to disregard a directive from 2015.
'I hereby withdraw the verbal instruction given… on 13 September 2015,' he wrote.
The instruction came from then Chancellor Angela Merkel, who opened Germany's borders to more than a million migrants at the height of Europe's 2015–16 refugee crisis. Her open-door policy later drew fierce political backlash and was labeled 'disastrous' by critics.
Dobrindt said Germany would not close its borders but would significantly tighten control. Police have been instructed to turn people away directly at the border, he told a press conference, noting exceptions for children, pregnant women, and other 'vulnerable' groups.
The minister added that around 2,000 to 3,000 officers would be added to the current 11,000-strong federal police force stationed at the borders. He emphasized that the new approach should not 'place excessive demands' on neighboring states and confirmed consultations were already underway with those countries.
Germany has a 3,700km-long land border with nine countries, including Poland, Austria, France, and the Netherlands. All are part of the EU's Schengen Zone, which allows passport-free travel for most EU citizens and many non-EU nationals.
Migration remains one of Germany's most divisive political issues, with local authorities often warning that the number of asylum seekers is straining their budgets. The right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, known for its strong anti-immigration stance, was designated a 'confirmed extremist entity' last week by the domestic intelligence agency BfV, which said its activities could threaten Germany's democratic order. The party filed a legal challenge on Monday.
As the EU's largest economy, Germany remains the top destination for asylum seekers. The country received a quarter (over 237,000) of all asylum applications across the bloc in 2024, though the number was significantly lower in annual terms.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
Russians find new biggest enemy to replace US
Russians do not consider the US 'the most unfriendly country' anymore, and the title now goes to Germany, according to a survey by the Levada Center, a Western-funded organization which has been designated as a 'foreign agent' in Russia. The US has lost the top spot for the first time in 13 years, dropping to fourth place in the poll, which was published on Thursday. Only 40% of those surveyed mentioned the US among Russia's primary enemies, with the number dropping by 36% compared to last year, it said. Attitudes towards America shifted with the return of US President Donald Trump. Since his inauguration, the White House has been making efforts to broker a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict, the pollster noted. According to the study, Germany is now in first place, with 56% of respondents describing it as an 'unfriendly country' towards Russia, followed by the UK at 49% and Ukraine at 43%. Before the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022, only 16% of the Russians considered Berlin an enemy, the Levada Center's data suggests. German chancellor Friedrich Merz, who assumed office in early May, has intensified aggressive rhetoric towards Russia, while also making steps to boost military aid provided to Kiev by Berlin during the conflict with Moscow. Last month, Merz said that Ukraine would be allowed to use Western-supplied weapons against Russia without range limitations. He claimed that would be 'possible' to provide Kiev with German Taurus missiles, which have a range of over 500 kilometers and are capable of reaching targets deep within Russian territory, including Moscow. The new chancellor also pledged to assist the government of Vladimir Zelensky with the production of long-range weapons inside Ukraine. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reacted to the statements by Merz by stressing that Berlin's 'direct involvement in the war is now obvious.' 'Germany is sliding down the same slippery slope it already followed a couple of times in the last century – down toward its own collapse,' Lavrov said, referring to the defeats suffered by the country in the First and Second World Wars. The Levada Center also asked the respondents about the countries they consider Russia's 'closest friends.' Belarus (80%), China (64%), Kazakhstan (36%), India (32%) and North Korea (30%) were the top five.
Russia Today
16 hours ago
- Russia Today
Mission: Regrettable – Ukraine's drone strike blows up in its face
For most people, June 1st is a cheerful date – the start of summer, a celebration of children. But from 2025 onward, it may also be remembered as the day Ukraine launched its largest covert operation in Russia since the start of the conflict. While the full impact of the operation is still unclear, estimates suggest anywhere from a handful to several dozen Russian aircraft were damaged or destroyed. The precise details will likely remain shrouded in speculation. What is certain, however, is that the Russian military must rethink how it defends strategic facilities. The traditional approach – based on intercepting missiles and deploying advanced air-defense systems – has proven inadequate against cheap drones that can be assembled from off-the-shelf parts and launched from almost anywhere. That lesson is now painfully clear. But the military will draw its own conclusions. Our focus should be on the political meaning of what happened. Make no mistake – this was not just a military act. Like much of what Ukraine does, this was political theater, staged for a very specific audience: Donald Trump. Kiev's objective was simple. Derail the Istanbul negotiations and paint Russia as the intransigent party. How? By provoking a furious response – one that would make headlines, stir outrage inside Russia, and force Moscow to walk away from the table. The idea was to provoke a reaction that Ukraine could then parade before Washington. The message? 'See? We told you they don't want peace. Arm us more!' It's not the first time they've tried this tactic. From the attack on the Kursk Bridge to the shelling of Donbass civilians, Ukraine has repeatedly used provocation as a diplomatic weapon – seeking to engineer Russia's diplomatic isolation by sabotaging any steps toward negotiation. And yet, once again, it didn't work. Despite outrage from parts of Russian society, Moscow did not take the bait. Our delegation flew to Istanbul as planned. There, negotiators presented Ukraine with a memorandum reiterating the same terms previously offered. Not a step back. At the same time, humanitarian agreements were reached – including a new exchange of prisoners and the return of fallen fighters' remains. So did Russia 'turn the other cheek'? Hardly. Moscow has adopted a strategy one might call an 'Italian strike' – doing the bare minimum to deny our enemies a propaganda victory, while withholding the kind of breakthroughs that would reward bad-faith behavior. Yes, the humanitarian measures agreed upon in Istanbul are important. But let's not kid ourselves – they are not steps toward a peace settlement. Politically, the situation is unchanged. However, there is a deeper issue now at play – one with far more serious implications. On June 1st, Ukrainian forces didn't just target military bases. They targeted components of Russia's nuclear deterrent. Under our official doctrine, an attack on the strategic nuclear infrastructure is grounds for the use of nuclear weapons. Now, no one is suggesting we nuke Kiev over a few aircraft, no matter how advanced or expensive. That would be disproportionate. But here lies the paradox: If Russia does nothing, it risks undermining the credibility of its own deterrence posture, and that sends a dangerous message. In the Western capitals and among Ukrainian hawks, there are already whispers: 'If they didn't respond to this, maybe they'll tolerate even more.' That may sound absurd – but that's how these people think. Their fantasies become policy more often than one would like. So what is the answer? Let's be honest: repeating slogans like 'our response will be success on the battlefield' won't cut it here. Ukraine's leadership isn't acting out of military logic, but emotional desperation. Their calculation is political. So Russia's response must be political, too – emotionally resonant, unmistakably firm, and, above all, creative. This doesn't mean rash escalation, but we can't rely on the old playbook. Hitting the same military targets again and again achieves little. Striking Ukraine's energy infrastructure? Done. Launching another missile as a 'demonstration'? Predictable. Escalating to mass casualties? Unnecessary and, frankly, counterproductive. So what's left? Innovation. Russia must now think asymmetrically. That might mean a covert action so unexpected that it catches Ukraine completely off guard. Or it could involve striking symbolic targets that shift the psychological balance. The key is to remind Kiev – and its patrons – that nothing they do goes unanswered, and that the cost of provocation will always outweigh the benefit. In truth, Russia has spent too long responding conventionally to a conflict that is anything but conventional. Our adversaries deal in optics, symbols, and theater. To counter that effectively, we must speak the same language – without abandoning our principles or resorting to theatrics of our own. The June 1st attack was not a turning point. But it was a warning. Not just about drones or airfields, but about perception and power. The next move, as always, is Russia's to make. And this time, it must be something they don't article was first published by the online newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team
Russia Today
20 hours ago
- Russia Today
Kiev sends the living to die, but won't accept its dead
It is sad, but peace remains elusive in the war between, on one side, Ukraine and – through Ukraine – the West and, on the other, Russia. Recently, the US has at least admitted that Moscow has plausible and important interests at stake and that the West has been using Ukraine to fight a proxy war against Russia. While very late and still incomplete, such truthfulness could help fashion the kind of realistic compromise needed to end this war. Yet Washington's European vassals have chosen this moment to discover their usually terminally atrophied capacity for talking back to the US: They clearly want the war to continue, even though that means Ukraine – about which they pretend to care – will lose even more people and territory. Against this backdrop, it was no wonder that the latest round of the renewed Istanbul talks between Russia and Ukraine produced no breakthrough, little progress, and only very modest concrete results. Also, on the eve of the talks, the Zelensky regime launched terror attacks on civilian trains in western Russia and a series of sneak drone strikes throughout the country that – in the most generous reading – involved the war crime of perfidy: That, obviously, did not help find a way forward either. Indeed, by now it is clear that Kiev's sneak drone attacks in particular have only further undermined the Zelensky regime's already fragile standing in Washington: US President Donald Trump has been explicit that he accepts Russia's right to massively retaliate, or, in the original Trumpese, 'bomb the hell' out of Ukraine. Luckily for Ukraine, Moscow is generally more restrained than America would be in a similar situation, and it should stay so. Yet the fact remains, Kiev's sneak drones have made no substantial military difference in its favor, but they have done significant political damage – to Kiev, that is. Regarding the Istanbul talks, it is likely that these assaults were meant to torpedo them. Yet Moscow did not fall for that rather transparent play. Its delegation turned up; so the Ukrainian one had to do the same. In addition, Russia ended this round of the negotiations with several good-will gestures, including an agreement to exchange POWs who are particularly young or in bad health and the offer to hand over the frozen (a common practice in war) bodies of 6,000 fallen Ukrainians. Both initiatives have run into trouble. To be precise, both are being impeded by the Ukrainian leadership. The POW swap has been delayed, and Ukrainian officials have failed to show up at the border to receive the first 1,212 of their deceased soldiers. Regarding both, Kiev has blamed Russia. Yet, remarkably, the Ukrainian statements, in reality, prove that it is indeed Kiev that is – at the very least – slowing these processes down. For what Ukrainian officials are really accusing Russia of is moving faster. The reasons for this obstructionism are unclear. The Ukrainian authorities have not shared them with the public. But there are some plausible guesses. One very likely reason why Kiev is reluctant to accept the 6,000 bodies of its own fallen soldiers is that the 'preponderant majority' of them, according to a Ukrainian member of parliament, were killed specifically during Ukraine's insane and predictably catastrophic incursion into Russia's Kursk region. Started on August 6 of last year, the operation was initially hyped by Ukrainian propagandists and their accomplices and useful idiots in the West. For the clear-eyed, it was obvious from the beginning that this was a mass kamikaze mission, wasting Ukrainian lives for no military or political advantage. Was the Zelensky regime trying to create a territorial 'bargaining chip'? Or once more 'shift the narrative,' as if wars are won by rewriting a movie script? Influence last year's US elections? Prepare for a possible victory by then presidential candidate Donald Trump? All of the above? We don't know. What we do know is that nothing Kiev may have fantasized about has worked. Indeed, by now the Kursk fiasco has only made Kiev's situation worse. Russia has retaken the territory in Kursk Region that Ukraine had seized and is advancing on the Ukrainian side of the border, taking settlements at an accelerating pace and getting close to the major regional city of Sumy. Clearly, those fallen during that particular suicide mission are evidence of Kiev's recklessness, hypocrisy, and incompetence. No wonder they seem to be less than welcome at home. A second reason for Kiev's reluctance may be even more sordid. There is speculation, for instance on social media, that it is financial. More importantly, a Russian diplomat, Sergei Ordzhonikidze, has made the same claim on the Telegram channel of the Izvestiia newspaper. For according to Ukrainian legislation, the families of the fallen soldiers are entitled to substantial compensation. Painful as it may be to acknowledge it, the Zelensky regime is not incapable of such a massive lack of piety. Whatever the precise reasons for Kiev's odd refusal to take back its prisoners and dead, they are certain to be base. This may jar with the West's well-organized and stubbornly delusional Zelensky fan club. But the best they could do for 'ordinary' Ukrainians is to put pressure on their worn-out idol to accept the prisoners and the fallen. And, of course to finally end the war.
