Europe
Germany’s new migration policy draws fire from neighbors
Concerns are mounting that the new measures implemented by Germany’s federal government to deter asylum seekers from entering the country could escalate into conflicts with its neighbors.
Berlin’s decision to completely prevent asylum seekers from entering Germany is facing scrutiny at the EU level. Legal proceedings are anticipated against these German measures, with predictions that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is likely to rule against Berlin.
Last week’s introduction of stricter border controls, aimed at identifying potential asylum seekers, triggered protests both within Germany and abroad. For instance, the mayor of Kehl asserts that these controls undermine the carefully cultivated cooperation with the French city of Strasbourg.
Neighboring governments are equally incensed. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk stated, “We will not accept those who send groups of migrants to Poland.” Chancellor Friedrich Merz, however, has declared that Germany will not compromise.
Given that permanent border controls within the Schengen area are incompatible with EU law, the federal government justifies its actions under Article 72 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This article permits EU member states to invoke national laws, rather than EU laws, if it is necessary to “protect public order” or “protect internal security.”
The national legislation currently invoked by the federal government is Article 18(2) of the German Asylum Act. This article unequivocally states that “foreigners shall be refused entry if they enter from a safe third country.” Notably, all of Germany’s neighboring countries are officially classified as “safe third countries.”
Berlin is now adopting a policy of generally refusing asylum applicants, with exceptions solely for children and pregnant women. Furthermore, the procedure is stipulated to be “proportionate.”
This approach clearly contravenes the Dublin Agreement, which permits asylum seekers to be returned to the EU member state through which they initially entered, while also requiring the identification of their country of origin. Berlin, however, argues that the Dublin Agreement can be disregarded because it is “not functional in practice.”
Widespread skepticism exists regarding the legal defensibility of the framework the federal government is using to legitimize its actions.
The European Commission is also reportedly taking a “critical” stance on this entire process. It is suggested that Commission President Ursula von der Leyen did a “favor” to Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who visited Brussels on Friday, by refraining from publicly disclosing the “legal skepticism” prevalent within the Commission.
Nevertheless, this does not imply that the skepticism has dissipated. Legal action against this move appears certain. Observers suggest that Berlin will then be compelled to clarify why it perceives the acceptance of asylum seekers as a severe threat to “internal security,” particularly considering the “decreasing numbers of asylum applications” currently observed.
Merz has thus far attributed this decision to “overcrowded asylum seeker accommodations, overburdened schools, and violence.” It remains uncertain whether the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will deem this sufficient justification, especially in light of the current “decreasing numbers of asylum applications.” However, it is also noted that a ruling could take years.
The federal government hopes that by then, the influx of migrants into Germany will have significantly diminished. Berlin is likely attempting to gain time, recognizing the contentious nature of its current approach.
Beyond the doubts concerning the legal validity of these measures, there is substantial political criticism of the federal government’s actions.
These criticisms originate from directly impacted municipalities such as Kehl in the state of Baden-Württemberg, which shares a very close collaborative relationship with the French city of Strasbourg.
Wolfram Britz, the independent mayor of Kehl, explains that they have consistently been urged to undertake “common projects” in the name of Europe, and now they have “a common tram, common bridges, and a common kindergarten.”
Britz is quoted as stating, “People from Strasbourg work in Kehl, and people from Kehl work in Strasbourg.” The substantial increase in border controls has resulted in prolonged traffic congestion between the two cities. It is also highlighted that these controls have disrupted tram services in Strasbourg.
Britz further asserted, “We can strongly condemn this action. We feel as though we are reverting to times we believed we had long since overcome.”
Growing dissatisfaction is also evident in neighboring countries. Luxembourg’s Minister of the Interior, Léon Gloden, last week voiced his opposition to Germany’s border controls, noting that approximately 52,000 people commute daily from Germany to Luxembourg for work.
Gloden had requested the “prevention of unnecessary disruption to cross-border traffic.”
Protests are also emerging from Switzerland. According to statements issued last weekend, even though the new controls have not yet caused significant traffic jams, fundamental objections persist.
Justice Minister Beat Jans declared, “Germany’s planned systematic rejections at the border, from Switzerland’s perspective, violate existing laws,” and alluded to possible “measures” against Berlin’s practices.
Austria has also expressed its criticism. The Austrian Ministry of Interior stated last Wednesday, “We assume that Germany will comply with European law in all measures it takes. Any measure taken by German authorities that deviates from this will not be accepted.”
However, Vienna also articulated its willingness to further tighten border controls through a common EU-wide effort.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk offered particularly sharp criticisms when he hosted Chancellor Merz, who made his inaugural visit to Warsaw on Wednesday evening.
Among other points, Tusk highlighted that approximately 95,000 people currently reside in Poland and commute to Germany for work every day.
Noting that long waiting times at the border are already a significant daily annoyance and should be reduced, Tusk affirmed, “I will be very insistent on this.”
Warsaw also objects to the unilateral refusal of asylum seekers by German border authorities. Tusk emphasized that he “attaches great importance” to ensuring that no country, including Germany, creates the impression or situation that they intend to send migrant groups to Poland anymore, and he underscored that Poland would not accept this.
Merz’s response indicates a hardening of the dispute over Germany’s new border policy.
According to reports, the chancellor defended the right of all EU member states to “regulate entry into their own territory” and consequently asserted that a compromise with neighboring countries was unnecessary.
In Brussels on Friday, Merz reiterated that Germany would continue to turn back asylum seekers, but that this would be conducted “in accordance with European law.”
The chancellor argued, “Germany is not acting alone on this,” claiming that its European neighbors were “fully informed” about Berlin’s actions.
Europe
China’s critical mineral restrictions challenge EU defence expansion plans
The European Union’s plans to expand its defence capabilities are being hindered by China’s export controls and sales restrictions on critical raw materials.
In response, EU leaders are urging member states to accelerate efforts to diversify supply chains.
According to Nikkei Asia, the European Commission announced last week that it would propose new legislation requiring companies across the bloc to broaden their supplier base in an effort to address economic imbalances, although it did not explicitly name China.
The war in Ukraine and growing uncertainty over Washington’s security guarantees have pushed European governments to increase military spending and defence production.
At the same time, according to a report published in May by Joris Teer, a policy analyst at the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS), China accounts for at least 70% of global mining or refining activity in 17 of the 34 materials classified as critical by the EU. Eight of those 34 materials are currently subject to Chinese export controls.
“China is undermining Europe’s rearmament efforts,” Teer wrote. “Simply by activating this tool, China has already increased its leverage and demonstrated both the capability and willingness to restrict supply whenever it chooses.”
The Aerospace, Security and Defence Industries Association of Europe also warned that geopolitical developments and intensifying global competition for critical raw materials are further underscoring the need to strengthen European supply chains.
The organisation represents more than 4,000 companies, including Britain’s BAE Systems, France’s Thales and Germany’s Rheinmetall.
European defence manufacturers are pursuing a range of strategies, including vertical integration, recycling, diversification and stockpiling.
Rheinmetall told Nikkei Asia that it has “no dependencies” and is “well prepared” regarding critical minerals.
A company spokesperson said: “Rheinmetall has stockpiled key raw materials sufficient for several years. We have also implemented IT systems that allow us to centrally monitor and precisely manage raw material consumption across the entire group.”
Analysts, however, caution that stockpiling alone will not be sufficient. Maria Shagina, a researcher at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said: “Stockpiling serves as an important buffer against sudden disruptions, but on its own it is unlikely to mitigate structural damage over the long term.”
Shagina added that replacing the volume and diversity of critical minerals controlled by Beijing with alternative sources would take years.
In 2024, the EU enacted the European Critical Raw Materials Act, aimed at rebuilding domestic supply chains for such minerals.
The legislation sets 2030 targets for domestic extraction, processing and recycling while limiting dependence on any single third-country supplier to 65%.
A €3 billion ($3.5 billion) fund was established last year to accelerate strategic projects.
Nevertheless, the European Court of Auditors has noted that the 2030 targets are not legally binding and that the EU remains far from achieving them.
Industry groups argue that policy inconsistencies could further slow progress.
The Cobalt Institute, which represents a sector vital to jet engines, advanced batteries and defence alloys, warned that proposed EU chemicals regulations risk undermining the industry.
“Europe has one foot in and one foot out,” said Michael Blakeney, head of government and public affairs at the London-based institute. “It says the right things, but its actions are inconsistent.”
Europe’s efforts are unfolding alongside a more aggressive US strategy to secure critical mineral supply chains.
Shagina said:
“The US is investing more capital to secure and expand capacity, taking greater financial risks and, in some cases, acquiring equity stakes. Europe, by contrast, is generally more cautious, which places it at a relative disadvantage in the competition for critical minerals.”
In April, the EU signed an agreement with the United States to coordinate supplies of critical minerals. Although some member states initially resisted over concerns that the deal could weaken the bloc’s strategic autonomy, they authorised the Commission in early June to join the US-led “Pax Silica” initiative, which coordinates investment and export-control policies.
Teer urged Europe to use ongoing US-EU-Japan negotiations as the nucleus of a broader coalition aimed at making critical mineral production outside China financially viable through state support, minimum-price mechanisms and supply rules.
“Particularly important are countries that either produce raw materials or possess significant mineral deposits, such as Malaysia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Brazil and Indonesia, as well as countries like India with large pools of skilled labour,” he said.
Teer also argued that the EU should activate its Anti-Coercion Instrument, which allows the bloc to impose tariffs and restrictions in response to economic pressure on countries outside the union, in order to deter China from introducing further restrictions.
A European Commission spokesperson said the bloc had “long been aware of the risks associated with the EU’s dependence on critical raw materials.”
“The objective is clear: to anticipate disruptions early and reduce the EU’s vulnerabilities while strengthening our industrial and defence capacities,” the spokesperson said.
Europe
Four European countries move to make citizenship harder to obtain
European countries are increasingly tightening their citizenship rules. Most recently, the Norwegian government has drafted legislation that would raise the minimum residency requirement for citizenship from three years to seven.
The proposed amendments to the citizenship law were presented by the Ministry of Labour and Social Inclusion.
Under the draft legislation, stateless individuals born in Norway, as well as those who arrived in the country as children, would be required to reside in Norway for at least five years before becoming eligible for citizenship.
The government also plans to increase residency requirements for foreign nationals who are married to or cohabiting with Norwegian citizens.
Language requirements are set to become more demanding as well. The proposal would raise the required level of spoken Norwegian proficiency from A2 to B1. The new rules would apply to applicants aged between 18 and 67.
Commenting on the changes, Minister of Labour and Social Inclusion Kjersti Stenseng said: “Obtaining and holding Norwegian citizenship should be a privilege.”
The government argues that simplifying administrative procedures while simultaneously tightening eligibility criteria will help reduce the country’s large backlog of pending applications and shorten processing times.
Norway is the latest European country to announce revisions to its citizenship rules.
In Finland, the minimum residency requirement for citizenship was increased from five years to eight years on October 1, 2024.
The country also plans to introduce a mandatory citizenship test for applicants aged between 18 and 64 from the beginning of 2027.
Finnish Interior Minister Mari Rantanen said: “The introduction of a citizenship test is the final component of a comprehensive reform aimed at making citizenship requirements more stringent.”
Sweden has also approved a similar reform. Beginning in June 2026, the standard residency requirement for citizenship will increase from five years to eight years. Authorities are also introducing a financial self-sufficiency requirement for applicants and expanding the scope of security screenings.
Explaining the rationale behind the changes, Migration Minister Johan Forssell said: “It was possible to become a citizen after living in the country for five years without knowing a single word of Swedish, learning anything about Swedish society, or even having one’s own source of income.”
The most far-reaching changes have been implemented in Portugal. Portuguese President Antonio Jose Seguro has signed legislation raising the minimum residency requirement for citizenship from five years to 10 years.
For citizens of the European Union and the Community of Portuguese Language Countries, the requirement has been set at seven years.
The residency period will now be calculated from the date a residence permit is granted rather than from the date a citizenship application is submitted. The new rules will also affect the children of immigrants.
Previously, children could obtain citizenship one year after birth if their parents held residence permits. Under the new rules, at least one parent must have legally resided in the country for a minimum of five years.
The law also introduces a mandatory examination covering Portuguese history, culture, values and social structures.
Migration policies are tightening across the European Union as well. On June 17, the European Parliament approved legislation allowing irregular migrants whose asylum applications have been rejected but who cannot be returned to their countries of origin to be deported to third countries.
The new EU rules permit the establishment of migrant detention centres outside the bloc’s borders. African countries are reportedly among the options being discussed for such facilities.
Europe
SpaceX warns EU satellite spectrum plan could disrupt connectivity in Ukraine
SpaceX has sharply criticised a European Union plan to restrict access to satellite spectrum, arguing that the proposal risks degrading connectivity in Ukraine and disrupting emergency communications services.
In a document shared with European officials and reviewed by the Financial Times, SpaceX warned:
“This proposal significantly increases the likelihood that Europeans will be deprived of direct-to-device satellite services, or that new European operations will create global interference issues, including for emergency services such as those operating in Ukraine.”
In a proposal unveiled in May, the EU recommended reserving part of the spectrum band used for direct satellite-to-smartphone connectivity for European operators, thereby limiting the frequencies available to US and Chinese providers.
The 2 GHz frequency band in question is currently used by two US companies, Viasat and EchoStar.
SpaceX argued that the EU plan prioritises “an operator’s country of establishment over economic, technical and regulatory realities.”
When the proposal was announced, EU technology chief Henna Virkkunen defended the move, saying the bloc wanted to “increase European capacity in this sector.” She added that other parts of the frequency band would remain open to international operators, arguing that prioritising European providers was justified.
Other participants involved in discussions over the proposal said some EU officials were specifically seeking to limit Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite network.
Europe’s initiative follows a warning from Washington. In March, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) cautioned that it could take retaliatory measures if the EU chose to favour European satellite operators over alternatives such as Starlink.
At the time, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr told the Financial Times: “Some of the discussions in Europe regarding satellite sovereignty concern us. If Europe decides to move down that path, then, as you know, we will have to consider reciprocal measures.”
The European Commission’s proposal has not yet entered formal negotiations with EU member states or the European Parliament.
A source close to SpaceX said the company remained hopeful of influencing the outcome of the process, given concerns raised by both businesses and several European governments.
-
Europe2 weeks agoAfD says Ukraine should compensate Germany over Nord Stream sabotage
-
Asia2 weeks agoPentagon adds Alibaba, Baidu and BYD to list of firms with alleged Chinese military ties
-
Opinion1 week agoA voice rising from New Delhi: BRICS’s manifesto for a new world order
-
Europe2 weeks agoToyota and JLR warn EU ‘Made in Europe’ rules could threaten jobs and investment
-
America2 weeks agoWorld Cup referee from Somalia denied entry to US as immigration scrutiny intensifies
-
Middle East1 week agoMine clearing in Strait of Hormuz could delay shipping traffic for up to 50 days
-
America7 days agoData leak exposes Peter Thiel’s secret ‘Dialog’ network of politicians, regulators, and tech elites
-
Diplomacy2 weeks agoTürkiye calls for Azerbaijan-Armenia peace treaty, highlights normalization steps with Yerevan
