Boris Rhein: “What is needed is a big stop sign at the border, not behind it”

Boris Rhein, 52, has been Prime Minister of Hesse since May 2022, after previously holding several ministerial posts. The CDU politician is a lawyer and previously worked as a lawyer.

WORLD ON SUNDAY: Mr Rhein, the Union had offered the coalition talks on a solution to the migration crisis and declared them a failure after the second meeting. Is it right to immediately retreat into the sulking corner?

Boris Rhine: The Union has offered the federal government its help to end one of the central problems of our time: irregular migration. An extraordinary offer from an opposition faction in the German Bundestag, in my opinion. This is only necessary because the traffic light coalition cannot get the situation under control on its own. After the two talks, however, it is clear to us: this coalition does not want any real measures to limit immigration, it does not want a turning point in migration. Instead, a bureaucratic monster was presented on Tuesday that does not even begin to solve the problem. The Union had no choice but to say: not with us.

JERKIN: Why are the proposals of Federal Minister of the Interior Nancy Faeser (SPD) a bureaucratic monster?

Rhine: Their proposal is that everyone who applies for asylum at our borders should then be checked to see whether another EU member state is responsible for the process: interviews, hearings, data collection, data transfer. Many asylum seekers are not even registered in the database required for this. If necessary, the Federal Office for Refugees (BAMF) should then initiate an accelerated Dublin procedure in order to send the people to the EU country in which they were first registered at some point in the future. Until then, this is possible, but people should be detained at the border and elsewhere. The Federal Police should check whether detention capacity is available and, if necessary, apply for detention at the relevant court.

That is unrealistic – and Dublin has not worked for years. That is why we must ensure that those who are not entitled to protection do not come to our country in the first place. We can see how difficult it is for us to deport people. What is needed is a big stop sign at the border, not behind it.

JERKIN: The federal government argues that the Union’s plan to reject asylum seekers at the border may violate EU law. Minister Marco Buschmann (FDP) offered to try rejecting asylum seekers at a small part of the border and to wait and see how the courts react. Why did the Union block this?

Rhine: If the federal government believes that a process is illegal, you can’t just try it out for a bit and see what happens. That’s a smokescreen.

JERKIN: Why this?

Rhine: It is intended to conceal the fact that Interior Minister Nancy Faeser and with her probably large parts of the SPD and FDP would support the Union’s proposals on rejections. But they cannot do so because the Greens are blocking it. Legal hurdles are also being set up and in the end proposals are being put on the table that may limit the conflicts within the traffic light coalition, but not irregular migration.

But there is indeed a legal problem. Many of our neighboring countries are violating the Dublin Agreement. This is the only way that people can come to Germany by land to ask for asylum. There are also no secure EU external borders and no fair distribution of refugees. Dublin has failed. That is why what is written in the Basic Law must apply: anyone who enters via a safe third country has no right to asylum and must be turned back.

JERKIN: Do you think that the proposals could be implemented with the Interior Minister and the SPD?

Rhine: I assume that Nancy Faeser would be willing to do this. But the coalition she is in is cumbersome…

JERKIN: … It is not as if the coalition has not done anything to combat massive immigration. Asylum applications have fallen significantly in 2024.

Rhine: Because, under pressure from the Union, the internal borders are now finally being controlled. When I first said this a year and a half ago, I was heavily criticized – especially by the Greens. Now it is clear: it is working. Overall, however, too little is happening, everything is coming too late, dragging on like chewing gum. With this traffic light, it is like trying to talk to a lame donkey: it is not moving. Or only in baby steps, as after the state elections in Saxony and Thuringia. The migration policy of this federal government has led the AfD to record results there.

JERKIN: FDP leader Christian Lindner is now proposing another summit meeting with Chancellor and CDU leader Friedrich Merz. Scholz says the door is open. Under what conditions could further talks take place?

Rhine: Democrats must always be willing to talk to each other. However, the demand for comprehensive restitution is non-negotiable for us. And I I am also no longer prepared to hold therapy sessions for the completely divided traffic light coalition. My advice to this federal government is to break free from the Greens’ grip and finally make real politics for the people of our country.

JERKIN: And if there are no more talks with traffic light representatives, has the Union then put the issue of migration aside for the time being?

Rhine: On the contrary, we will come up with further initiatives. The problem has not been solved. Last Thursday, for example, the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the Bundestag requested exactly what the federal government refused to do in the talks: to send asylum seekers who want to come to Germany from safe third countries back directly to our border. I am also immediately prepared to abolish family reunification for people with subsidiary protection.

JERKIN: If Germany closes its borders, other countries will follow. Wouldn’t this plan cause chaos in Europe without solving the migration crisis? Because the people would be there whether they were turned back or not.

Rhine: The opposite would be the case. If we make it clear that we consistently reject people, Germany, in the middle of Europe, would lose its appeal as a great magnet for tens of thousands of people every year. This would mean that fewer people would try to come to Europe overall. There would be a domino effect that would also relieve the burden on our neighboring countries – and the people smugglers would no longer be able to carry out their shady business.

JERKIN: Then we would have a Europe of national borders again.

Rhine: I joined the CDU for an open Europe and because of Helmut Kohl’s European policy. But that only works if the EU’s external borders are protected – and that is not the case. Without secure external borders, there can be no open internal borders.

JERKIN: Don’t you and your colleagues need to be a little more self-critical? Deportations are a matter for the states.

Rhine: For large-scale deportations, we need functioning repatriation agreements. And negotiating such an agreement is not the responsibility of the states, but of the federal government. It would also make the process much easier if there were more safe countries of origin. In Hesse, we have enough deportation detention places and are consistently deporting people, and the numbers are rising. We would like to deport even more, but we need the repatriation agreement for that.

JERKIN: The Solingen attacker only needed to be flown to Bulgaria. North Rhine-Westphalia, which has a CDU prime minister and interior minister, did not implement the ordered deportation. This is not the federal government’s fault.

Rhine: There is no doubt that the states must also recognize and remedy enforcement deficiencies. The basic rule is that the authorities must remain persistent when it comes to deportations. But none of this changes the fact that repatriation is a Sisyphean task for all states.

JERKIN: AfD leader Alice Weidel speaks of “luxury deportations” because deported criminals receive a starting fee of 1,000 euros. This is supposedly equivalent to two years’ salary in Afghanistan or Syria. Is this something that can be explained to the population?

Rhine: I understand anyone who thinks this is wrong. But unfortunately we have to bite the bullet for legal reasons. A deportation is currently only legally secure if we guarantee people a secure livelihood for a foreseeable period of time in the country to which we deport them. Otherwise we risk that such large-scale deportations of criminals will fail.

JERKIN: The requirement comes from an administrative court ruling. Will the Union change the laws if it takes on government responsibility?

Rhine: If it is legally possible, we will do so. Until then, unfortunately, we have no other choice but to get people out of the country.

JERKIN: In Hesse, the process from requesting asylum to the final decision takes more than 29 months. Why isn’t it faster?

Rhine: Old cases from the 2015/16 asylum wave still appear in the statistics, which are driving up the duration of the proceedings above average. Most of these have now been dealt with. The duration of the proceedings in the current cases has therefore been significantly reduced. We are now bundling asylum proceedings at the administrative courts in Gießen and Darmstadt. This speeds things up.

JERKIN: What lessons have you learned from the Solingen attack?

Rhine: Immediately after the terrorist attack, the Hessian state government ordered more police presence at folk festivals, shopping streets and other events. We are also currently preparing changes to the law to expand video surveillance in particularly vulnerable locations and to supplement it with drones. We want to increase the use of body cameras, more weapons-free zones and expand the options for preventive detention. Dangerous individuals should be monitored more quickly with an ankle bracelet, and we also want to identify dangerous situations earlier by using artificial intelligence.

Political Editor Hannelore Crolly is responsible for state political issues at WELT, especially in Hesse and Rhineland-Palatinate.

Political Editor Nicholas Doll is responsible for reporting on the Union at WELT.