Advocates for stricter border controls argue that the current situation is unsustainable and requires decisive action to maintain public order. By allowing authorities to reject asylum seekers at the border, the government could effectively signal that the immigration system is being managed with greater oversight. This approach is seen as a practical necessity to alleviate the immense pressure on German cities and towns, which are struggling to provide adequate housing, schools, and social integration services for new arrivals.
Supporters emphasize that national sovereignty is a key component of a functioning state. They argue that the government has a primary responsibility to its own citizens to ensure that migration is orderly and that the state retains control over who enters its territory. Without the ability to turn away individuals who have already passed through safe countries, the system becomes vulnerable to exploitation and creates an incentive for irregular migration, which can undermine public trust in government institutions.
Furthermore, proponents suggest that such measures could encourage a more unified European response. By taking a firm stance, Germany may push other EU member states to more strictly enforce the Dublin Regulation, ensuring that the burden of processing asylum claims is shared more equitably across the continent. This perspective views border enforcement not as a rejection of humanitarian values, but as a prerequisite for a sustainable and fair migration policy that can command long-term public support.
Ultimately, those backing this policy believe that the long-term stability of the social welfare system depends on the ability to regulate entry. They argue that by prioritizing controlled access, the government can better protect the resources available for those who are already in the country and ensure that the asylum process remains focused on those who are truly in need of protection, rather than those who are simply bypassing established legal routes.