In a move that has sparked concern among human rights advocates, the German federal government is currently discussing suspending family reunification rights for people with subsidiary protection status—a group that includes many from war-torn countries such as Syria and Afghanistan. While the official rationale is framed in terms of migration control, many observers see this as a political maneuver to appeal to voters drifting toward the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD).
Subsidiary protection is granted to individuals who are not recognized as refugees under the 1951 Geneva Convention but still face serious risks if returned to their home countries, such as torture or indiscriminate violence. Although this form of protection provides temporary residence and basic rights, it historically came with limited access to family reunification.
Under current law, only spouses and minor unmarried children can be reunified with individuals who hold subsidiary protection in Germany. Parents or siblings are generally excluded. Even for eligible relatives, the process is often lengthy and bureaucratically complex.
The suspension of family reunification for this group is not unprecedented. In 2016, Germany introduced a two-year freeze on such reunifications. When the ban was lifted in August 2018, the policy did not fully return to normal. Instead, a cap of 1,000 approvals per month was instituted—a number rarely reached due to administrative delays and logistical barriers.
Now, the government is considering a return to a full suspension. But is such a move even legal under European or constitutional law?
According to the EU Family Reunification Directive (Directive 2003/86/EC), member states may impose a waiting period of up to two years for subsidiary protection holders. However, permanent or indefinite restrictions are not permitted. Therefore, any suspension beyond that period could be seen as incompatible with EU law. Additionally, Germany’s own Basic Law (Grundgesetz) protects the institution of the family and the right to private and family life. Critics argue that suspending family reunification undermines these fundamental rights.
Human rights experts also warn of the social and psychological consequences of keeping families separated. Family reunification plays a crucial role in the long-term integration of refugees and migrants. Individuals who live apart from their closest relatives often experience chronic stress, depression, and difficulties in adapting to their new environment. These effects ripple outwards, hindering community cohesion and creating burdens for social services and mental health systems.
While the government insists that the temporary halt is a necessary measure to “relieve the asylum system,” the timing suggests otherwise. The AfD has gained significant support in recent regional elections by promoting anti-immigration rhetoric. By proposing a restriction on family reunification, the ruling coalition may be trying to signal toughness on migration to recapture disillusioned voters.
This potential political calculation raises ethical and legal questions. Are fundamental rights being traded for electoral gains? Is the government using vulnerable groups as leverage in a broader narrative of migration control?
Moreover, the contrast between how Germany treats different groups of displaced people is striking. For instance, Ukrainian refugees fleeing the Russian invasion benefit from the EU’s Temporary Protection Directive, which grants immediate access to work, education, healthcare, and unrestricted family reunification. Meanwhile, Afghans, Syrians, and others under subsidiary protection must wait years to see their loved ones, if they can reunite at all.
This double standard creates a hierarchy of deservingness that undermines the principle of equal protection. In legal terms, this could amount to indirect discrimination, especially when the disparities align with race, ethnicity, or nationality.
In conclusion, the proposal to suspend family reunification for people with subsidiary protection status raises serious legal, moral, and strategic concerns. While it may offer short-term political advantages, it risks long-term damage to Germany’s legal credibility and social cohesion. A rights-based approach—one that recognizes family unity as essential to dignity and integration—should guide future migration policy, not fear-based strategies or electoral calculations.
