Saturday, August 2

Afghan deportation of psychiatric patients from Germany has sparked public outrage after three mentally ill men were flown directly from a forensic psychiatric clinic in Bavaria to Kabul. The deportation, carried out on July 18, 2025, is part of Germany’s broader return policy—but this specific case is now facing intense legal, ethical, and humanitarian criticism.


Bavarian Government: “All Procedures Were Lawful”

Bavaria’s Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann (CSU) defended the deportation in a press statement:

“Bavaria’s immigration authorities always act in accordance with the law. In this case, only serious criminal offenders subject to deportation were returned to Afghanistan.”

According to Herrmann, the individuals posed a serious threat to public safety, and the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF) had found no legal barriers to deportation. A final medical check at Leipzig airport reportedly confirmed the men were fit to fly.


Legal Guardian Cites Violation of Residence Law §60

A court-appointed legal guardian for one of the deported individuals has publicly accused the authorities of breaking German law. He argued that the man was severely mentally ill and that deporting him to Afghanistan—where no adequate psychiatric care exists—violates §60 of the German Residence Act, which prohibits deportations in cases of serious illness if treatment is not available in the destination country.


Human Rights Groups: “A Humanitarian Scandal”

Rights organizations including Pro Asyl and the Bavarian Refugee Council strongly condemned the deportation. Speaking to Bayerischer Rundfunk, Wiebke Judith of Pro Asyl stated:

“The deportation of mentally ill individuals is irresponsible and a humanitarian scandal. There is no proper psychiatric care in Afghanistan. These people need treatment—not expulsion.”

The fact that the deported individuals were undergoing forensic psychiatric care at the time makes the decision particularly alarming, rights advocates say.


Bavarian PM Söder: “No Tolerance for Serious Offenders”

Bavaria’s Minister-President Markus Söder defended the deportation, rejecting all criticism:

“These were serious criminals who severely abused their guest status in Germany. It’s high time we send a clear message and stop delaying deportations.”

The government also argued that relatives could have filed emergency motions to stop the deportations. However, human rights observers say this argument ignores the realities of how deportations are conducted.


Surprise Tactics Undermine Legal Remedies

In practice, many deportations happen without prior notice, leaving families and legal representatives with no time to react. Emergency motions are rarely feasible when individuals are removed suddenly and without public transparency. Furthermore, many families lack access to legal knowledge or resources and depend heavily on overburdened volunteer legal aid.

The situation is especially critical for those with medical or psychological conditions, whose deportation may violate German or international law. Often, there is no effective legal hearing before removal, no advance notification to guardians or relatives, and no real opportunity to contest the decision in court. This undermines due process and shifts the legal burden unfairly onto vulnerable individuals who are unable to respond in time.

Blaming families for not filing in time—while conducting the process in secrecy—reflects a disconnect from reality and obscures the structural flaws in the deportation system, critics argue. The lack of institutional support, language access, and accessible legal pathways for families has made the system inherently one-sided. Deportations are carried out behind closed doors, with no proper avenues for accountability or oversight, resulting in what some human rights experts describe as legal ambush tactics.”

Broader Implications for Deportation Policy

The case has fueled broader concerns about how Germany enforces deportations involving individuals with mental illness. Critics argue that the Afghan deportation of psychiatric patients from Germany illustrates a dangerous precedent—where administrative efficiency is prioritized over medical ethics and international human rights law.

Such cases raise profound ethical dilemmas: Should a person suffering from trauma, psychosis, or schizophrenia be placed on a plane to a war-torn country without access to medication, therapy, or basic psychiatric care? Human rights advocates insist that no deportation involving mentally ill individuals should proceed unless it can be clearly demonstrated that appropriate treatment will be available in the receiving country—something that is virtually impossible in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

Legal experts and advocacy groups are calling for a moratorium on such deportations until proper safeguards, review mechanisms, and medical guarantees are in place. In the meantime, organizations such as Pro Asyl and the German Society for Psychiatry have urged lawmakers to amend the deportation framework to ensure it is aligned with the principles of proportionality, dignity, and medical necessity.

Ultimately, the deportation of psychiatric patients sets a worrying signal that the most vulnerable can be removed from society with minimal legal scrutiny. It challenges the credibility of Germany’s humanitarian standards and raises questions about its compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Germany has ratified.

Share.

Hamed Karimi is a Senior Reporter at the European Diversity Newsroom (EDN), focusing on migration, refugee rights, and asylum policies in Europe. An Afghan journalist in exile, he brings a unique perspective to his reporting, highlighting the lived experiences of displaced communities and advocating for inclusivity and human rights. Based in Germany, Hamed specializes in investigative storytelling that bridges policy and personal narratives.

Leave A Reply Cancel Reply
Exit mobile version