“Wir nicht schaffen das:” Germany’s new policy on Syrian refugees

Photo via Reuters

AIYANA KAUL: In a dramatic shift, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has declared that more than 1 million Syrians living in Germany should return home or face deportation. His argument: the 14-year civil war in Syria is over, so there is “no longer any reason” for asylum.

To understand why Merz’s comments are so consequential, one must look back at Germany’s response during the height of the Syrian civil war. Under Chancellor Angela Merkel, Germany adopted a famously open-door policy: in 2015-2016, over a million refugees entered Germany, many of them Syrians. Merkel’s “Wir schaffen das” (“We can do it”) moment became a symbol of European humanitarian ambition.

Over the following years, many Syrians settled in Germany, integrating into society and even entering critical parts of the labor market. As the Washington Post noted, “nearly 6,000 Syrian doctors working in Germany… make up the largest group of foreign practitioners.”

But now, Merz is seemingly seeking to reduce Merkel’s open-door policy. During a visit to northern Germany, he asserted, “The civil war in Syria is over. There are now no longer any grounds for asylum in Germany…therefore…we can also begin with repatriations.”

Merz even extended an invitation to Syria’s interim president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, for talks on coordinated repatriation. He framed returning Syrians as essential to reconstructing their country, stating that, “Without these people, reconstruction will not be possible.”

Merz’s proposal comes at a time of shifting political ideologies in Germany. The Alternative for Germany (AfD), a far-right party known for its anti-immigrant rhetoric, has surged in recent polls ahead of five state elections. Many conservative strategists believe that toughening asylum policy is the only way to counter the AfD’s momentum.

Critics, however, warn of severe legal and humanitarian risks. The United Nations has said conditions in Syria remain deeply precarious: approximately 70% of its population still relies on humanitarian aid. Moreover, Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, fresh off a trip to Damascus, raised doubts: he argued that much of Syria’s infrastructure remains destroyed, making mass return dangerous and difficult.

For many Syrians who built new lives in Germany, Merz’s message feels like a betrayal. Some have integrated deeply: they speak German, work and contribute to society. But not all feel fully accepted. According to reporting from Le Monde, even years after arriving, some Syrians describe themselves as “second-class” citizens, still viewed as outsiders.

Mass repatriation could also represent a significant loss for Germany. Merz himself has acknowledged that without returning Syrians, “rebuilding will not be possible” in Syria. Yet, forcing people to leave could disrupt the labor market and erode the social fabric of Germany—especially given how many Syrians have settled and contributed meaningfully.

Merz’s announcement isn't just about Syria—it reflects a broader struggle in Europe around immigration and what “temporary protection” really means. Is asylum truly a refuge until “peace returns,” or can permanent integration become part of a country’s future. His push for repatriation also raises ethical and legal questions. 

What does “end of war” mean legally? Even if Assad has fallen, Syria’s reconstruction is far from complete, and many areas remain unstable. There is the question of voluntary versus forced return: while Merz emphasizes voluntary return, the threat of deportation looms for those who refuse. And what about Germany’s responsibility? Having benefited from the labor and contributions of Syrian refugees, does Germany now owe them continued protection—or at least safer paths to remain?

Merz’s hardline stance marks a bold pivot from Merkel’s welcoming legacy. It signals a new chapter in European refugee policy—one that prioritizes repatriation and national consolidation over humanitarian refuge. But whether his plan will succeed, or withstand legal and moral scrutiny, remains deeply uncertain.

Aiyana Kaul is a staff writer for On The Record from London, UK, and a freshman in the SFS studying IPOL.