The Christian Democrats Move on Migration

Following their victory in February’s federal elections, Germany’s Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU) under Friedrich Merz just reached a deal with the Social Democrats (SPD) to form a coalition to govern the country. The far-right group Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) finished second at 20.8% with a massive gain of 10.3 from the previous election; the SPD finished third with 16.4%, and a loss of 9.3%. That the CDU would look to the SPD for a deal is not surprising; they were not going to form a coalition with the AfD under any circumstances.

The 2024 EU Parliamentary elections also saw gains for the far-right in Germany, Italy, and Austria. But here as well, the winning group was the European’s People’s Party (EPP), a group largely consisting of Christian Democratic parties. They will govern for the next five years.

One would think keeping the far-right out of power would be good news for the rights of migrants in Europe, but that is not the case.

The Story in Europe

On December 11, 2024, there was a non-binding communication from Henna Virkkunen, Executive Vice-President of Technological Sovereignty, Security and Democracy of the European Commission and member of the EPP, that stated pushbacks, the forcing back of migrants and applicants seeking international protection without international protection or asylum procedures, may be legal under Article 72 of the TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). Article 72.

On March 10, 2025, Migration Commissioner Magnus Brunner and Virkkunen rolled out a plan to streamline deportations, toughen penalties for rejected migrants who do not leave the bloc, and create “return hubs” in countries outside the EU to house people awaiting deportation.

Virkkunen’s Germany is doing the same. Following the February 2025 federal elections, Politico is reporting that the CDU and SPD  “have agreed to a much stricter approach to migration…” This includes “a huge increase in the capacity for detaining migrants pending deportation;” the “expansion of the list of safe countries that migrants can be sent back to;” and the “abolishment of mandatory legal assistance before repatriation.”

Then they went further.  They introduced “a nonbinding motion calling for the permanent policing of borders, the entry refusal of all migrants without valid papers, and the confinement of refugees whose applications for political asylum have been rejected.” They passed it with the help of two smaller parties and the AfD.

That is notable. Paul Hockenos, writing in Foreign Policy puts it succinctly: “Never had any of the mainstream parties relied on AfD to make policy, and never had the far-right party been so vindicated by the establishment.”

The backlash was immediate and strong. In response to a comment by Merz that cooperation with the AfD may serve its purposes at times, Berlin’s CDU mayor, Kai Wegner, took to X to write: “What cooperation is there to be had? The CDU cannot, does not want to and won’t work with a party whose business model is hatred, division and exclusion.”

Stung by the response of Wegner, among others, Merz at a party conference leadership meeting in early February promised that there would be “no cooperation, there is no tolerance, there is no minority government, nothing at all,” when it came to working with the AfD. The CDU, he said, wants to “do everything in this election campaign in particular to make this party as small as possible again…. I can assure voters in Germany of one thing very clearly: We will not work with the party that calls itself the Alternative for Germany. Not before, not after, never,” There was a sustained standing ovation from the 1000 delegates at the conference.

This is about as definitive a political statement I have ever seen.

The Puzzle

Why would a party or group of parties display complete hostility and disdain for another group, but have no qualms adopting and implementing all their policies?

Hockenos has it right, the actions of the CDU were a “vindication.” Cooperation with the AfD gave them political cachet; it opened the door for them to appear to have legitimacy in the political sphere. It violated the narrative. The far-right has always been treated with hostility; they have been framed as “the worst of the European ideological tradition;” and possessing an “exclusive identity.”

By opening this door, they allowed the far-right to mobilize what Laura Jakli of the Harvard Business School calls the “contingent extremists.” These are the folks who have long held strong nationalist and anti-democratic beliefs, but have stayed away from the party system because of the hostile reception.

This kind of thing is universal. Take a look at the mess Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan created for herself recently. She had a meeting at the White House with President Trump to “discuss Michigan and Great Lakes-related issues.” She unwittingly became part of a news conference. During a briefing for the press, President Trump said this of Gov. Whitmer: “She’s really done an excellent job.” He also called her a “very good person.” This is not what Whitmer needed or wanted. You can see her response in the photo.

The electoral rules make the cachet game work a bit different in Europe as compared to the US. Multi-party systems and coalitional governing allow the center parties to keep the far-right parties at arm’s length. With the US party system stuck in a duopoly, the far-right has “built-in” non-extremist legitimacy because they have taken control of one of the two parties. Being Republicans gives them cachet that belies the extremism of their issues positions and rhetoric.

It also illustrates the multi-dimensionality of electoral politics on issues such as migration. The Christian Democrats aren’t moving to the right on immigration and migration just for fun. They read the opinion polls and assume the public knows enough about how to read sheet music to follow along. They can do this while still showing disdain for the parties that exist to represent those views.