By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite Germany’s offer of financial support for voluntary repatriation, nearly 6,000 Syrians applied to return home in 2025, with over 3,600 already repatriated. This program, aimed at those with no prospect of remaining in Germany, includes financial assistance for travel and an initial sum per adult and child. However, critics argue that Syria’s ongoing instability, widespread destruction of infrastructure, and severe humanitarian conditions make any return premature and potentially unsafe. Aid organizations and legal experts emphasize the immense need for reconstruction and the critical shortages of essential resources, questioning the feasibility and wisdom of encouraging returns under the current circumstances.
Read the original article here
The German government is increasingly vocal about its desire for Syrian refugees to return to their homeland, a stance that reflects a complex interplay of policy, public opinion, and the evolving realities on the ground in Syria. While the initial influx of Syrians seeking refuge was driven by the brutal civil war, the narrative is shifting, with officials emphasizing a return to normalcy and the eventual need for repatriation. This push is framed not only as a logistical necessity but also as a principle of asylum itself: temporary protection until a safe return is possible.
The core argument for encouraging returns hinges on the idea that the primary purpose of asylum is to provide safety during times of severe danger. Once that danger has passed, or at least significantly diminished, the expectation is that individuals would eventually reintegrate into their home countries. This perspective suggests that prolonged stays, especially with pathways to integration and citizenship, can diverge from the original intent of refugee status. The German government, through bodies like the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF), is actively supporting voluntary repatriations, providing financial assistance and necessary documentation for those who choose to go back. Last year, a notable number of Syrians did indeed opt for this route, with thousands returning to Syria under funded repatriation programs.
However, the notion of Syria being “safe” enough for widespread returns is where the situation becomes incredibly contentious and complex. For many, the end of the large-scale civil war does not equate to a secure or functional society. Reports and anecdotal evidence suggest that while the war may have subsided in certain areas, pockets of conflict, political instability, and sectarian violence persist. Furthermore, the infrastructure and economy of Syria have been devastated by years of conflict, leaving many without homes or employment prospects even if they were to return. The idea of returning to “bombed-out ruins” is a stark image that highlights the immense challenges facing any repatriated Syrian.
This duality – the government’s push for returns versus the perceived lack of genuine safety and opportunity – creates a deeply uncertain environment. The argument for repatriation is often coupled with the vital need for Syria’s skilled workforce to rebuild its nation. The idea is that for Syria to become a functional country again, its educated and experienced citizens must return and contribute to its reconstruction. This perspective aligns with the principle that asylum is a temporary measure, and the long-term solution lies in the return and rebuilding of the home country.
Yet, the practicalities of such returns are fraught with difficulties. Many Syrians fled because of threats not just from the war itself, but from specific factions that may now hold sway in different regions. The notion that the secular dictator is gone and replaced by a religious regime, for instance, raises concerns about the kind of society those returning would find themselves in. The international community’s changing stance on certain actors in Syria further complicates this, with some questioning the wisdom of encouraging returns to a nation where the political landscape remains volatile and potentially hostile to those who left.
The German government’s approach is also viewed by some as being influenced by domestic political pressures, particularly the rise of right-wing parties like the AfD, which advocate for stricter immigration policies. Critics suggest that the CDU, Germany’s leading conservative party, might be adopting a harder line on asylum and repatriation to counter the appeal of such parties and retain its voter base. This political dimension adds another layer of complexity, as policy decisions could be driven as much by electoral calculations as by humanitarian or pragmatic considerations regarding Syria’s current state.
The debate also touches upon the very definition of a refugee versus an immigrant. Proponents of repatriation argue that refugees are granted temporary protection and are expected to return when the conditions that forced them to flee have abated. They contend that over the past decades, some European governments have blurred this line, treating asylum claims as a de facto route to long-term integration and citizenship, which they believe deviates from the original purpose of refugee protection.
However, there’s a strong counter-argument that distinguishes between those who are highly integrated, possess in-demand skills, and speak the language, and those who are not. The sentiment is that individuals who have successfully integrated into German society, found employment, and learned the language should perhaps be allowed to stay. Conversely, those who haven’t established such deep roots should be more amenable to returning, especially if their home country is deemed safe by responsible authorities.
Ultimately, the German government’s push for Syrians to return home is a multifaceted issue with no easy answers. While the legal and theoretical framework of asylum suggests eventual repatriation, the reality on the ground in Syria and the lived experiences of refugees create significant obstacles. The effectiveness and ethical implications of such policies will continue to be debated, as the desire to rebuild Syria clashes with the need for genuine safety and stability for its returning citizens. The success of any repatriation effort, therefore, hinges not just on government policy but on the tangible improvements in security, infrastructure, and economic opportunity within Syria itself.