Four leading migrant organisations in Germany are asking the federal government to protect refugees from racist threats and possible discrimination after the AfD’s election victory in Saxony-Anhalt. Their joint appeal centres on a practical question: should people who feel unsafe be able to move, even when residence rules say they must stay put?
LAMSA, the Network of Migrant Organisations in Saxony-Anhalt; BKMO, the Federal Conference of Migrant Organisations; the Turkish Community in Germany; and DaMOst, the umbrella group for migrant organisations in eastern Germany, have written to Chancellor Friedrich Merz and the heads of the country’s state governments.
As ZDFheute reported on 21 September 2026, the organisations want a special commission on minority protection, a federal security fund and greater flexibility in the rules that require some refugees to live in a designated area.
A warning about what political power could change
The organisations’ concerns are preventive. They point to reports of rising racist incidents and growing anxiety among migrant communities, but the letter does not establish that a new state administration has already committed rights violations.
Instead, the groups fear that the AfD’s electoral success could give the party greater influence over regional police, schools, public administration and other institutions that shape people’s daily access to safety, education, public services and official procedures. A change in political leadership would not itself remove constitutional rights. The concern is that those rights could be applied less consistently if public bodies adopted a harder line towards migrants and refugees.
Particular unease surrounds the AfD’s use of the term “remigration” for a policy of large-scale returns. The precise measures that might follow from that agenda are not fixed. The organisations nevertheless fear that a stronger role for the party could lead to discriminatory decisions, greater pressure on people with migrant backgrounds and wider use of forced removals.
Those are warnings about possible future developments, not established findings about a government now in office. The groups are asking Berlin to set clear legal and institutional limits before political promises become administrative decisions.
Three measures, three different forms of protection
The proposed commission would do more than record racist incidents. It could examine how police, local authorities and other services respond to threats, whether victims receive effective assistance and where responsibility breaks down between the federal government, the states and councils.
That oversight matters because people who face intimidation may not know where to report it. Some may distrust local institutions or fear that seeking help could complicate their dealings with immigration authorities. An independent channel would not assume that every local authority fails, but it would provide an alternative when protection is inadequate or feels inaccessible.
The requested security fund would support migrant associations and other civil-society organisations that provide advice, legal guidance, accompaniment and emergency help. Such groups are often the first point of contact for people facing threats. Their ability to respond, however, can depend heavily on local budgets and temporary grants.
The organisations want longer-term funding rather than support released only after an individual attack. A stable national source of money could help them maintain advice services, assist victims and respond if threats become more frequent or sustained.
The third proposal concerns residence requirements for refugees. Easing those rules would allow people who feel unsafe to move more easily to places with stronger protection networks, better advice services or more dependable public support.
That would affect the existing system for distributing and accommodating refugees. Any change would require coordination between Berlin, the state governments and councils, as well as decisions about housing and support capacity in areas receiving new residents. For the organisations, though, personal safety should be considered when residence rules are applied. Someone who feels threatened has few options if administrative restrictions prevent a move.
What Berlin is being asked to guarantee
The appeal is not simply for extra money. The four organisations want the federal government to demonstrate that constitutional rights and protection from discrimination apply regardless of which party leads a particular state.
A national commission could make differences between regions visible. One council may provide rapid protection and legal advice, while another may leave victims unsure which service is responsible. A common monitoring system could identify those gaps and test whether official responses work in practice.
The security fund would also strengthen the organisations that help people navigate those gaps. Their work can include accompanying victims to report a threat, arranging emergency support and explaining how public services operate. Without reliable financing, that capacity may depend on the resources of a particular town or the seriousness of an individual incident.
The federal government has not been reported as having adopted the proposals. The central question is therefore still open: will Berlin create a nationwide safety net before regional political differences begin to affect refugees’ ability to obtain help, change location and exercise their rights?
