At first glance, the demand for mobile phone tracking and surveillance of persons required to leave the country who have gone into hiding seems pragmatic: if persons cannot be located, the police should use digital means to find them more quickly. Less effort, fewer failed measures, more enforcement of the rule of law – that is the argument. But this is precisely where the real debate begins.
Between enforcement pressure and fundamental rights
The state is undoubtedly facing a practical problem. When deportations are prepared, personnel are on standby and those affected disappear at short notice, costs and frustration arise. The demand for more efficient search tools is therefore politically understandable.
But efficiency alone is not an argument under the rule of law. Mobile phone tracking is a serious invasion of privacy.
A smartphone is no longer just a telephone, but a digital companion that reveals movements, habits and social contacts. Anyone calling for new powers in this area is significantly shifting the boundary between administrative law and surveillance.
The key question is: does the state even know who it wants to locate?
One point remains surprisingly under-discussed in the public debate: do the authorities even have the relevant telephone numbers?
In many cases, this is probably only partially true. Numbers are changed, prepaid cards are used, devices are shared or switched off. The idea of a simple digital tracking solution therefore falls short. In practice, the instrument could be less precise than it sounds politically – while the infringement of fundamental rights remains very real.
Data protection is not the problem – the standard is
It is often claimed that data protection blocks consistent action. In fact, it merely ensures that government measures remain justified, proportionate and controllable. This is not an obstacle, but the core of the rule of law.
The crucial question is therefore not: ‘Is the state allowed to do this?’
But rather: ‘How far can it go to enforce administrative decisions?’
Because as soon as mobile phone tracking becomes standard practice, the next question inevitably arises: for whom else? And in what other administrative procedures?
Symbolic politics or real gain?
The debate also has a symbolic dimension. Politicians want to demonstrate their ability to act, especially in times of heated debate on migration policy. Digital investigation methods convey determination and technical modernity. However, it remains to be seen whether they will solve structural problems – such as a lack of detention centres for deportees, complex procedures or international cooperation.
The danger lies in presenting digital surveillance as a quick answer to a complex problem.
Conclusion
The desire for consistent enforcement of departure obligations is politically understandable. However, the introduction of mobile phone tracking would be a significant paradigm shift: away from selective measures towards more digitally supported surveillance in the administrative sphere.
The rule of law demonstrates its strength not only in enforcing decisions, but also in exercising restraint. Especially where efficiency sounds temptingly simple, the debate should be conducted with particular criticality.
