Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser should have gone straight to Illerkirchberg, where a girl with a migration background was probably murdered by an asylum seeker and another seriously injured. Here are five reasons why.
It’s not just a horrific, disturbing bloody act. What is eminently political about the murder of the 14-year-old girl in Illerkirchberg is obvious.
Namely: The murdered woman’s name was Ece Sarigül and she was an Alevi. The parents of the deceased, who belong to the Alevi community in Ulm, themselves published a photo of their daughter. The vast majority of Alevis live undogmatically, they flatly reject the Islamic law of God, the “Sharia”. They are allowed to eat pork and do not wear headscarves. In their “Cem” houses, women and men pray together, unlike in Sunni mosques.
Want to say: One can assume that Ece Sarigül was fully integrated in Germany. For that reason alone, it would have been the duty of Federal Interior Minister Nancy Faeser to go to Illerkirchberg immediately – perhaps as a social democratic politician. Faeser likes to make “signs”, the youngest with the One Love armband she wore while sitting next to Fifa boss Gianni Infantino in Qatar.
It would have been such a “sign” to go to Illerkirchberg immediately to make it clear there that it is the task of the German majority society to protect immigrants. It is definitely the basic duty of a state to protect its citizens. Immigrant children like Ece Sarigül are part of German society, so they have the same right to be protected by the German state.
But there is another reason why Faeser should have gone to Illerkirchberg. Around three million people with a Turkish migration background live in Germany. It is the largest migrant group in Germany. The number of Alevis is not exactly known, but there are stable estimates. They assume that at least 500,000 of the people of Turkish origin living in Germany are Alevis. It would have been important for this large group if Faeser had given them a “sign” of personal sympathy with their presence. It would also have been a recognition of their independent existence in Germany.
Today, the Baden-Württemberg Minister of the Interior, Thomas Strobl, was there, as was the Turkish Ambassador, Basar Sen. It was a highly political visit – after all, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan regularly makes it clear that he sees the Turks living in Germany as “his people”. – and that Germany is not there for the Turks living here.
The autocrat expressly warned the Turks living here against “assimilation”, which meant integrating too much into Germany. With her presence, Nancy Faeser could have shown Turkey that she sees things completely differently as German interior minister, especially since many Turks in Germany have been living here for decades and have played a part in the “economic miracle” – the first came with the German-Turkish recruitment -Agreement 1961.
Incidentally, that was the starting signal for a regulated immigration policy based on German interests – economic and prosperity interests. The starting signal for this type of immigration policy was not just fired now, under the traffic light government, it was fired 60 years earlier, under a Christian Democratic Chancellor: Konrad Adenauer.
Back to Illerkirchberg. The perpetrator, at least there are apparently no doubts about this from the police, is an asylum seeker from Eritrea who has been living in Germany for about six years. Murdering another human being in the country that hosts you is the maximum possible sign of disintegration.
An asylum seeker who commits a murder has also forfeited his or her right to asylum under the Geneva Refugee Convention – which is almost always ignored in the debate on the asylum issue. Tübingen’s Lord Mayor Boris Palmer has just pointed this out and referred to Immanuel Kant.
In a long Facebook post on the Illerkirchberg case, Palmer becomes fundamental: “The rejection of a person seeking help who lacks a minimum of respect for the person helping is a necessary drawing of boundaries that already requires self-respect in all social contexts. Our state must also demonstrate this self-respect if it wants to justify the trust that citizens place in it in the long term.”
In any case: Whether mentally ill or not – an expert opinion is now being drawn up – the perpetrator has no business in Germany, and he doesn’t deserve a second chance. And Nancy Faeser should have demonstrated this with her presence in Illerkirchberg.
Faeser is driving a paradigm shift in foreigner policy, she wants to go back to a welcoming culture. Rejected asylum seekers, of whom several hundred thousand still live in Germany because they are tolerated here, i.e. enjoy protection from deportation, should be given a regular residence permit. Faeser calls this, in the tinsel language that has meanwhile become common, “opportunity residence rights”. Foreigners who have lived here for more than five years should be able to get a German passport and not have to give up their old passport.
In the coalition agreement of the traffic light government, however, there is also talk of deportations, which are called “repatriations” here, which is politically correct. However, the “return commissioner” agreed between the coalition parties, who is supposed to make more deportations possible, does not yet exist. Which leads the liberal Wolfgang Kubicki to state that Faeser only cares about what the left-wing Social Democrats and Greens care about.
Faeser should have corrected this impression long ago – if only in his own interest. But as it is, her self-chosen absence in Illerkirchberg is of considerable volume. It’s a pounding silence.