Germany – an immigration country? Why then are the downsides of immigration ignored or shelved with rhetoric of dismay? If you want to implement a successful immigration policy in Germany, you have to ask yourself tough questions.
After the murder in Illerkirchberg, the Ulm police warn of a “general suspicion” against asylum seekers. An ARD man agrees with the “general suspicion”. The Düsseldorf Greens want to redefine the clan term so that there is no “general suspicion” against clan members.
“General suspicion” – that’s the new weasel word of the pacifiers. It always falls when an asylum seeker or an immigrant commits crimes, but a government does not want to talk about it.
The pattern repeats itself. Migrant crime is played down, declared an “individual case”, doubts about crime statistics are reported. And in return, the Greens, as in North Rhine-Westphalia, say they want to expose “racist thought patterns” to the police.
Baden-Württemberg’s Interior Minister Thomas Strobl – the man is in the CDU – answered the question of what the murder of the young Alevi Ece Sarigül had to do with the current migration debate in Berlin: “We have no knowledge of a political or religious one Motivation for this crime.” As if a murder, which an Eritrean asylum seeker committed on an immigrant child integrated in Germany, is only a political issue if the perpetrator’s motive is political.
What Strobl delivered – just like Baden-Württemberg’s head of government Winfried Kretschmann (Greens) – is a long-established defensive and suppressive reflex: government policy does not want to be bothered by the sometimes catastrophic consequences of immigration.
She is therefore content, like Interior Minister Nancy Faeser (SPD) in her reaction to Illerkirchberg, with rhetoric of dismay when integration goes wrong. Since then, no government politician has thought of drawing an honest and complete balance sheet on immigration to Germany since 2015. The social, financial and political-cultural consequences of unsuccessful integration efforts are either taboo – or the discussion about them is aggressively attacked, with journalists also taking part. How, can be studied in Berlin.
The left in Berlin – they govern in this city – declares it to be “racism” when the regulatory office, police and customs search shisha bars together – a practice that the Greens in North Rhine-Westphalia are now increasingly questioning.
When the public order office in the Britz district of Berlin wanted to search a luxury restaurant frequented by clan bigwigs who received social assistance – suspected of having black money – the responsible Left City Councilor Sarah Nagel actively prevented this. A clan size then declared her a “lady of honor”.
The Greens don’t want to know anything about “clan crime” – after not bothering about it for years, although they were in government responsibility, as in Berlin and North Rhine-Westphalia. At best, “organized crime” should be prosecuted. But criminal clan members are simply everyday criminals.
They cheat the welfare state, about which the Turkish-Lebanese clan boss Mahmoud al-Zein, who lied to the state about his identity for years, recently even wrote a book. Like criminal Roma clans, they rip off masses of pensioners in German homes. Train their own children to be master thieves before forcing their girls in marriage to the highest bidder. Most recently, my FOCUS online colleague Axel Spilcker reported exclusively on this.
If, as the Greens would like, clan crime would only be reported when it was “organized crime”, the many other offenses would fall by the wayside. “Clan crime” would then in fact no longer exist. It would be the definitional burial of a problem of foreigners that was unpleasant for the Greens and the left and which Germany itself had promoted by decades of looking the other way.
Resistance comes in the traffic light government, however, from the Liberals. “The problem of clan crime is not solved by redefining the term, but by better equipping the investigative authorities in the field of organized crime and improving federal-state coordination in the fight against criminal clan members,” says Stefan Thomae, Parliamentary manager of the FDP, to FOCUS online. The Allgäu member of the Bundestag warns against whitewashing: “If the term (clan crime) disappears from the situation reports, it could give a completely wrong impression of the problem.”
The question that the CDU Interior Minister Strobl did not want to answer, the question about the connection between the murder in Illerkirchberg and the current immigration debate, is answered by his party friend Christoph Ploss: “The wrong people often come to Germany.”
The most important Union politician in the European Parliament, CSU man Manfred Weber, recently warned the Berlin government from Brussels. The traffic light parties promoted sea rescue in the Mediterranean – and thus made illegal migration attractive. Instead of not letting in “those who don’t have a visa, passport or reason for asylum”.
How it is that practically every asylum seeker has a mobile phone with them at the end of their flight to Germany, but many do not have a passport, is not addressed in the debates by the Union, the Social Democrats, the Greens or the Left. You leave that to the wrong people.
Manfred Weber, who has years of practical government experience as co-head of an informal grand coalition in the European Parliament, also proposes a solution to the Mediterranean refugee problem: the establishment of asylum centers based on European standards in African countries. Asylum requests could be checked there before migrants entrust themselves to criminal smugglers and embark on a murderous sea voyage. The traffic light doesn’t want to know anything about it.
And under the direction of the Greens and SPD, they prefer to devote themselves to the side of immigration policy favored by their metropolitan clientele: distribute more German passports and help 300,000 rejected asylum seekers who have been tolerated for years to secure residence status.
But there is still no deportation officer who could prevent this chain of toleration from happening at all. The FDP is demanding this in order to counter the green-red policy, which is exclusively fixed on immigration.
The idea behind it corresponds exactly to the decades-long policy of immigration countries like Canada. If you want to get in there without a passport, you will be rigorously turned away. That would also be legally possible and in accordance with fundamental rights in Germany. Alone – it is not wanted.
The number of refugees is rising and rising, the numbers are now higher than in 2015. The cities no longer know what to do, countries like Baden-Württemberg are holding refugee summits. The murder of Illerkirchberg is bureaucratized with gestures of dismay. The ever-growing clan crime should be defined away. Germany is declared an “immigration country”, the traffic light is celebrating for it.
And the ARD journalist Georg Restle tweeted this about the murder of Illerkirchberg and its political processing: “A crime, as disgusting as its political instrumentalization.” There was a shit storm, and Restle sent a “clarification” afterwards: “Disgusting, I find it offense. I find it disgusting to want to capitalize on this politically – and to place fugitives under general suspicion.”
As before, Restle puts the criminal offense on the same level as its alleged exploitation. That actually says it all.
First the facts, then the moral!: Why politics must begin with reality
