Mary Khan, February 10, 2026, Mass Immigration in Spain

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, February 10, 2026, P10 CRE-REV(2026)02-10(2-0460-0000). 

Herr President. 

Of what leftist governments are capable, Spain shows us. A half million illegal migrants, simply with a wave of the hand, will be thus legalized, inclusive of work permission and the prospect of a permanent residency in Europe. This, what we since 2015 experience on our continent, has nothing more to do with measure and control – and I say this to you as someone with a migration background, because there is a great distinction between regular and irregular migration. 

This, what Spain now plans, manifests a destructive policy from which our continent in foreseeable time will scarcely recover. It is quite clearly a political signal. It is a signal to the world that illegal residency – yes, and that is a crime – in the end pays. It is a signal to Europe that national ideological projects are obviously more important than responsibility in our Schengen area. Since anyone of these 500,000 illegal migrants can tomorrow freely move about in all Europe. And they will move about, and indeed to Germany, since, following the legalization, there is clearly more money here than in Spain. That shows the true face of leftist policy. 

When it is recognized in regards one’s own people – this is quite important – one in the long-term can no longer convince, then a new group of voters is sought. Thus the earlier Spanish minister from Podemos quite clearly and before all fortunately welcomed it. Migration, so she said, needs be used so as not to leave leave society and democracy to the wrong ones. Everyone knows what she thereby meant. 

Herr Magnus Brunner, directed to you: We had two important votes today which go in the right direction so as to be able to finally control the problem of the migration policy. We expect from you it will be tested here, primarily according to Article 258 of the EU Treaty. That would be for us quite right, since this, what Spain is doing, will ultimately pull us all into bankruptcy. 

 

[trans: tem]

Thomas Fetsch, January 15, 2026, Rental Housing

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/53, pp. 6355-6356. 

Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

“To Better Protect Renters”, so is the undertitle of the called-for motion. The here presented demands from the Linke party for a supposed rescue of an, in part, no longer functioning rental market which is unfortunately covered to a not insignificant degree with similarly knitted regulatory aims of the governing coalition – we have just now heard a bit of it – are all too well known, in a longer view massively detrimental, and stamped with a fundamental scepticism vis-à-vis owners of real property and the functionings of market forces: A sharp rental price brake, a limitation of existing rental increases, a more temporary rental freeze [Mietenstopp], a substantial restriction or indeed abolition of indexed rentals, a regulation or a ban on furnishing supplements [Möbilierungszuschlagen], a strong regulation of short-term rentals, a massive restriction of owner use terminations [Eigenbedarfskündigungen], expansion of grace period payments, an introduction of agreement and transparency obligations, etc. etc. The supposedly all-knowing state – instead of market reason and realism – shall thus set it right. Ladies and gentlemen, this false, as even so hostile to freedom, spirit with which the presented motion breathes, we reject outright. 

Instead of creating the statutory and economic conditions so that business builds new housing, and owners of housing space are not, with all force, more or less deterred from renting, socialization [Vergesellschaftung] fantasies are spread – by means of expropriation and by means of ever additional shackles laid upon the owners – and become salonfähig in bürgerliche milieux. Thereby is private rental law reconstructed into an additional sozial right, instead of finally, vigorously addressing the actual problems of the present housing market misery. 

In fact – this proceeds from a current, representative Civey survey – it is expected that the regulation of indexed rents, planned by the Federal government, as it happens threatens to become a veritable housing construction brake. Since by the long-term value guaranty of inflation protection, building projects often only become more calculable and feasible. The additional statutory guidelines – be it here in excessive form of the Linke motion, or in form of the declared views of the governing coalition – only expand and deepen this problematic still further.    

In the end, still fewer rentable dwellings are available, and the stock worsens ever further because renovation and reconstruction measures will simply be omitted due to a lack of sufficient return on rentals. That could well enough be seen, for example, in the DDR, and that, we no more want here, ladies and gentlemen. 

What have Bund, States and local governments under leadership of the old parties – including the Linke, for example, in Thüringen – done for an improvement? Nothing, with penetrating effectiveness. They much more withdraw, by plan and incisively, from the rental market and sell their stock. In climate madness, they make massively more expensive the energy and construction costs. In the bureaucracy madness active in recent decades, every construction contract means an incalculable time risk for builders of every kind. You raise, in combination with the States and local governments, striking taxes like the real estate transfer tax [Grunderwerbsteuer] and the property tax [Grundsteuer]. And thus it plainly comes to, besides the actual rent, additional, sprawling rental side-costs which have long since attained the level of a second rent. It is thus primarily your false, anti-renter and anti-landlord policy which has created the dilemma of the high rents. 

An additional, essential price-driving aspect was in any case recently named by the German Renters Union. The number of renters has risen in the past five years by around 3 million people, which has naturally, additionally and clearly intensified the dwellings supply situation. And if you all do not want to hear it: Behind that is the unplanned, uncontrolled and overwhelming migration which we self-evidently reject. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): I thought you had forgotten something!

The means of the Linke as also of the coalition – still more regulation and still deeper intervention – further does not help here, but even intensifies the situation. From this muddled situation, only a great new start helps, and which is only possible with the AfD. 

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]

Siegbert Droese, February 9, 2026, Digital Euro and Inflation

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)02-09(1-0107/0115-0000). 

Frau President. Frau President Lagarde. Honored colleagues. 

We debate today the year’s report of the European Central Bank. This report shows primarily one thing: A central bank which is ever further removed from its actual mandate. The monetary policy of the last years has led to noticeable inflation. Millions of citizens, savers, pensioners daily lose purchasing power. Instead of clearly reappraising these failures, the ECB already plans the next profound intervention – the digital euro. 

The digital euro was sold to us all as a harmless modernization project. In truth, it is a political project which deeply intervenes into the citizens’ financial freedom. The digital euro solves no real problem, nevertheless creates numerous new risks. It is a great experiment. A digital euro creates the very concrete danger of step by step driving out cash. It makes possible the state tracking of payments, and opens the long-term possibility of taking influence in how and for what citizens may use their money. Who believes this instrument would never be politically mis-used ignores the experience of history. 

Yes, President Lagarde, you seek to pacify us today, in which you announce the third series of euro banknotes. Yet: The Alternative für Deutschland, the ESN delegation, demand a clear return of the ECB to price stability, transparency, and adherence to mandate. No digital euro without unlimited preservation of cash, no further power increase for an institution without democratic control. Stable money and freedom go together. Both today are on the daily order, both today are in play. 

[…] Herr colleague, many thanks for your speech. You speak of the ECB’s duty: Currency stability, price stability. The ECB president today here admitted in parliament there supposedly had been in the past only 10.8 percent inflation. Now the inflation is again at a normal level. The question to you: Do you believe that the ECB heads, Frau Lagarde is here present, that the ECB heads realistically estimate the social consequences of inflation? 

 

[trans: tem]

Ruben Rupp, January 15, 2026, TTPA and Freedom’s Advocate

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/53, pp. 6312-6314. 

Right honorable President. Honored members. 

The CDU Minister-president Daniel Günther just a few days ago quite openly declared the press to be an enemy. He spoke of censorship, ja, even of a ban of free media – statements which, let us be honest, had they been used by an AfD minister-president 

            Bettina Hagedorn (SPD): Happily, there are none!

would have immediately led to demands for a party ban proceeding. They will now by the Union be relativized and applauded, dear colleagues of the CDU/CSU. If you have the decency, then distance yourself here and today from such authoritarian fantasies of the minister-president. 

            Maja Wallstein (SPD): You speak like the blind man of color. 

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): Wow! Can the next speaker do the same?

Especially handy for Günther and his supporters is that the European Union meanwhile delivers precisely this tool suitable for his authoritarian dreams from the Digital Services Act, which the coordinating office for digital service in fact degrades to a censorship authority 

            Konrad Körner (CDU/CSU): That is false!

by the planned EU chat control which shall make possible an unfounded mass surveillance of citizens, up to a so-called decree on “transparency and targeting of political advertising”; in short: TTPA. And before you, as so often in these debates, respond to our motion [Drucksache 21/3609] with over-reaching allegations: 

            Ronja Kemmer (CDU/CSU): Mimimi!

Just because we want to cancel the TTPA is not to say we are against transparency or would tolerate foreign influence in elections. 

            Anna Luthmann (Greens): Ach so!

These fairy tales of the AfD as a supposed foreign marionette are simply untrue. Possibly you are simply envious because you yourselves scarcely still have international contacts. In short: This marionette card is in all cases the cheapest propaganda, and I am sure you will again today unpack this propaganda, because you have no arguments against the AfD and against this motion. 

            Sonja Lemke (Linke): We have quite good arguments against the AfD!

In fact, this decree is an attack on the opposition and freedom of the press. Yet in turn you come along. 

Ostensibly, the TTPA theme comes as so often with an apparently plausible reasoning: No influencing of elections! Yet it’s only about transparency. That this decree for transparency is not necessary is shown by the state of the social media prior to the introduction of this decree. 

I myself have connected digital advertising on Facebook. I needed to quite clearly specify who financed the advertisement, needed to authenticate it with the personal statement, and much more. That was transparent, that was sufficient. 

What now does the TTPA do beyond that? Expensive compliance, extremely difficult targeting, massive legal insecurity for platforms. What now exactly is political advertising? And at what point is it political advertising? – And a high risk of compensatory fines for the smallest mistakes! The result: The effective withdrawal of almost all large platforms – Meta with Facebook and Instagram, Google with YouTube. Since October 2025, political paid advertising in social media is de facto no longer possible. 

And whom does that harm? Not the governing parties, not the established media houses, 

            Johannes Schätzel (SPD): So far from the reality!

not ARD and ZDF. Harmed will be new parties, opposition forces, critical associations, candidates and think tanks. And yes, quite especially Germany’s strongest party, the AfD, will be harmed. Since we are present in the digital spectrum, because we enjoy no favorable, continual coverage by large publishing houses, or by public broadcasting media, like all of you here. 

What thus here is in fact happening is the targeted shutdown of a political competitor under the pretense of an ostensible transparency. I say: Away with this undemocratic, junk decree of the European Union! 

And if you now ask: Yes, AfD, what then is your solution for the influencing of elections? Quite simple: The fight against foreign influence is a duty of the security authorities, among others, the Federal intelligence service [BND, Bundesnachrichtendienst]. This ought to be strengthened. Since in the secret service work, we are meanwhile near completely dependent on the U.S.A. – and that because you in the area of security- and key-technologies have slumbered for years. That is your responsibility and your failure. 

Nevertheless, you are especially disillusioning in this debate – and this I cannot spare you, Herr Digital Minister Wildberger – with your cabinet draft law for political advertising transparency, the national ensuing legislation for the TTPA. This draft in regards so-called advertisers, thus parties, associations, business and political candidates, expressly enables house searches and seizures on account of ostensible violations of transparency. We are here quite quickly into criminal law. Who works politically needs in the future to thereby figure that he receives a house search. 

            Johannes Schätzel (SPD): Such rubbish!

And just retroactively can he defend himself against that. You thereby clearly create an intimidation effect. I ask you: Is that your idea of freedom of the press and fair, democratic competition? Ours is quite clearly not. 

And it becomes still worse. In regards danger in delay, house searches shall even be possible without legal writ. What may we then imagine of that? Does that mean that the successful pay videos, critical of the government, from Alice Weidel or from Nius chief Reichert are a danger in delay? The video is uploaded – danger in delay – and directly there are house searches on the initiative of the coordinating office for digital services which is controlled by the Digital Ministry? Need we imagine it? 

            Johannes Schätzel (SPD): Nein!

That something so is at all in a cabinet draft is incomprehensible. On this account, I say: Without delay, take back these regulations, Herr Digital Minister. 

If you do not believe me: It is in black and white in §6 and §7 of the cabinet draft. I myself have again taken a peek. I yesterday questioned the minister in committee. He disputed all of these problems which I listed here, designated the criticism – by analogy – as disinformation. 

            Konrad Körner (CDU/CSU): You too! 

            Johannes Schätzel (SPD): You too!

Herr Minister, here is the last opportunity to set it right. 

I expect here and today a clear statement of the Federal government. Take back this cabinet draft! Or do you adhere to seizures and house search even without a judicial decree? Yes or no? It cannot be so difficult to here clearly declare. 

Regardless of how the Digital Ministry positions itself, the AfD remains now and in the future the advocate for freedom. 

            Bettina Hagedorn (SPD): Hahaha!

You can be sure of it. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Hans Neuhoff, January 22, 2026, To Fight for Europe

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE REV(2026)01-22(4-0016-0000). 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The drones report of colleague Pozņaks is distinguished by excellent technical knowledge, yet it completely ignores the factual situation of risk in which we find ourselves. We need to be aware that Europe today stands before a security policy shambles. For decades it was believed to be able to exercise influence as an economic power alone. Yet only who is equipped by his own military strength can also effectively manage security policy. As far as the project is to create our own European defense technology and industrial base, it is correct, and the AfD and ESN will essentially support it. The beginning of every security policy realignment however needs be a qualified situation assessment. It is usual in security policy that you know how to distinguish between risks and threats. A threat is present where the aggressor possesses the intent as well as the capabilities to inflict a harm on others. Is Europe, are the European NATO members presently threatened militarily? The answer to that can only be: No, they are not. And not by Russia – regardless of how often this nonsense is repeated. Russia has neither the intent nor the capabilities to successfully attack and invade a NATO member. The Russian armed forces have not succeeded in four years to completely occupy even just the Donbass, although that is the  declared aim of the Russian leadership. Russia at Berlin, Russia in Paris – do you really believe that, Frau Strack-Zimmermann? And why, at all? Does Russia need more territory? Does Russia perhaps need the European rare earths? 

Colleagues, it is quite obviously an absurd scenario with which the peoples of our states shall be intimidated and be made pliant. It is exactly so unrealistic to nevertheless believe the Russian armed forces can again be driven back to the borders of 1991. The unfortunate words of colleague Reuten which the Parliament approved yesterday – his assertion that Russia’s defeat in the Ukraine is the most effective and thrifty investment in the European security – are a complete security policy false projection. The AFD and the ESN delegations stand for a security policy which is oriented to the realities. According to Carl von Clausewitz in his great work Vom Kriege, the political and moral powers are decisive for success in combat, especially the will of the fighting society. This will does not arise from the statements of self-righteous politicians. It arises only when the people know whom and what they should defend. 

A Europe which denies its borders, a Europe which permits massive, illegal immigration, a Europe which passively witnesses an Islamization instead of preventing it, a Europe the elites of which threaten freedom of opinion, a Europe which teaches the young people rainbow propaganda instead of love of country, a Europe which is consumed by a loss of meaning and an inner fatigue – such a Europe can produce no people who will fight for their self-preservation. 

In a recent survey in Germany, just 38 percent of those questioned said they were ready to support the Bundeswehr in an emergency. 59 percent answered negatively [ablehnend]. Vice-president Vance unmistakably expressed it at the Munich Security conference: The greatest threat for Europe is not Russia or China, but the retreat of fundamental values within Europe itself. Colleagues, so long as the political elites of Europe – and to that belongs this Parliament – manage a refusal of cultural conscription [kulturelle Wehrdienstverweigerung betrieben], they should not complain when young people are no longer ready to fight for Europe. Just when we again know for what we should fight, will we also be able to build up those military capabilities which colleague Pozņaks so impressively identified in his report. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alice Weidel, January 29, 2026, Merz Government

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/56, pp. 6651-6653. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable Herr Chancellor. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

You assert in your speech you would strengthen our ability to compete. Yet of that, our economy still has noted nothing. The bankruptcy tsunami sweeps unbraked over our country, and will in this year, on the basis of chain insolvencies, exceed a record mark of 30,000. The Mittelstand suffers the worst. The backbone of our prosperity is breaking. Our economy is threatened with collapse. 

Your self-praise in matters of tax reduction sounds like bare-faced scorn for citizens and businesses. In fact, your coalition, driven by the SPD hostile to performance, discusses a confiscatory and anti-Mittelstand intensification of the inheritance tax. You thereby want to conclusively cash-out the Mittelstand.   

And you have just hiked yet again the taxes for all by means of the rise of the CO₂ duty by a full 20 percent. You have thus already in past years with this special cost fleeced citizens and businesses of 22 billion euros. That is a pillaging of our economy. 

You spoke at Davos. You boast of the modernization of the decaying infrastructure. Of that is true only that you have agreed to a gigantic mountain of special debts which you here disguise as special funds. Half of these infrastructure special debts flow illegally into consumption spending. Your transportation minister on the other hand now again lacks the money for the construction start of urgent railway projects. 

A similar load of hot air is your bureaucracy deconstruction. So far, you’ve only built up new bureaucracy 

            Alexander Hoffmann (CSU/CSU): You actually always make the same speech.                                        Can that be?

as through the supply chain law and a massive growth of positions in the public sector. 

And as to the reform of the social system which you ever again have promised and announced to the citizens, you have there so far in any case only further raised the costs, and shamefully caved in to the demands of your 14 percent coalition partner, enacting still more tax- and debt-financed redistribution. That which you needed to do – namely, to lower the expenditures and put a stop to the abuse – you will never manage with the SPD. 

The labor minister’s Sozialstaat concept even wants to simplify the access to social benefits; savings in regards the benefits are expressly excluded. All of this will cost the taxpayer still more. 

            Sepp Müller (SPD): Rubbish! 

It shall thus simply so continue with the exploding rise of the Kindergeld transfer payments to foreign countries. Over 5 billion euros since 2010, a half billion euros in last year alone. The social duties reach a record value. 

You plunder the working people, rob their willingness to work, the future, and the trust in the Sozialstaat, and still say to them they should work longer. That is an infamy. 

Yet that unfortunately also shows that you have certainly not understood the actual problems in this country. It lies not in the working time, but in the politically fashioned, much too high costs due to the green energy transition which you continue to manage, in the much too high taxes and duties for business, and in the excessive bureaucracy. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Exactly!

You yourself designate the nuclear power withdrawal as a mistake, yet all the same blow up nuclear power plants, as in CSU-governed Bavaria last October. Thus appears double morality. You lie to your voters. That shows that you bend before the Diktat of the SPD and Greens. There is a majority for the re-entry into the nuclear power – in the society and, if you want it, also in this house, in this parliament. Yet you do not want it. 

You explain windpower as a transition technology; yet at the same time, you want to complete Habeck’s green madness plan, to continue to sink billions in subventions for wind parks in the North Sea without a return, and, after the home forests, to seriously damage this susceptible eco-system. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Schweinerei!

As a last rescue anchor, you cling to new gas power plants. With what do you want to operate them? And how do you explain to the people that at the same time the German gas network should be destroyed and they should tear out their gas heating? You want to wreck and destroy an infrastructure which was erected by an immense expenditure of earlier generations. That can be explained by no one with a healthy, human understanding. 

Your government supports the fateful EU decision to forbid imports of advantageous natural gas from Russia and for the future. The new, one-sided dependency on expensive American liquified gas proves to be extremely inefficient and dangerous. 

            Frauke Heiligenstadt (SPD): Here is what is quite differently dangerous!

And without additional gas power, the storage certainly runs empty. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): Your intellectual storage runs quite empty!

A gas shortage with grave, compulsory shut-offs threatens. 

All of these grotesque contradictions, false assertions and fantasies are responsible for that Germany and this Federal government are no longer taken seriously in the world. And that is fatal, certainly in this geo-political situation. 

The U.S.A. is an important ally; yet they represent their own interests. And we need to finally define and self-consciously represent our own national, German interests, certainly when they diverge from those of our allies and partners. To send a dozen soldiers to Greenland, and next day order them back is – with permission – a hullabaloo, and no serious, solution-oriented foreign policy guided by interests. 

            Franziska Kersten (SPD): What?

It is a mistake that you reject the peace council initiated by Donald Trump. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Rip off a couple of billion dollars, ne? 

            Katrin Göring-Eckardt (Greens): You yourself need laugh!

The board is an opportunity to unravel the multiple blockades of an ineffective UN. 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): That is ridiculous!

It lies on the other hand in the German interest to quickly end the Ukraine war. Germany needs to cooperate in the peace process and realize its own interests. To that belongs averting an EU and NATO membership of the Ukraine, and further transfer payments from Germany. Much more, we require compensation for the state terrorist attacks on the Nord Stream gas pipeline infrastructure, vital for Germany, for which Kiev is obviously co-responsible. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Do so further peacefully!

The EU, the cohesion of which you stereotypically swear by, also here is part of the problem, and not of the solution. 

For Germany to win back its economic strength and its political weight, we need to set aside the mistaken developments which weaken us. 

            Irene Mihalic (Greens): Kremlin or MAGA? 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): It’s difficult to have to decide between                                                           Kremlin or MAGA!

We need to end the mass migration and, as far as it goes, reverse it. This way requires a restrictive immigration policy, with invariable border controls, rejections, and rigorous deportations, 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): Perhaps you should remain in Switzerland.

as well as a shut-off of the social and financial migration magnets, and we in addition require an immigration and naturalization moratorium. 

            Frauke Heiligenstadt (SPD): And you also want to have ICE, ne?

We need to rescind the ruinous energy transition and climb up out of the climate protection policy. 

            Katrin Fey (Linke): My goodness!

It is a German and EU solo approach [Alleingang] which destroys our economy. 

Only when we depart from this wrong way can we deconstruct the financial excess cost, and overcome the paralyzing bureaucratic manipulation and over-regulation. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): That is the result of your irradiation [Verstrahlung]!

The way to the resurgence leads through the re-entry into the nuclear power, the abolition of the CO₂ duties, and the immediate elimination of the combustion engine ban and heating law. An AfD government will get these reforms underway, for which this government is not ready and in position. 

I am grateful. 

            Jens Spahn (CSU/CSU): That was all? That was just nothing!

 

[trans: tem]