Christian Wirth, May 6, 2026, Immigration Law

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/76, pp. 9113-9114. 

Frau President. Valued colleagues. 

A nation consists of a citizenry [Staatsvolk], state borders [Staatsgrenzen] and state power [Staatsgewalt]. This has bestowed on us for decades security, prosperity and a solid sozial system and with which we improvise [damit wir die Notdürftigen auffangen]. This system since 2015 crumbles. It is characteristic that today two delegations, which are rather socialist oriented, put forward respective motions as if to say: All may enter, none need go. 

You have at least acknowledged that, according to German asylum law, anyone can be turned back at the border who comes from a secure third state or an EU state. Yet let us consider the Dublin decree. What is in the Dublin decree? In article 1 of the Dublin decree is that a state is responsible for the examination of the asylum application. That makes sense. 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): The rest of the article you have not read?

Since the 1990s, since the first Dublin treaty, two things were important: For one, asylum shopping shall be abolished, thus no refugees in orbit: Which is to say: No asylum applicant shall be able to seek out a system, a country, in which he receives the highest sozial payments. For another, no situation shall be created where no state considers itself responsible. That is the expression of article 3, paragraph 1, of the Dublin III decree whereby only one state is responsible for the examination and the execution of the asylum application. 

Who is responsible? That is in article 13 of the Dublin III decree. Responsible primarily is the state in which the member of the third state for the first time enters the EU. There are exceptions which are to be examined; for example, in regards family members in another state. 

How do we examine this? In article 20, paragraph 4, of the Dublin III decree is expressly provided that, for this, there can be at most two states: The state into which the third state member enters the EU, and, when he arrives in a further state, the state which then has to examine which state is responsible. That is in the rule of the first state, i.e., for Germany, when family members are there. 

Now comes the decisive sentence. In article 3, paragraph 2, is provided that every EU state is justified to then turn back at the border when it is clear that the processing of a member of a third state, of a migrant, is to be carried out by another state. That is nothing other than what is provided for in article 18, paragraph 2, of the Dublin III decree. And there provides: When another state is responsible for the execution of the asylum procedure, every EU state can turn back the refugee. That is precisely what German asylum law also says. 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): A proceeding is required! 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): We need do that once!

You demand the observance of EU law. I think, we are agreed: EU law is contract law. We have a contract between EU states and the EU. Everyone needs adhere to contracts – pacta sunt servanda – regulated in the Vienna convention on the law of international contracts. 

Now there is article 3, paragraph 2, of the EU Treaty which also applies to Schengen and to  asylum: There is provided: 

           "The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum and immigration and the prevention and combating of crime."

What did the EU do? It fulfilled none of these treaty requirements. We indeed have, in article 23 of the Basic Law, given over in part our sovereign rights to the EU. Nevertheless, the EU has obligations, and when it cannot fulfill these obligations there is, according to article 23, paragraph 1, of the Basic Law a regualtion – a subsidiarity principle – which says: We need to concern ourselves with our own affairs. That is to say: If we want to have security, order and an asylum system which function, then we ourselves need to regulate that, because, for that, the EU is not in position. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alexander Sell, May 19, 2026, Germany and the U.S. Military

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)05-19(2-0375-0000). 

Frau President. 

Angela Merkel has today here received a service order. She did almost everything wrong, yet in one matter she was right: Friedrich Merz can’t do it. 

Germany does not come out of the crisis: Industry emigrates, unemployment rises, the infrastructure crumbles, the sickness accounts are bankrupt, domestic security is lost and the special funds for the German Bundeswehr have fizzled out without effect. Yet instead of concerning himself with these problems, the Chancellor preferably plays the world politician: In front of schoolchildren in Sauerland, he declared that the U.S.A. had been humiliated in Iran. Trump consequently was so sour that he announced the withdrawal of 5,000 American soldiers from the Oberpfalz.   

German is not capable of defense – we want to change that! Yet we do not achieve that while we ignore our own problems and instead explain the world to the Americans. We first need to mind our own business. We need to deport illegal migrants so as to save our sozial system. We need to reactivate our nuclear power plants so that we do not lose our industry. And we need to better equip the Bundeswehr so that we are able, without American help, to defend ourselves. That would be the duties for Friedrich Merz. He wants that, yet we see: He can’t do it. 

 

[trans: tem]

Martin Sichert, May 7, 2026, Healthcare and the German Left

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/77, pp. 9168-9171. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

It is madness that, for the CDU, SPD and Greens, the migration lobby, the trans NGOs and the foreign family members are more important than their own fellow citizens. It is madness that doctors and care-givers are knowingly driven out by CDU, SPD and Greens so people may be persuaded that additional immigration is required. It is madness that cancer care, dental restoration and orthodontics will no longer be paid for, yet for sickening hormone therapies for children and youths. It is madness that German married couples shall pay thousands of euros more while parents and wives in Turkey will continue to be insured without cost. An end to this madness! 

The SPD’s and CDU’s clear-cutting in healthcare is catastrophic and is here outdone by the Greens. You want to implement all sixty-six proposals of the lobbyists commission. The Greens want an absolute clear-cutting in the health sector and present themselves as the grave-diggers of healthcare. 

On the theme of hospitals, for example, the Greens move – cite: “By the consistent deconstruction of occasional care […] to push back […] uneconomic parallel structures”. “Deconstruction of occasional care” is a harmless sounding euphemism for the death of hospitals in the country. 

Clinics which make no profit, according to the will of the Greens, shall be flattened. If it is up to them, three of four clinics in my constituency need to close. An absolute catastrophe for the healthcare of people which in my constituency alone each year could cost hundreds of human lives.

            Christos Pantazis (SPD): Wicked insinuation!

Besides the clinics, CDU, SPD and Greens also want to save on the remuneration of doctors. As a result, still more highly qualified medical and care forces will leave the profession or indeed the country. Thereby still further increases the burden for those who remain, and as a result of the increasing stress still more people go abroad. As a consequence, the care becomes ever worse, and the waiting times become ever longer. 

The citizens suffer ever more because their sicknesses are no longer dealt with promptly. And then come CDU, SPD and Greens and propagandize that we need additional immigration because we have too little skilled labor in the country. In truth, it is the policy of CDU, SPD and Greens which drives skilled labor abroad. 

You knowingly manage the exodus of capable Germans so that you and your NGOs can call for the next migration wave into the country. CDU, SPD and Greens are quite knowingly destroying the German health sector so as to carry out their mass migration agenda. You leave the sick to suffer and force the last cent from the citizens only to thereby be able to further manage your propaganda of how urgently we need to bring more foreigners into the country. 

If these parties are allowed, the waiting time for a doctor’s appointment may on average no longer be 42 days but 42 weeks. CDU, SPD and Greens trample on the employees in the health sector. There needs finally be an end to that. It is highest time for a policy which values the work of this important occupational group. 

It is a lie that we need immigration into the labor market. As in the 60s guest workers were taken in, we had full employment. Meanwhile, we have over 5 million people in Bügergeld, and we have millions of unemployed. Before we take foreigners into the country and educate them here  in this country, we first need to bring into work our own unemployed. We need to retain in the country the good skilled labor in the health sector. And for that, create the correct parameters. 

Yet the Greens want to implement all imputations which have occurred to the CDU and SPD lobbyist commission. Care examinations like skin cancer screenings shall be completely eliminated. The co-payments for medicines, for dental restoration and in hospices shall rise massively. Orthodontics for children shall be paid for only on a limited basis. Health becomes a luxury good which only a few can still afford. Yet the life-long debilitating hormone treatments for children and youth who have been persuaded that it is “in” to be trans, these will be further paid for, exactly so as wigs for trans-sexuals. 

The people can no longer afford necessary dental treatments. Yet the accounts continue to pay for trans wigs? Life-saving cancer care is eliminated. Yet the accounts pay for life-long, psychological and physical debilitating hormone treatments for children? 

            Janosch Dahmen (Greens): My goodness!

Kids from poor families shall in the future run around with bad jawbones? Yet you destroy the innocent souls of children with massive hormone doses? That, the account shall continue to pay. For every halfway normal thinking person, that is completely wrong. Yet Greens, CDU and SPD  want this so as to further feed their trans NGOs. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Fake news, and contempt for people! That is what                               you bring here!

It really is madness where you set your priorities and what you line up for Germany. It is highest time for an alternative to this madness. 

            Luigi Pantisano (Linke): That is nauseating!

– Yes, I find your Politik nauseating. 

            Luigi Pantisano (Linke): Nauseating!

The Greens want to end the contribution-free co-insurance of married couples in Germany. Exactly so, according to the wishes of the coalition, shall wives and parents in Turkey remain co-insured at no cost. Yet, German married couples shall pay almost 3,000 euros more. 

Quite especially important in the Greens’ motion is introducing new taxes or increasing existing taxes. You write, cite: 

            “[...] heavier taxation of high percentage alcohol, a manufacturing duty for                               strong sugar content drinks, as well as an increase [..] in the taxes on                                      tobacco and nicotine products [...]”

I seldom experience in my speeches applause from the Greens; yet that is no wonder. You certainly cannot clap; since you always have both hands deep in the pockets of the taxpayers. It really appears schizophrenic that the Greens want to introduce more taxes and in the same breath write – cite: “Not […] the citizens are the problem – but the costs in the system.” Ja, if you recognize this, then stop ever further burdening the citizens. Yet reforms were never your thing. For you, it’s ever only about having the citizens bled with taxes and duties, and spoiling for them the pleasure in life. 

            Christos Pantazis (SPD): That, the righteous says!

You destroy the health of an entire people, you intentionally destroy our sozial system; yet there, we do not cooperate! 

We of the AfD with our motion have shown how in the short-term 17 billion euros, and 40 billion euros in the mid-term, can be saved. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): You’ve shown nothing at all!

We do this alone through increase of efficiency in the system and through the removal of benefits foreign to insurance. We of the AfD stand on the side of the citizens, the patients and the employees in the health sector.

             Janosch Dahmen (Greens): You make things more expensive than they were!

You, on the contrary, want to load the contribution payer with parts of immense contribution increases. You want to destroy families, want to have the health sector bled. We do not cooperate. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): If it’s up to you, we here would have                                            no more doctors!

I can only call upon every citizen to defy this madness. 

Dear fellow citizens, help us to maintain our sozial state. Become a member of the AfD! Fight with us for a good healthcare system! For 10 euros per month, you can become a freedom fighter for Germany. Join us! 

            Steffen Bilger (CDU/CSU): Ach, what for a level in the Bundestag!

– And your outcry shows how very right we are. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Arno Bausemer, April 30, 2026, Local Livestock Industry

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)04-30(4-0026-0000). 

Herr President. Herr Commissioner. Esteemed ladies and gentlemen. 

Over almost all of Europe, the temperatures in these days climb to over 20 degrees. And here many Europeans use the opportunity to begin grill season. The grill is hauled out of the garage, the charcoal is hauled out, packed into the grill, on the grate steak, bratwurst – and it gets going. This is for many years a good tradition and this should remain so. 

The green climate hysterics and chive proponents thereby of course break out into selective panic, tears or gasping. Coal, a dangerous climate killer! Happily gaseous stockyards also drive the CO₂ figure to the heights. And meat? Meat, unhealthy, dangerous. The Apocalypse is at hand. Nein, it is not so. On the contrary: Meat is healthy. To Europeans, meat is tasty. In Germany alone, the citizen last year consumed 55 kilograms of meat, tendency rising. And a guaranty for that are the functioning structures in our agriculture. 

I am very happy – out of personal experience – to read in the report of colleague Carlo Fidanza that the role of regional, local slaughterhouses was emphasized. This is of course important, and exactly such matters are produced to prevent animal transport and animal suffering when animals are kept and slaughtered locally. That is the future for Europe. And, if I may say a bit loosely, the only good wurst is a grilled wurst. 

 

[trans: tem]

Gerold Otten, April 17, 2026, Lebanon’s Sovereignty

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/72, pp. 8698-8699. 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

With deep concern we look these days at the present developments in the Near East. While the reporting and the diplomatic attention is concentrated primarily on the situation in the Persian Gulf, the tragedy in Lebanon fades more and more from the field of vision. Yet a few days ago my last year’s IPS [International Parliamentary Scholarship] stipendiary wrote to me from the Lebanon – I cite:

"The last weeks in Beirut were simply a daily struggle for survival in war, especially after the 160 simultaneous attacks on the Lebanon last Wednesday. I was today at work, and the atmosphere was apocalyptic - the roar of the onslaught, the ambulances' sirens, the chaos in the streets. It felt as if one were in a very gloomy movie from which there is no escape, since the attacks hit so many of Beirut's civilian areas. This day alone claimed 375 dead and 1,223 wounded!"

Ladies and gentlemen, at this current affairs hour today, it is thus important to again focus on the situation in Lebanon, and certainly when a ten-day ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel was announced. Since the military operations of the U.S.A. and Israel against Iran and its leading persons at the end of February, and the massive escalation by the Hezbollah at the beginning of March, Lebanon is again in flames. The Israeli operation Eternal Darkness has the declared aim of destroying Hezbollah’s military infrastructure and leadership infrastructure in all Lebanon, and to so lastingly weaken this terror organization that it in the long view no longer presents a threat to Israel. 

It is clearly the legitimate obligation and international legal preserve of a sovereign state to protect the physical integrity of its citizens against a permanent terrorist threat. Israel however also reaps hefty criticism for its attacks in the Lebanon. According to international law, indeed as per the fundamental of military necessity in an armed conflict, all military measures are allowed and legitimate for the militarily necessary fight against opposing parties in a conflict, and are not forbidden by humanitarian international law. Yet UN Secretary-general Guterres, among others, is evidently most deeply alarmed over the rising number of civilian victims. We thus demand of all parties to the conflict to observe the precept in humanitarian international law of the minimization of violence and protection of the civilian populace. 

Nevertheless, so as to attain a strategic solution by intervention in the crisis, we need to analyze beyond simple narrative Lebanon’s complex interior structures. In the European debate is often underestimated that the Hezbollah acts as a classic hybrid agent, since it is more than just a terror militia. By means of the construction of para-state structures in education, healthcare and in the economy and finance sector, it has established a power monopoly in Lebanon. It has thereby filled every vacuum which has arisen through decades-long war and the chronic failure of state institutions. There is thus for the Lebanese government a strategic dilemma of existential degree. 

The repeated international demand for a disarmament of Hezbollah – here today again brought forward – impacts a state the regular armed forces of which are far inferior to the highly armed Iranian militia in terms of material, operations and logistics. A forced crackdown in Beirut, as a result of external pressure – often demanded – would nevertheless not lead to the disarmament of Hezbollah. It would on the contrary ultimately destroy the country’s already fragile stability, and massively increase the risk of a new civil war. Ladies and gentlemen, hereby the Lebanese dilemma becomes a geo-political problem; for a permanent regional peace is not imaginable without the complete disarmament of Hezbollah. 

The previous attempts of the United Nations as observer and counselor have nevertheless failed completely. The balance of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL for short, which will end this year after two decades more or less without result, is thus especially disillusioning. The United Nations presence on the scene could neither prevent the massive armament of Hezbollah, certainly not guarantee the control of ocean transport in the Lebanon, nor strengthen the state sovereignty in southern Lebanon. 

Thus, for the future, forceful consequences need be drawn. A new UN mission, currently in talks, needs to pursue a clear goal to actively strengthen the power structures of the legitimate Lebanese government, and to purposely diminish Hezbollah’s ability to act. These military and security components need be accompanied by compulsory policy. In the current negotiations in Washington, there needs be at the center the linkage of security guarantees for the Lebanon and a robust build-up of the state. 

Security for Israel and the reconstruction of the Lebanese sovereignty are not competing goals. They are two sides of the same coin. Only a sovereign Lebanon, which is in position to exercise the monopoly of force in its entire state territory, can be a reliable guarantor for a stable peace in the region and so also increase Israel’s security. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Tomasz Froehlich, April 29, 2026, Russian Athletes Ban

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)04-29(3-0414-0000). 

Frau President. 

You want to exclude Russian citizens from large sporting events. That disgusts me. That disgusts me because it is small-minded, dishonest and, at its core, totalitarian. Yes, Russia has attacked the Ukraine and, yes, we condemn that most sharply. Yet what can the Russian athletes do? You ascribe to the innocent a collective guilt, you take the innocent into a guilt by association. And it is pure civilizational regression. For, was the exclusion of the American athletes demanded as the U.S.A. marched into Vietnam? Or into Guatemala? Or into Cambodia? Or into Nicaragua? Or into Panama? Or into Somalia? Or into Yugoslavia? Or into Afghanistan? Or into Iraq? Or into  Libya? Or into Iran? Where was your guilt by association there? Where was your collective guilt thesis there? Where was the outrage? Nothing, null, nada! According to your logic, the U.S.A. would have been allowed to take part not a single time in the Olympic Games in regards all the wars which it has conducted. And no, please do not mis-understand, that would be wrong. Since American athletes can do exactly as little for the Politik of their government as do the Russians. 

Sport should unify peoples, yet you abuse sport for dividing. Your entire indignation is pure hypocrisy. It is a sign of weakness. In the Ukraine, you have achieved nothing. You pump billions into a corrupt leadership in Kiev, while our people are ever more impoverished. You torpedo peace efforts of others, yet yourselves renounce peace diplomacy, Frau Strack-Zimmermann. You impose sanctions which harm us more than Russia. You prolong by all that only the war. Internationally, no one takes you seriously. Generally, Brussels is left out. This, what you are here managing, is a hateful symbol Politik at the cost of the innocent.  More, you cannot do. Diplomatic failure paired with geo-political meaninglessness. A pity that Europe has sunk so low. 

 

[trans: tem]