German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/221,
pp. 28070-28071.
Herr President. Worthy colleagues.
I am an optimistic man
Marc Henrichmann (CDU/CSU): What? But this is new! Optimism?
and quite gladly begin with a bit of praise – even for the
Federal government; I am happy when even the Federal government learns – on the
whole, this law is not bad at security.
Unfortunately, it has been much too long at the learning. The
massive forms of social and asylum fraud which overburden our public accounts
and immigration system were already for long recognized as, in the year 2015,
our borders were overrun. You have just now arrived at the innovative idea that
authority X and authority Y, which have to do with the same person, should draw
on the same store of data. It gladdens us that you too have recognized that
here you could have worked not only more efficiently, but also the massive
fraud with multiple identities could be fought. “Could”, but just; since your
entire bombastic plan of data centralization depends on one word: “can”.
I cite §8a: “The registry authority can arrange
reconciliation in automatic form” – and this naturally only in regards a
concrete suspicion. Ja, yet exactly
such an automatic data reconciliation would of course be generally appropriate
to initially establish a case of suspicion. It is thus all the same whether someone
of fraudulent intent is registered in four different Federal States or whether
someone by assuming a name – perhaps an Arabic one – has made a typing error. A
regular automatic data reconciliation on a purely machine level, in regards
which the compared data will again immediately be deleted after the proceeding,
must here actually be self-evident and would be fungible per data protection
law.
This discretionary provision saps a quite crucial purpose of
the law. Certainly if §8a remains as you want it, you play into the hands of
all NGOs, trafficker bands and still worse, who have made it their job to make
it possible for fraudsters to attain much tax money.
Consultations in regards the assertion of grounds for
asylum, for the delaying of processes and for the prevention of deportations,
would at least become more difficult if all of these preventive measures had
the often decisive, best as possible documentary store as a basis.
In regards all of this precaution, it is naturally asked why
you reckoned to make freely disposable something as sensible as the basis of
asylum within this system. In the matter of an asylum decision, what most
interests the authorities is simply whether asylum was warranted or not. Asylum
for one reason is not less worthy than that for another reason.
Thanks to a short-sighted policy which makes possible the
hauling service in the Mediterranean and the waving through to the border, in
our country those truly in need of protection routinely meet their torturers
and persecutors. To this also belongs the persecution in our country for religious
or personal reasons which makes those affected at a minimum less welcome among
other refugees from the same country; for example, a Christian belief or
homosexuality.
The bases of asylum should be stored centrally, but with a
special hurdle for data recall which will be discharged granted a concrete
suspicion. This would do this law good and make the proceedings more secure –
for all participants.
Many thanks.
[trans: tem]
