German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/62,
pp. 7004-7005.
Right honorable President. Ladies and gentlemen.
The new law which softens the conditions for a permission to
remain has the purpose of now conclusively burdening Germany with rejected
asylum applicants who – under a series of known pretenses – were despite after
five years not deported but tolerated. This so-called opportunity residence
shall conclusively take from Germany the opportunity of once again at some time
dislodging asylum fraudsters.
What are the keystones of this profligacy? In the calculation
of this minimum residence were up to now not included demands of time in which
the simply tolerated migrant – who demonstrated no basis for asylum – obscured if
necessary his identity whereby he concealed the actually indicated country of
deportation. These time periods of known concealment of one’s own identity will
in the future be calculated as waiting until the hour for permission for
permanent residence. Generally in the future, an unclarified identity shall no
longer be an absolute hindrance – truly a step forward, only not for Germany, only
not for friends of the state of aw, ladies and gentlemen.
In the same sense shall still further hurdles for the
residence permission be elided. If one withdrew himself from a planned deportation
by means of a timely disappearance, that was previously a no-go; as of
immediately, that is no longer a problem. Lawbreakers by this government are
rewarded. This is only consistent with consolidating here in this country,
despite everything, what concerns rejected asylum applicants – that is, people
without a right of asylum. Here, the vanishing point of all regulation is of
course the success of the deception, the reward of the lie.
Ladies and gentlemen, why by chance should asylum applicants
up to 27 after three years here proceed to permanent residence? Quite simple: Asylum and complaint procedures
last somewhat longer. Thus here, just before a court has ruled on the factual
standing or non-standing of the claim to protection, will be hurriedly
fabricated a right to remain – which could where possible upset the decision of
the legal state.
Integration courses should as yet naturally not be financed
in cases of foreseeable non-recognition; perhaps for applicants from secure
countries of origin. Even here shall now an integration state of facts be made possible
on paper. Apparently for a single purpose: To then nevertheless in some way force
through the actually contraindicated recognition. When the Germans themselves
can no longer make the fire, their tax money is burned for illegals.
The passepartout argument, ever gladly produced by the government
for the legitimization of injustice, of a skilled labor shortage is of course a
joke for millions of unemployed European youth and a quarter million unemployed
recognized asylum applicants – plus 400,000 employable Ukrainians – even though
a bad one; indeed actually a mockery of these ‘normal” unemployed to whom it
happens were preferred imported asylum fraudsters given the occasion.
Lamya Kaddor (Green): So there are good and bad unemployed?
Opportunity residence? Here the government accepts alone the
view of rejected foreigners who have an opportunity to get along well in
Germany. The priorities are clear. German interests are not.
Besides: Do you want ot attract people into a country where
energy and dwelling space are scarce, are not available, no longer heated, and one
may only cold rinse, if it goes according to the Greens? Does that not resemble
the conditions unworthy of men on which account courts forbid deportations,
say, to Greece? The local councils’ opinion confirms that the affected circle
of persons has no interest in fulfilling the legal duty nor at any time
themselves seriously want to integrate; a reason to remain in Germany is
exclusively an economic benefit.
Yet instead of a feminist foreign policy, Frau Faeser rather
employs an anti-feminist interior policy and wants to unconditionally allow
groups of immigrants into the country who often over-proportionately commit violent
and sexual crimes. It is slowly being asked: Does the Ampel in the energy questions intentionally produce where possible
so much murkiness so as to distract from the destructive plans which they have
in the migration policy?
Lukas Köhler (FDP): That is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard!
These opportunities are all only at the cost of Germany,
ladies and gentlemen, and it therefore in that regard must remain: No time
extension for illegals!
I thank you.
Lamya
Kaddor (Green): Your party is the only one which sees it so!
[trans: tem]
